Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Several offered, none accepted
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
And many on minimum wage do not get tax credits.
Dunno about that...
Tis true.
There will be many many winners in April. The ones who haven't got children.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them. We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
The headlines would have been similar regardless. Never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
One observation I would make about Osborne is that he shows the classic outcome of a Finance Director who attempts to also run the Company's strategy, its Communications/PR Department and its Operations..... In spreading himself so thin he spends insufficient attention on the day job, Finance, and things get badly implemented in his own department. Tax Credits being a prime example where he has got the basic impact analysis wrong and not spent sufficient time with his communications people in planning how to sell it.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
It's such an obvious way of doing thing that it really does make me wonder why it wasn't done that way and who's advice to do it that way was ignored.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
That is the point. Since tax credits are being used to supplement wages you increase wages so you don't need tax credits. Obviously there will be a debate about what is a reasonable minimum income but in the end we have kind of already had that debate by the very fact we are giving people tax credits in the first place.
Sounds very socialist...paying workers according to what the state says rather than by their true worth. You're clearly not an employer
No. We already decide 'what they are worth' by supplementing their wages with tax payers money. That burden should fall on the employer not on the taxpayer.
If employers are not willing to pay enough money for someone to do the job without taxpayer subsidy then they do not deserve to be in business.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
And many on minimum wage do not get tax credits.
Dunno about that...
Tis true.
There will be many many winners in April. The ones who haven't got children.
Couples with no children can be in receipt of tax credits
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them. We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
The headlines would have been similar regardless. Never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
One observation I would make about Osborne is that he shows the classic outcome of a Finance Director who attempts to also run the Company's strategy, its Communications/PR Department and its Operations..... In spreading himself so thin he spends insufficient attention on the day job, Finance, and things get badly implemented in his own department. Tax Credits being a prime example where he has got the basic impact analysis wrong and not spent sufficient time with his communications people in planning how to sell it.
Another good article, this. In particular I note the reference to OGH's remark---rather understated, I thought, when he made it---that "it’s unlikely they would have got that if they’d told the truth about tax credits."
Now perhaps I am being rather overstated here to say that that was a typically a Tory feint, and that they think they're rather clever when they get away with such things.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perhaps Mr Brind could give us an insight into how Labour is doing keeping the working class vote in the North vs UKIP? Since Labour has clearly lost that vote in Scotland to the SNP for probably 5 or more years. Is it the North or even Wales where the Labour vote gets eaten by an upcoming insurgent party?
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Several offered, none accepted
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Several offered, none accepted
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
Don't take it personally. I've offered two and not even had a reply.
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
What galls me (again as someone who doesn't pass traditional identity checks for Torydom) is that the thrust of the article is something that can be argued analytically and on the basis of facts, polls etc - whether one likes the conclusion or not, it is at least an arguable case. There's simply no need for the emotive language. We all know David Herdson's views politically, but his pieces (even where his views come across clearly) are never expressed so vituperatively. This piece is more emotive than analytical, and yet doesn't come across as intentionally persuasive either - it's either written as if preaching to the echo chamber of the converted, or simply there as an "I told you so" piece in case it's predictions come off.
I'm sorry, but this is just because of your political viewpoint. You only find Don Brind's pieces more "emotive" and "vituperative" than David Herdson's, because you agree with the latter's viewpoints more than you do the former's viewpoints.
I for one find David Herdson's pieces remarkably slanted to a Tory-partisan viewpoint (which I'm not complaining about, I like seeing how the "other side" sees the world).
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
How can a surplus by 2020 not be an 'economic target'?
Because it's not being done for anything other than political reasons...it's so that at GE2020 he can boast about creating a surplus...it's become irrelevant to him how it's being achieved
Ossie can do things while he is Chancellor but 2020 is the end of his electoral mandate. Therefore to have a target which extends beyond 2020 would be presumptuous.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
And many on minimum wage do not get tax credits.
Dunno about that...
Tis true.
There will be many many winners in April. The ones who haven't got children.
Couples with no children can be in receipt of tax credits
Yes, but the numbers are tiny and on rock bottom wages with relatively low numbers of hours.
4 million on minimum wage according to the low pay commission.
Lots of 18-25s and 50 plussers approaching retirement are going to do well.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
In areas of the south that I know, UKIPs organisation has fallen away as many were exhausted after the GE effort - much of which was dissipated across too many constituencies.
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
If future corporation taxes are known to be cut then we might expect companies to constructively delay profits til later. So ensuring liabilities are paid earlier seems sensible. Likewise lower corporation tax is essential in this 'globalised' age if we are not to export all our corporatre HQs to Ireland. In a corner or not, we are running out of space to sort our spending thirst out.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I know some of you kippers have a strange and sad obsession with me but here's the facts
1) The other week I said I probably wouldn't be voting for Osborne
2) I've been laying Osborne for quite some time, I have repeatedly said the favourite this far out seldom gets it
3) When Osborne is dicking about I say so for example his deficit law
4) I described the tax credits change as a blunder and Dave and George's poll tax
5) I often wrote pieces/comments saying Osborne should be replaced by Ken Clarke between 2008 and 2013
I must be the crappest cheerleader in the world.
I do like Osborne on a few levels. His calmness under fire in 2007 and him advising Dave in 2014 not to focus on trying to outKip UKIP but focus on the Lib Dems stand out.
See what I mean?
Osborne would be a bad PM, not Osborne is a bad Chancellor.
Speaking as someone who has flirted (rather strongly) with UKIP, and shares most of their frustrations at the metropolitan-lilt of the Conservative leadership, TSE is scrupulously honest about his views and opinions on here. And, dare I say it, he's very fair as well.
That certainly can't be said for all posters on here. And I can't help but admire that.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
That is the point. Since tax credits are being used to supplement wages you increase wages so you don't need tax credits. Obviously there will be a debate about what is a reasonable minimum income but in the end we have kind of already had that debate by the very fact we are giving people tax credits in the first place.
Sounds very socialist...paying workers according to what the state says rather than by their true worth. You're clearly not an employer
No. We already decide 'what they are worth' by supplementing their wages with tax payers money. That burden should fall on the employer not on the taxpayer.
If employers are not willing to pay enough money for someone to do the job without taxpayer subsidy then they do not deserve to be in business.
It's called "market forces". Take care work for example, which is where low pay is prevalent - the price is set not by employers but by what councils will pay. There is very little profit being made in the home care sector
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
I hope one emerges. UKIP started the last parliament slowly, if i recall correctly, I'd be interested if their supporters feel they will naturally rise with the EuroRef, or if they really have peaked etc
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
The key test will be the next polls
Believe me if even MSNBC ( a democratic media bastion) and the Washington Post (another democratic media bastion) say that Politico overdone it and Carson has a point, imagine what republican and conservative media would be saying about it.
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago *Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point. -Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
Regardless of who spins what today has been negative headlines for Carson, he may still win Iowa but he is not going to be nominee as far as I am concerned
Actually this may turn out good for Carson because journalists will have to double check their facts before attacking him, and even if they do he can shrug them off a bit by pointing to the botched job Politico did as a "media conspiracy". Republicans might even be forced to rally around him given that the CNBC disaster is still very fresh.
Remember, republican voters are very distrustful and conspiratorial with the media, even a crumb of evidence will be enough to convince them that the "liberal" media are out to get them.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them. We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
The headlines would have been similar regardless. Never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
One observation I would make about Osborne is that he shows the classic outcome of a Finance Director who attempts to also run the Company's strategy, its Communications/PR Department and its Operations..... In spreading himself so thin he spends insufficient attention on the day job, Finance, and things get badly implemented in his own department. Tax Credits being a prime example where he has got the basic impact analysis wrong and not spent sufficient time with his communications people in planning how to sell it.
The bottom line is that he is out of touch.
Somewhat but if you have ever been in a large Company watching this happen it is car crash time for the company and its people.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
It will be Iowa and New Hampshire which determine the winner as ever, fail to come in the top two in at least one and you are done
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
In areas of the south that I know, UKIPs organisation has fallen away as many were exhausted after the GE effort - much of which was dissipated across too many constituencies.
Part of what you say is true, many branches were exhausted but more were deflated. The concentration of effort in certain seats caused problems.
4m votes were won despite, not because of the infrastructure and Nigel must take enormous credit for that.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
The delegates are assigned according to the rules of the primaries and caucuses in each state, it may be proportional, by congressional district or winner take all, and they are forced by law to vote on the convention floor for the candidate that they are assigned. Also the campaigns themselves give a list of people for the delegate slots they win:
It doesn't matter if they are moderate or not, if they are assigned a delegate slot won by a candidate they are legally bound to vote for him on the convention floor.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Several offered, none accepted
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
Don't take it personally. I've offered two and not even had a reply.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
I think the government could have done - and could do - more on non-EU immigration.
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
3+ hours ago I invited supporters of Osborne that are Conservative voters to come forward and declare themselves for him in response to Mr Brind's "Osbophiles" comment. We have been underwhelmed by the response... Fewer than 5 were positive. The lack of enthusiasm for him on this site, a site which is often painted by the lefties as stuffed full of die hard Tories, is indicative of the problems Osborne's Leadership campaign faces. So yes Mr Brind many of us are fully aware of the lack of appeal of Osborne and many folk on here have major doubts on his suitability as PM/Leader.....
As a keyboard warrior..... I am hesitant to attack Mr Brind too brutally. What we all have to recognise is that Mr Brind is a professional jounalist who has spent years being impartial within the BBC's understanding of impartiality.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
In areas of the south that I know, UKIPs organisation has fallen away as many were exhausted after the GE effort - much of which was dissipated across too many constituencies.
Part of what you say is true, many branches were exhausted but more were deflated. The concentration of effort in certain seats caused problems.
4m votes were won despite, not because of the infrastructure and Nigel must take enormous credit for that.
I also hear that the fighting at the top of UKIP has resulted in holding back the organisation from building on the 4 million votes. The outbreak of circular firing squads is a repeat of past events in UKIP for which Farage is a major cause.
3+ hours ago I invited supporters of Osborne that are Conservative voters to come forward and declare themselves for him in response to Mr Brind's "Osbophiles" comment. We have been underwhelmed by the response... Fewer than 5 were positive. The lack of enthusiasm for him on this site, a site which is often painted by the lefties as stuffed full of die hard Tories, is indicative of the problems Osborne's Leadership campaign faces. So yes Mr Brind many of us are fully aware of the lack of appeal of Osborne and many folk on here have major doubts on his suitability as PM/Leader.....
As a keyboard warrior..... I am hesitant to attack Mr Brind too brutally. What we all have to recognise is that Mr Brind is a professional jounalist who has spent years being impartial within the BBC's understanding of impartiality.
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
The key test will be the next polls
Believe me if even MSNBC ( a democratic media bastion) and the Washington Post (another democratic media bastion) say that Politico overdone it and Carson has a point, imagine what republican and conservative media would be saying about it.
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago *Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point. -Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
Regardless of who spins what today has been negative headlines for Carson, he may still win Iowa but he is not going to be nominee as far as I am concerned
Actually this may turn out good for Carson because journalists will have to double check their facts before attacking him, and even if they do he can shrug them off a bit by pointing to the botched job Politico did as a "media conspiracy". Republicans might even be forced to rally around him given that the CNBC disaster is still very fresh.
Remember, republican voters are very distrustful and conspiratorial with the media, even a crumb of evidence will be enough to convince them that the "liberal" media are out to get them.
You were quoting the 'liberal media'
If even the media that republican voters say that they are "liberal" support Carson on this, then it's end of story.
The british equivalent would be the Daily Mail supporting Corbyn on a botched attack story by the Sun.
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
A surgeon who entitles his autobiography " Gifted Hands " is obviously a braggart. The Carson/ West Point Scholarship story has resonance and should kill his campaign stone dead.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
I think the government could have done - and could do - more on non-EU immigration.
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
Problem is that Osborne never got behind the target and has starved Mrs May of extra resouces in the border dept to tackle it. Osborne may also be playing a game of putting pressure on Mrs May by starving her of the resources. MrsT's approach was always to boost resources in areas that she needed on the Govt's side. Police and nurses one example in 79/80s
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
It will be Iowa and New Hampshire which determine the winner as ever, fail to come in the top two in at least one and you are done
This may be true, however I am only reporting what a Justin Webb is saying in The Times. He says 'don't be fooled the loony right won't win' He says Obama beat Hillary because 'he accrued delegates in ways her team thought were unimportant' He says 'the same "delegate math" on the Republican side makes it much more difficult than you might think for an insurgent to win' He quotes someone called Nate Silver (is he reliable?) in support.
All of the above may be rubbish, but I deem it as my public duty on behalf of impoverished punters to publicise his views.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
I live in Sleaford and Hykeham constituency and am a reluctant UKIP member. I get emails from the local party every week or so and from the national party at about the same rate. I never go to party meetings as I am away do much but do feel I am kept fairly well informed of their activity.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Several offered, none accepted
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
Don't take it personally. I've offered two and not even had a reply.
the first email, many years ago, was a general enquiry about acceptable areas, article length etc. The second was a specific offer to write on the upcoming Gibraltar General Election. That must be four years ago now because our next one is due on the 26th of this month.
To add insult to injury, Mike not only ignored my email completely but actually published an article on the Election which he commissioned from an anonymous man he'd randomly met on a cruise ship the previous month.
That was a very clear clue that my contribution here would remain limited to below the line.
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
3+ hours ago I invited supporters of Osborne that are Conservative voters to come forward and declare themselves for him in response to Mr Brind's "Osbophiles" comment. We have been underwhelmed by the response... Fewer than 5 were positive. The lack of enthusiasm for him on this site, a site which is often painted by the lefties as stuffed full of die hard Tories, is indicative of the problems Osborne's Leadership campaign faces. So yes Mr Brind many of us are fully aware of the lack of appeal of Osborne and many folk on here have major doubts on his suitability as PM/Leader.....
As a keyboard warrior..... I am hesitant to attack Mr Brind too brutally. What we all have to recognise is that Mr Brind is a professional jounalist who has spent years being impartial within the BBC's understanding of impartiality.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
In areas of the south that I know, UKIPs organisation has fallen away as many were exhausted after the GE effort - much of which was dissipated across too many constituencies.
Part of what you say is true, many branches were exhausted but more were deflated. The concentration of effort in certain seats caused problems.
4m votes were won despite, not because of the infrastructure and Nigel must take enormous credit for that.
I also hear that the fighting at the top of UKIP has resulted in holding back the organisation from building on the 4 million votes. The outbreak of circular firing squads is a repeat of past events in UKIP for which Farage is a major cause.
I'm not privy to wrangling at the top, there was clearly fallout after the GE when emotions were running high. I've no doubt that without Farage we'd have got nowhere near 4m votes, to most people he was the reason they voted UKIP. But looking ahead a modified approach may be required.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
I think the government could have done - and could do - more on non-EU immigration.
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
Problem is that Osborne never got behind the target and has starved Mrs May of extra resouces in the border dept to tackle it. Osborne may also be playing a game of putting pressure on Mrs May by starving her of the resources. MrsT's approach was always to boost resources in areas that she needed on the Govt's side. Police and nurses one example in 79/80s
Oh please - local government and all sorts of other departments are being 'starved' as you put it of funds. Its up to May to decide where to spend Home Office money.
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
I live in Sleaford and Hykeham constituency and am a reluctant UKIP member. I get emails from the local party every week or so and from the national party at about the same rate. I never go to party meetings as I am away do much but do feel I am kept fairly well informed of their activity.
OK...just curious about their ability to campaign at a local level...but having seen their results since GE maybe they're not bothering
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
That is the point. Since tax credits are being used to supplement wages you increase wages so you don't need tax credits. Obviously there will be a debate about what is a reasonable minimum income but in the end we have kind of already had that debate by the very fact we are giving people tax credits in the first place.
Sounds very socialist...paying workers according to what the state says rather than by their true worth. You're clearly not an employer
No. We already decide 'what they are worth' by supplementing their wages with tax payers money. That burden should fall on the employer not on the taxpayer.
If employers are not willing to pay enough money for someone to do the job without taxpayer subsidy then they do not deserve to be in business.
It's called "market forces". Take care work for example, which is where low pay is prevalent - the price is set not by employers but by what councils will pay. There is very little profit being made in the home care sector
But what we have now is the state cooperating with the employers to keep wages artificially low by using tax payers money to supplement wages.in effect they are giving a massive indirect tax break to businesses.
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Let us not forget someone using government funds to pay for a personal photographer, until he got caught.
A surgeon who entitles his autobiography " Gifted Hands " is obviously a braggart. The Carson/ West Point Scholarship story has resonance and should kill his campaign stone dead.
A surgeon I knew titled his memoirs "Life at the limit". What does that say about him?
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
I think the government could have done - and could do - more on non-EU immigration.
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
Problem is that Osborne never got behind the target and has starved Mrs May of extra resouces in the border dept to tackle it. Osborne may also be playing a game of putting pressure on Mrs May by starving her of the resources. MrsT's approach was always to boost resources in areas that she needed on the Govt's side. Police and nurses one example in 79/80s
Oh please - local government and all sorts of other departments are being 'starved' as you put it of funds. Its up to May to decide where to spend Home Office money.
Last time I checked the Home Office was one of the unprotected departments where its budgets were cut in line with others. So the borders dept had to bear cuts even though a political promise had been made by Cameron to clamp down on immigration. Now you may wonder why Cameron is so disconnected from these facts and seems unworried by the lack of joined up planning?
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Let us not forget someone using government funds to pay for a personal photographer, until he got caught.
That is not on the scale of the festering sore which Corbyn is presiding over within Labour.
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
I live in Sleaford and Hykeham constituency and am a reluctant UKIP member. I get emails from the local party every week or so and from the national party at about the same rate. I never go to party meetings as I am away do much but do feel I am kept fairly well informed of their activity.
OK...just curious about their ability to campaign at a local level...but having seen their results since GE maybe they're not bothering
I get the impression that they have given up on local politics and are gearing up for the EU referendum. It is almost to be expected, members of the only party to advocate leaving the EU concentrating on the referendum and not opposing housing developments and other boring local issues.
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
It will be Iowa and New Hampshire which determine the winner as ever, fail to come in the top two in at least one and you are done
This may be true, however I am only reporting what a Justin Webb is saying in The Times. He says 'don't be fooled the loony right won't win' He says Obama beat Hillary because 'he accrued delegates in ways her team thought were unimportant' He says 'the same "delegate math" on the Republican side makes it much more difficult than you might think for an insurgent to win' He quotes someone called Nate Silver (is he reliable?) in support.
All of the above may be rubbish, but I deem it as my public duty on behalf of impoverished punters to publicise his views.
The Times article is referencing that a slight majority of GOP delegates reside in states that democrats won, in the same way that in 2008 a slight majority of delegates of the DNC resided in states won by republicans. Because Hillary performed badly in the south against Obama where large number of democrats are african-americans doesn't mean she lost because it was won by Republicans in 2004, so the Times article is misleading as much as this statement:
"I eat cheese before I got a cold, therefore I got a cold from cheese"
Delegates don't get to choose a moderate or extremist candidate based on which party won their state but based on which candidate slot they got, they even made the rules more legally water tight because they were afraid that Ron Paul would infiltrate and steal delegates from Romney during the delegate selection process in 2012.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
It will be Iowa and New Hampshire which determine the winner as ever, fail to come in the top two in at least one and you are done
This may be true, however I am only reporting what a Justin Webb is saying in The Times. He says 'don't be fooled the loony right won't win' He says Obama beat Hillary because 'he accrued delegates in ways her team thought were unimportant' He says 'the same "delegate math" on the Republican side makes it much more difficult than you might think for an insurgent to win' He quotes someone called Nate Silver (is he reliable?) in support.
All of the above may be rubbish, but I deem it as my public duty on behalf of impoverished punters to publicise his views.
Yes, the 538 analysis basically says that for the nomination the vote of Pubs in blue states effectively cou t for more than Pubs in red states. Republicans in blue states are more moderate.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
I live in Sleaford and Hykeham constituency and am a reluctant UKIP member. I get emails from the local party every week or so and from the national party at about the same rate. I never go to party meetings as I am away do much but do feel I am kept fairly well informed of their activity.
OK...just curious about their ability to campaign at a local level...but having seen their results since GE maybe they're not bothering
I get the impression that they have given up on local politics and are gearing up for the EU referendum. It is almost to be expected, members of the only party to advocate leaving the EU concentrating on the referendum and not opposing housing developments and other boring local issues.
Possibly...but it's often the "boring local issues" that affect people the most...I wonder what will happen after 2017. Either way I see no reason for them to exist
I'd be very interested in reading them. As a resident of Sussex = we experienced split wards in my locality, a good turn out in the GE and the Kipper vote was significant.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
What galls me (again as someone who doesn't pass traditional identity checks for Torydom) is that the thrust of the article is something that can be argued analytically and on the basis of facts, polls etc - whether one likes the conclusion or not, it is at least an arguable case. There's simply no need for the emotive language. We all know David Herdson's views politically, but his pieces (even where his views come across clearly) are never expressed so vituperatively. This piece is more emotive than analytical, and yet doesn't come across as intentionally persuasive either - it's either written as if preaching to the echo chamber of the converted, or simply there as an "I told you so" piece in case it's predictions come off.
I'm sorry, but this is just because of your political viewpoint. You only find Don Brind's pieces more "emotive" and "vituperative" than David Herdson's, because you agree with the latter's viewpoints more than you do the former's viewpoints.
I for one find David Herdson's pieces remarkably slanted to a Tory-partisan viewpoint (which I'm not complaining about, I like seeing how the "other side" sees the world).
As someone who generally votes Communist or Green (though would be happier voting for TUSC, if they stood in my constituency), and who paid up to vote for Corbyn at the Labour leadership election, I have this minor nagging inkling that maybe, just perhaps, it might not my extreme right-wingery that led me to complain about this header.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
An opinion piece in the Times suggests that the Republican delegates are fairly moderate and are likely to select a moderate at the Convention. I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on. Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
It will be Iowa and New Hampshire which determine the winner as ever, fail to come in the top two in at least one and you are done
This may be true, however I am only reporting what a Justin Webb is saying in The Times. He says 'don't be fooled the loony right won't win' He says Obama beat Hillary because 'he accrued delegates in ways her team thought were unimportant' He says 'the same "delegate math" on the Republican side makes it much more difficult than you might think for an insurgent to win' He quotes someone called Nate Silver (is he reliable?) in support.
All of the above may be rubbish, but I deem it as my public duty on behalf of impoverished punters to publicise his views.
Yes, the 538 analysis basically says that for the nomination the vote of Pubs in blue states effectively cou t for more than Pubs in red states. Republicans in blue states are more moderate.
The Times article would be accurate if Jeb Bush was leading in those states for the nomination, however Trump is leading in all the states the Democrats won in 2012 so he would get the most delegates if not the majority from those states regardless if the state was won by Democrats in 2012.
Or to summarize what the Times says on this:
"Cheese causes colds, gay marriage causes floods, say statistics"
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
What galls me (again as someone who doesn't pass traditional identity checks for Torydom) is that the thrust of the article is something that can be argued analytically and on the basis of facts, polls etc - whether one likes the conclusion or not, it is at least an arguable case. There's simply no need for the emotive language. We all know David Herdson's views politically, but his pieces (even where his views come across clearly) are never expressed so vituperatively. This piece is more emotive than analytical, and yet doesn't come across as intentionally persuasive either - it's either written as if preaching to the echo chamber of the converted, or simply there as an "I told you so" piece in case it's predictions come off.
I'm sorry, but this is just because of your political viewpoint. You only find Don Brind's pieces more "emotive" and "vituperative" than David Herdson's, because you agree with the latter's viewpoints more than you do the former's viewpoints.
I for one find David Herdson's pieces remarkably slanted to a Tory-partisan viewpoint (which I'm not complaining about, I like seeing how the "other side" sees the world).
As someone who generally votes Communist or Green (though would be happier voting for TUSC, if they stood in my constituency), and who paid up to vote for Corbyn at the Labour leadership election, I have this minor nagging inkling that maybe, just perhaps, it might not my extreme right-wingery that led me to complain about this header.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Hear hear. I'm a kipper who recognises we're in the doldrums, that doesn't mean our core principles have dissipated, we got 4m votes.
As a non-kipper, may I ask what sort of structure the party has at local level?
Local party branches on a constituency basis. Much like any other party.
The reason I ask is that I live in a constituency where UKIP came second and for the past six years I have lived here I have had not a single leaflet from UKIP...I see nothing in the local papers and their PPC has disappeared without trace. Yet at elections they crawl out of the wordwork
I live in Sleaford and Hykeham constituency and am a reluctant UKIP member. I get emails from the local party every week or so and from the national party at about the same rate. I never go to party meetings as I am away do much but do feel I am kept fairly well informed of their activity.
OK...just curious about their ability to campaign at a local level...but having seen their results since GE maybe they're not bothering
I get the impression that they have given up on local politics and are gearing up for the EU referendum. It is almost to be expected, members of the only party to advocate leaving the EU concentrating on the referendum and not opposing housing developments and other boring local issues.
Possibly...but it's often the "boring local issues" that affect people the most...I wonder what will happen after 2017. Either way I see no reason for them to exist
It is most probably a mistake to revert to being a single issue party. Whether or not they have a future depends on a lot of factors, how close the referendum is, the state of the EU in years to come, who is leading the Tories (as a Europhile will ensure they stay relevant), etc.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Sean Fear (a Kipper) used to write extremely good threads.
Yes, Sean Fear's threads were when he was still Tory. But he was certainly capable of independent thought (and still is, of course), so not sure how big a deal the party label is.
FWIW I like Antifrank's stuff, even if some other folk don't. Thoughtful and thorough. The quality of analysis is far higher than what we generally get in the press. The other thing which I welcome is he takes a longer time horizon, when most political writers focus on the day-to-day froth. As someone who finds a lot of value in this site is in understanding the longer-run picture, this is a big plus for me. Perhaps some of the longer pieces should be on PB Channel 2 with something approaching an executive summary on the main site, but I always try to make the time to read them.
I retain the remnants of my PR background - and Corbyn is almost beyond touchable. Imagine Pot Noodle with added benzine Perrier. And his consumers don't care.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
As someone who generally votes Communist or Green (though would be happier voting for TUSC, if they stood in my constituency), and who paid up to vote for Corbyn at the Labour leadership election, I have this minor nagging inkling that maybe, just perhaps, it might not my extreme right-wingery that led me to complain about this header.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
Another thing I'd toss into this, is that David Herdson's writing shows clear understanding of nuance. I very much enjoy Nick Palmer's contributions, particularly above the lines but also his longer comments, for the same reason.
Lots of "comment and analysis" stuff in the press has degenerated into opinion-clickbait. Strong and preferably controversial argument is great for feeding the SpekeUrBrainz crowd and getting the traffic flowing, but as intellectual nourishment it's rancid stuff. Even when Nick, David, JackW or various other contributors here have taken a decidedly contrarian stance, I never felt they were chasing an audience.
I retain the remnants of my PR background - and Corbyn is almost beyond touchable. Imagine Pot Noodle with added benzine Perrier. And his consumers don't care.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
Nick Cohen is superb IMO. Unlike Peter Oborne, who just says the opposite of whatever. I don't believe any position he takes and no longer read a thing he writes.
I do believe Dan Hodges as he writes with such frustration - it comes from his heart.
As someone who generally votes Communist or Green (though would be happier voting for TUSC, if they stood in my constituency), and who paid up to vote for Corbyn at the Labour leadership election, I have this minor nagging inkling that maybe, just perhaps, it might not my extreme right-wingery that led me to complain about this header.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
Another thing I'd toss into this, is that David Herdson's writing shows clear understanding of nuance. I very much enjoy Nick Palmer's contributions, particularly above the lines but also his longer comments, for the same reason.
Lots of "comment and analysis" stuff in the press has degenerated into opinion-clickbait. Strong and preferably controversial argument is great for feeding the SpekeUrBrainz crowd and getting the traffic flowing, but as intellectual nourishment it's rancid stuff. Even when Nick, David, JackW or various other contributors here have taken a decidedly contrarian stance, I never felt they were chasing an audience.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perfectly fair question.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
I retain the remnants of my PR background - and Corbyn is almost beyond touchable. Imagine Pot Noodle with added benzine Perrier. And his consumers don't care.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
Ever thought about going back in to PR? Strikes me as the kind of job which requires, or develops, a particular kind of instinct, which when it's kicked in can strike up a gut reaction -and presumably, if you're good a well-judged but intuitive feeling of WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS NOW ... which must be frustrating when you can't actually execute it. And presumably the gut instincts shift your focus away from how people normally react (from "isn't it terrible, those poor kids" or whatever, to "what line do we need to get out on this?") in a manner which is both professional and necessary, yet also (to outsiders) incomprehensible and distasteful. Once your thought process has been honed in that way, it seems to me to be something that must stick with you, and make it very hard to employ yourself any other way.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
Sean Fear (a Kipper) used to write extremely good threads.
Yes, Sean Fear's threads were when he was still Tory. But he was certainly capable of independent thought (and still is, of course), so not sure how big a deal the party label is.
FWIW I like Antifrank's stuff, even if some other folk don't. Thoughtful and thorough. The quality of analysis is far higher than what we generally get in the press. The other thing which I welcome is he takes a longer time horizon, when most political writers focus on the day-to-day froth. As someone who finds a lot of value in this site is in understanding the longer-run picture, this is a big plus for me. Perhaps some of the longer pieces should be on PB Channel 2 with something approaching an executive summary on the main site, but I always try to make the time to read them.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perfectly fair question.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
Personally, even when something is clearly of a particular political slant, I like it to at least have the pretense of being nuanced, otherwise I struggle to accept genuine points within. A lot of stuff in the Mail or the Mirror for example might well be perfectly adequate journalism, but if it's phrased 'Pathetically cowardly Corbyn/Cameron quivered in fear as the heroic Cameron/Corbyn made them look like a fool because of [insert relevant point]' I just switch off. Either that or for it to be ridiculously partisan with no attempt to appear analytical or include real points at all, as that can be entertaining, though not convincing.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
I think the government could have done - and could do - more on non-EU immigration.
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
Problem is that Osborne never got behind the target and has starved Mrs May of extra resouces in the border dept to tackle it. Osborne may also be playing a game of putting pressure on Mrs May by starving her of the resources. MrsT's approach was always to boost resources in areas that she needed on the Govt's side. Police and nurses one example in 79/80s
Oh please - local government and all sorts of other departments are being 'starved' as you put it of funds. Its up to May to decide where to spend Home Office money.
Last time I checked the Home Office was one of the unprotected departments where its budgets were cut in line with others. So the borders dept had to bear cuts even though a political promise had been made by Cameron to clamp down on immigration. Now you may wonder why Cameron is so disconnected from these facts and seems unworried by the lack of joined up planning?
We had a deficit of 160bn which needs cutting to zero and ideally turned into a surplus. This does I am afraid involve a certain amount of cuts. In 2013-14 the Home Offices net expenditure was 12.1bn against a budget of 12.5bn So it had available some 0.40bn to add if it wished to to the 0.954bn it spent on immigration enforcement and border force. (Audit Office)
The 2014-15 net budget was I believe 12.9bn (HO annual report). Cuts announced in June 15 for the Home Office were 0.030bn (says the BBC). Thats 30 Million out of 12.9 Billion.
Nick Cohen is superb IMO. Unlike Peter Oborne, who just says the opposite of whatever. I don't believe any position he takes and no longer read a thing he writes.
I do believe Dan Hodges as he writes with such frustration - it comes from his heart.
As someone who generally votes Communist or Green (though would be happier voting for TUSC, if they stood in my constituency), and who paid up to vote for Corbyn at the Labour leadership election, I have this minor nagging inkling that maybe, just perhaps, it might not my extreme right-wingery that led me to complain about this header.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
Another thing I'd toss into this, is that David Herdson's writing shows clear understanding of nuance. I very much enjoy Nick Palmer's contributions, particularly above the lines but also his longer comments, for the same reason.
Lots of "comment and analysis" stuff in the press has degenerated into opinion-clickbait. Strong and preferably controversial argument is great for feeding the SpekeUrBrainz crowd and getting the traffic flowing, but as intellectual nourishment it's rancid stuff. Even when Nick, David, JackW or various other contributors here have taken a decidedly contrarian stance, I never felt they were chasing an audience.
Has Hodges been stuck in the leg by a sharp umbrella recently? No one seems to be dropping his bon mots into the ether these days.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perfectly fair question.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
There's a substantial Anyone But Labour vote in Rotherham, Doncaster, Tyneside, Rochdale etc. It's coalescing around UKIP. It can take 30% or so of the vote, but it's not enough to win on its own.
I find it hard to understand the mentality of people who will knowingly vote to re-elect people who have behaved appallingly in public office. I suppose it's the equivalent of voting Sinn Fein.
To be fair I very, very rarely read the thread headers... If Mike writes a short one, I do, if TSE writes one I enjoy looking for the (what by now must be deliberate) mistakes, but the guest ones are too long for me, though that's not to say they're not well written, I am just not much of a reader
I sometimes like to think I could pen a piece of at least marginal insight or quality, when pressed I am capable of being more concise than I generally am on here, which is usually unfiltered, unprocessed thoughts, but my mind goes absolutely blank on what topic or new angle I could bring to a header. So on that score I do salute Mr Brind. As I said earlier I think there is the seed of some fair points in here, and I do feel the uncompromisingly Labour view is a legitimate one to explore, even if I don't think the analysis here holds up, but even stringing together a party line in a freshish way, linking it to the topic of the week somehow, is not as easy as it seems.
Dan Hodges, who I think is a pretty decent writer, particularly when he branches out from his main topics, is to be applauded as well for somehow making 'Ed M is Crap' reasonably readable despite the 300+ times he wrote it.
I was offered a job based on my nous for donkey-spotting at a big bluechip - I could tell a dud from a good idea in seconds, and ended up running the CTO.
My talent was for turning tech speak into the common place. And getting the ordinary perspective. That doesn't chime with those who admire cleverness. I've little ego like that, and find everyone interesting. We used to joke that Acronyms Don't Sell Lines = ADSL = broadband.
I retain the remnants of my PR background - and Corbyn is almost beyond touchable. Imagine Pot Noodle with added benzine Perrier. And his consumers don't care.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
Ever thought about going back in to PR? Strikes me as the kind of job which requires, or develops, a particular kind of instinct, which when it's kicked in can strike up a gut reaction -and presumably, if you're good a well-judged but intuitive feeling of WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS NOW ... which must be frustrating when you can't actually execute it. And presumably the gut instincts shift your focus away from how people normally react (from "isn't it terrible, those poor kids" or whatever, to "what line do we need to get out on this?") in a manner which is both professional and necessary, yet also (to outsiders) incomprehensible and distasteful. Once your thought process has been honed in that way, it seems to me to be something that must stick with you, and make it very hard to employ yourself any other way.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perfectly fair question.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
There's a substantial Anyone But Labour vote in Rotherham, Doncaster, Tyneside, Rochdale etc. It's coalescing around UKIP. It can take 30% or so of the vote, but it's not enough to win on its own.
I find it hard to understand the mentality of people who will knowingly vote to re-elect people who have behaved appallingly in public office. I suppose it's the equivalent of voting Sinn Fein.
Why would Rotherham's muslims want anyone except Labour in charge?
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
Perfectly fair question.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
There's a substantial Anyone But Labour vote in Rotherham, Doncaster, Tyneside, Rochdale etc. It's coalescing around UKIP. It can take 30% or so of the vote, but it's not enough to win on its own.
I find it hard to understand the mentality of people who will knowingly vote to re-elect people who have behaved appallingly in public office. I suppose it's the equivalent of voting Sinn Fein.
Why would Rotherham's muslims want anyone except Labour in charge?
They're only 4% of the electorate. It's the other 40-45% who vote Labour who are the puzzle.
I retain the remnants of my PR background - and Corbyn is almost beyond touchable. Imagine Pot Noodle with added benzine Perrier. And his consumers don't care.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
It's all mind-bending. But frankly, it's like Corbyn reading out an ex BNPer email - it's gone so bonkers that nothing is surprising. Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters? It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
The big Labour story that was mentioned below and omitted in the main article is the fact that we have a Labour Leader using party funds to pay a person who is not now a member of the Labour party. This is a quite extraordinary development. Does the Labour party not have a rule in its personnel contracts that they must be a member of the party?
Are you suffering from Post Traumatic Corbyn Disorder?
Being a party leader involves a lot of scrutiny and a lot of pressure. It remains to be seen how Corbyn takes to it. He is what ... 66? He has surrounded himself with loony lefties and has never given any real indication of independent thought. How long can he stay insulated from the mess he leaves dumped in his wake?
To reiterate my complaint about regurgitation of attack lines, what is the source for this alleged "£145m ‘hedge fund tax cut’" or that the Tories "received £55 million in donations from hedge funds"? The best source I can find for the latter is this Labour press release, and the story has been slathered over left-leaning blogs and media, but I can't see any details of the analysis and calculation. Nor is there a timeframe, which is quite telling, and leads me to suspect this is an "all-time cumulative" figure, and not related to the Cameron specifically.
I'm not entirely convinced whoever added the numbers up was qualified to identify who a hedgie is. My understanding is that the "£145 hedge fund tax cut" is financially illiterate balls from someone who doesn't know what a hedge fund is. I might be buying the corporate kool-aid, but the AIMA (the odious folk who represent hedge funds) produced a rebuttal document which explains quite clearly the change affected UK authorised funds (unit trusts and OEICs) but not hedge funds.
Of course these are attack lines which are out in the wild, and have a certain degree of resonance with the public (who are hardly enamoured with high finance at the best of times) so discussing them and their impact is fair game. But blithely and uncritically repeating them is not.
To reiterate my complaint about regurgitation of attack lines, what is the source for this alleged "£145m ‘hedge fund tax cut’" or that the Tories "received £55 million in donations from hedge funds"? The best source I can find for the latter is this Labour press release, and the story has been slathered over left-leaning blogs and media, but I can't see any details of the analysis and calculation. Nor is there a timeframe, which is quite telling, and leads me to suspect this is an "all-time cumulative" figure, and not related to the Cameron specifically.
I'm not entirely convinced whoever added the numbers up was qualified to identify who a hedgie is. My understanding is that the "£145 hedge fund tax cut" is financially illiterate balls from someone who doesn't know what a hedge fund is. I might be buying the corporate kool-aid, but the AIMA (the odious folk who represent hedge funds) produced a rebuttal document which explains quite clearly the change affected UK authorised funds (unit trusts and OEICs) but not hedge funds.
Of course these are attack lines which are out in the wild, and have a certain degree of resonance with the public (who are hardly enamoured with high finance at the best of times) so discussing them and their impact is fair game. But blithely and uncritically repeating them is not.
I think my point stands. The Conservatives would not have won, unless the public thought they were better than Labour.
To reiterate my complaint about regurgitation of attack lines, what is the source for this alleged "£145m ‘hedge fund tax cut’" or that the Tories "received £55 million in donations from hedge funds"? The best source I can find for the latter is this Labour press release, and the story has been slathered over left-leaning blogs and media, but I can't see any details of the analysis and calculation. Nor is there a timeframe, which is quite telling, and leads me to suspect this is an "all-time cumulative" figure, and not related to the Cameron specifically.
I'm not entirely convinced whoever added the numbers up was qualified to identify who a hedgie is. My understanding is that the "£145 hedge fund tax cut" is financially illiterate balls from someone who doesn't know what a hedge fund is. I might be buying the corporate kool-aid, but the AIMA (the odious folk who represent hedge funds) produced a rebuttal document which explains quite clearly the change affected UK authorised funds (unit trusts and OEICs) but not hedge funds.
Of course these are attack lines which are out in the wild, and have a certain degree of resonance with the public (who are hardly enamoured with high finance at the best of times) so discussing them and their impact is fair game. But blithely and uncritically repeating them is not.
I think my point stands. The Conservatives would not have won, unless the public thought they were better than Labour.
I sometimes like to think I could pen a piece of at least marginal insight or quality, when pressed I am capable of being more concise than I generally am on here, which is usually unfiltered, unprocessed thoughts, but my mind goes absolutely blank on what topic or new angle I could bring to a header. So on that score I do salute Mr Brind. As I said earlier I think there is the seed of some fair points in here, and I do feel the uncompromisingly Labour view is a legitimate one to explore, even if I don't think the analysis here holds up, but even stringing together a party line in a freshish way, linking it to the topic of the week somehow, is not as easy as it seems.
Dan Hodges, who I think is a pretty decent writer, particularly when he branches out from his main topics, is to be applauded as well for somehow making 'Ed M is Crap' reasonably readable despite the 300+ times he wrote it.
There's an old line attributed to a lot of people about I only have time to write a long letter, I'd need much longer to write a short one.
There's a substantial Anyone But Labour vote in Rotherham, Doncaster, Tyneside, Rochdale etc. It's coalescing around UKIP. It can take 30% or so of the vote, but it's not enough to win on its own.
I find it hard to understand the mentality of people who will knowingly vote to re-elect people who have behaved appallingly in public office. I suppose it's the equivalent of voting Sinn Fein.
I was chatting to one of UKIP's activists in South Yorkshire about all of this last weekend. He's an old friend, and he said his explanation on why the events in Rotherham had no traction for UKIP in May was that, South Yorkshire Police is probably worst public service organisation in the history of the UK, prior to CSE in Rotherham, they oversaw the events of the Hillsborough disaster and the events at Orgreave. (Which is why UKIP selecting an ex South Yorkshire Copper as their Police Commissioner candidate was a mistake) the blame seems to be directed mostly towards South Yorkshire Police and not the council.
In the background you've had the Westminster child sex abuse inquiry and lots of ex celebs getting away with sexual abuse, so it's not just abusers in Rotherham who got away with for so long.
Plus Rotherham is fairly well integrated, so most indigenous white people know people of Pakistani heritage, so they know it's not endemic, that's why, so there's been no race riots.
The thing that really did get UKIP traction in May was "all those Eastern Europeans coming over here taking jobs" which was uniform among white and non white British voters.
But it'll be like Scotland, if/when South Yorkshire rejects Labour. It'll be a tsunami, not gradual incrementalism
Jeremy Corbyn will not have to kneel for the Queen when he is sworn into Privy Council next week
Exclusive: Labour leader may still kiss Her Majesty's hand when he is sworn in as a member of the centuries-old institution at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday
Comments
Going to hold my +150 position on him though.
Then again, what could a professional gambler/possible UKIP PPC offer a political betting site that someone who has to invent bets they've not had to try and impress people cant?
There will be many many winners in April. The ones who haven't got children.
I have no idea if this is true, but for the sake of you punters I thought I would pass it on.
Apparently some sort of Teapartyphile has won in Kentucky.
I wouldn't necessarily want to write a pro ukip thread, just one about where I think we should be heading.
If employers are not willing to pay enough money for someone to do the job without taxpayer subsidy then they do not deserve to be in business.
Now perhaps I am being rather overstated here to say that that was a typically a Tory feint, and that they think they're rather clever when they get away with such things.
Having a LHQ puff piece every Friday offers no betting or policy discussion value.
I for one find David Herdson's pieces remarkably slanted to a Tory-partisan viewpoint (which I'm not complaining about, I like seeing how the "other side" sees the world).
4 million on minimum wage according to the low pay commission.
Lots of 18-25s and 50 plussers approaching retirement are going to do well.
Likewise lower corporation tax is essential in this 'globalised' age if we are not to export all our corporatre HQs to Ireland.
In a corner or not, we are running out of space to sort our spending thirst out.
That certainly can't be said for all posters on here. And I can't help but admire that.
Many of my older friends are Kippers along with a handful of ex Labourites.
I suspect Kippers have peaked down here, but northwards - there's a lot of territory to play for.
4m votes were won despite, not because of the infrastructure and Nigel must take enormous credit for that.
Also the campaigns themselves give a list of people for the delegate slots they win:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml
It doesn't matter if they are moderate or not, if they are assigned a delegate slot won by a candidate they are legally bound to vote for him on the convention floor.
I'm bored stiff of AntifrankAtPB.com
If the Tories don't get a grip on this issue, it will be their downfall.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKUZbpXUx4&feature=youtu.be&a
I've been around for years too and can't recall a Kipper thread that wasn't knocking them.
The british equivalent would be the Daily Mail supporting Corbyn on a botched attack story by the Sun.
I have my own ideas as to where ukip should go now, as an ex PPC in a well known seat I'd be happy to offer up my views.
Most of those non-EU immigrants are fee paying, university students.
Message control is an issue for the Tories.
He says 'don't be fooled the loony right won't win'
He says Obama beat Hillary because 'he accrued delegates in ways her team thought were unimportant'
He says 'the same "delegate math" on the Republican side makes it much more difficult than you might think for an insurgent to win'
He quotes someone called Nate Silver (is he reliable?) in support.
All of the above may be rubbish, but I deem it as my public duty on behalf of impoverished punters to publicise his views.
To add insult to injury, Mike not only ignored my email completely but actually published an article on the Election which he commissioned from an anonymous man he'd randomly met on a cruise ship the previous month.
That was a very clear clue that my contribution here would remain limited to below the line.
That'd give you several hundred words and pithy, rather than rambling 800+.
EDIT As an ex plodster Ch Super rank - I've very strong views on PCCs vs Plod Authority
If MS invites me to submit something for his approval I'd be happy to.
Excuse me, are we confusing PCCs with PPCs?
Not singing the National Anthem? Siding with the IRA? Cuddling up to anti-Semites and Hamas and Hezbollah? London rioters?
It's Alice in Wonderland now. Waking up with a dead boy would be hand waved away as a Murdoch Evil Tory Press conspiracy
Because Hillary performed badly in the south against Obama where large number of democrats are african-americans doesn't mean she lost because it was won by Republicans in 2004, so the Times article is misleading as much as this statement:
"I eat cheese before I got a cold, therefore I got a cold from cheese"
Delegates don't get to choose a moderate or extremist candidate based on which party won their state but based on which candidate slot they got, they even made the rules more legally water tight because they were afraid that Ron Paul would infiltrate and steal delegates from Romney during the delegate selection process in 2012.
Yes of course David Herdson writes from a Conservative-prism viewpoint. Of course Donald Brind will write from a Labour-prism viewpoint. But even if you've got an angle that you're coming from, there are more and less analytical approaches to take. David writes with admiral detachment of spirit. This article rehashes attack lines (which is boring - I could do that on any number of left-leaning sites) and then throws a level of spirited, personal involvement behind them.
Or to summarize what the Times says on this:
"Cheese causes colds, gay marriage causes floods, say statistics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 20m20 minutes ago
So Politico has changed its headline: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598 …
I didn't know @david_herdson was a Tory - let alone at local big wig for ages when reading his articles. I was a Blairite then too.
@JackW penned some great Against The Grain theads too which perfectly suited his alter ego here.
FWIW I like Antifrank's stuff, even if some other folk don't. Thoughtful and thorough. The quality of analysis is far higher than what we generally get in the press. The other thing which I welcome is he takes a longer time horizon, when most political writers focus on the day-to-day froth. As someone who finds a lot of value in this site is in understanding the longer-run picture, this is a big plus for me. Perhaps some of the longer pieces should be on PB Channel 2 with something approaching an executive summary on the main site, but I always try to make the time to read them.
They could glow in the dark a la ReadyBrek and it wouldn't matter. Until the cult self destructs = all we can do is watch and point/laugh.
Lots of "comment and analysis" stuff in the press has degenerated into opinion-clickbait. Strong and preferably controversial argument is great for feeding the SpekeUrBrainz crowd and getting the traffic flowing, but as intellectual nourishment it's rancid stuff. Even when Nick, David, JackW or various other contributors here have taken a decidedly contrarian stance, I never felt they were chasing an audience.
I do believe Dan Hodges as he writes with such frustration - it comes from his heart.
EDIT I don't believe anything NPXMP says.
UKIP's opinion poll ratings are good, at 12-15%. They match the party's average vote share in local elections, but are down on the peak average vote share, 20%, won in 2013.
I think UKIP's support will rise, as we approach mid-term. The party should win seats in the London and Welsh Assemblies, next May.
Rotherham Borough will have all-out elections, next May. I think UKIP will do well, but won't win the council. We could win about 20 out of 60 seats. But, it's clear that most Labour voters in South Yorkshire take a pretty relaxed view about the scandals that have occurred.
I just can't comprehend locals voting Labour, but they still do in giant numbers - what could change that given mass kiddy fiddling didn't?
In 2013-14 the Home Offices net expenditure was 12.1bn against a budget of 12.5bn So it had available some 0.40bn to add if it wished to to the 0.954bn it spent on immigration enforcement and border force. (Audit Office)
The 2014-15 net budget was I believe 12.9bn (HO annual report). Cuts announced in June 15 for the Home Office were 0.030bn (says the BBC). Thats 30 Million out of 12.9 Billion.
I find it hard to understand the mentality of people who will knowingly vote to re-elect people who have behaved appallingly in public office. I suppose it's the equivalent of voting Sinn Fein.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/must_see/34538583
Dan Hodges, who I think is a pretty decent writer, particularly when he branches out from his main topics, is to be applauded as well for somehow making 'Ed M is Crap' reasonably readable despite the 300+ times he wrote it.
My talent was for turning tech speak into the common place. And getting the ordinary perspective. That doesn't chime with those who admire cleverness. I've little ego like that, and find everyone interesting. We used to joke that Acronyms Don't Sell Lines = ADSL = broadband.
He is what ... 66?
He has surrounded himself with loony lefties and has never given any real indication of independent thought. How long can he stay insulated from the mess he leaves dumped in his wake?
I'm not entirely convinced whoever added the numbers up was qualified to identify who a hedgie is. My understanding is that the "£145 hedge fund tax cut" is financially illiterate balls from someone who doesn't know what a hedge fund is. I might be buying the corporate kool-aid, but the AIMA (the odious folk who represent hedge funds) produced a rebuttal document which explains quite clearly the change affected UK authorised funds (unit trusts and OEICs) but not hedge funds.
Of course these are attack lines which are out in the wild, and have a certain degree of resonance with the public (who are hardly enamoured with high finance at the best of times) so discussing them and their impact is fair game. But blithely and uncritically repeating them is not.
I keep meaning to get back into the writing side,
In the background you've had the Westminster child sex abuse inquiry and lots of ex celebs getting away with sexual abuse, so it's not just abusers in Rotherham who got away with for so long.
Plus Rotherham is fairly well integrated, so most indigenous white people know people of Pakistani heritage, so they know it's not endemic, that's why, so there's been no race riots.
The thing that really did get UKIP traction in May was "all those Eastern Europeans coming over here taking jobs" which was uniform among white and non white British voters.
But it'll be like Scotland, if/when South Yorkshire rejects Labour. It'll be a tsunami, not gradual incrementalism
Exclusive: Labour leader may still kiss Her Majesty's hand when he is sworn in as a member of the centuries-old institution at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday
http://bit.ly/1WFRr7S