Labour is going at this issue, and the LDs should do too, because it looks as though Cameron has not acted in a proper manner.
It's actually much simpler than that. The government policy changed seemingly out of the blue. The opposition is paid to get to the bottom of why that happened. It's about as close to the raison d'etre of opposition as you can get. Opposition 101.
Labour have done nothing that Cameron would not have done in opposition.
It didn't change out of the blue - all barnacle policies are being scraped off.
P**n filters plain packets minimum pricing all women golf commentary teams etc.
Another reason the lefties are peeved - they can't get all pasty tax on the fringe stuff.
@Plato - I very much doubt that the Tories will be that close. It IS possible as tim, Nick Palmer and Mike S have contented that focusing on the NHS, nowithstanding these are scandals, could contrive to boost Labour's ratings on the subject. But equally they may not which is why the result will be quite illuminating.
I'm in the undecided camp for once.
I'm in the same one as you. There are some things that seem so counter-intuitive that when they happen, it just doesn't compute - Kippers getting 150 councillors had that effect on the BBC.
Given I'm all for the NHS being treated like HMRC, DWP or the DLVA - anything that helps us to objectively assess the NHS' performance is good to me. And it not being the *property* of any one Party is the start.
so are lots of things. The question is whether Ed is now saying this is his policy ?
I'm not sure it is. The Tories seem to frame any question as if the Labour party was in power. It's a new insurgent strategy designed to keep them in no10.
The question is simply why has this govt's policy changed.
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
Would you work the hours, carry the responsbility and be away from home as much as they have to be for £66k a year? Plus they are forced to live siuch puritan lifestyles by the media.
I can outdo that working from home most of the time and living like Keith Richards on the weekends, with hardly any responsibility at all.
I'd never, ever, ever be an MP (not that I would be accepted as one). I quite admire their willingness to forego decent money by dint of their desire to perform public service.
When they are not on their 20 odd weeks holidays they start late and spend most of their time in the free bars and restaurants. You ever seen a debate outside of PMQ's , it is like a graveyard in the chamber. If it went by hours productive working they will be amongst the highest rewarded in the country for the worst possible output. Unless you are on a different planet , at least 97% of the public earn a fraction of what MP's earn for being on holiday or troughing
I don't believe the restaurants and bars are free.
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
"The Department of Health public consultation on plain packs has also been published. The BBC reports that "53% of those responding to the consultation were in favour of plain packaging while 43% had urged the government to take no action on the issue". This is not true. There were 666,233 responses, of which 2,444 (0.4 per cent) were detailed submissions. 53 per cent of those 2,444 submissions approved of the policy—unsurprising since many of them came from state-funded public health lobbyists. Indeed, it's a shock that this slender majority wasn't larger.
Of the 99.6 per cent of respondents who voiced their opinion through co-ordinated campaigns, nearly two-thirds opposed plain packaging. That, surely, is the relevant figure..." http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/ Chris Snowden is a Fellow at Adam Smith Inst and well worth reading re stats on this and other stuff.
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
It is profoundly un-Conservative - a king barnacle of the worst type.
Precisely - along with minimum alcohol pricing - its from the totally wrong end of Conservatism. What Cameron/Letwin or whomever were thinking of is beyond me.
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
It is profoundly un-Conservative - a king barnacle of the worst type.
Precisely - along with minimum alcohol pricing - its from the totally wrong end of Conservatism. What Cameron/Letwin or whomever were thinking of is beyond me.
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
Really? It's just a form of marketing designed solely to make smoking attractive. Costs absolutely nothing to remove.
The world didn't end when cigarette advertising went. I guess you want that back if this is a point of Conservative principle.
I don't know if the question has been answered but it seems to be reasonably clear. If one is working is a professional environment (MC partner, finance etc) then a MPs salary is laughably small and if one has expenses matching the previous salary then penury beckons.
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
It is profoundly un-Conservative - a king barnacle of the worst type.
Precisely - along with minimum alcohol pricing - its from the totally wrong end of Conservatism. What Cameron/Letwin or whomever were thinking of is beyond me.
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
Really? It's just a form of marketing designed solely to make smoking attractive. Costs absolutely nothing to remove.
The world didn't end when cigarette advertising went. I guess you want that back if this is a point of Conservative principle.
How on earth does it cost nothing to remove - it would mean a wholesale change in packaging.
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
It is profoundly un-Conservative - a king barnacle of the worst type.
Precisely - along with minimum alcohol pricing - its from the totally wrong end of Conservatism. What Cameron/Letwin or whomever were thinking of is beyond me.
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
Really? It's just a form of marketing designed solely to make smoking attractive. Costs absolutely nothing to remove.
The world didn't end when cigarette advertising went. I guess you want that back if this is a point of Conservative principle.
The world is a different place as you know - there is no tobacco sponsorship [even of F1!], no advertising, vending machines a rarity and shops have them hidden from view.
If you didn't know what packet a cigarette came in = how would you know? Are you going to take up smoking because B&H are in a gold box compared to the silver and black of L&B? You won't even see these on the pub table as its banned everywhere anyway.
It's a complete red herring - boxes are already covered with SMOKING MAKES YOU IMPOTENT AND YOU'LL DIE warnings - how will having that on a brown paper wrapper make it more effective?
If HMG want to discourage smoking raise the age at which you can buy it, prosecute vigorously who sell to those underage or ban it and get the NHS to give out nicotine patches for free.
This silly fiddling about it precisely that - fiddling about and it profoundly nannying which is why I'm against it. I know you think a single death from smoking is appalling - but until its illegal, people make choices to do it.
Most people seem to think that the emergence of the professional politician has had a negative effect on the calibre of people in parliament. It therefore seems counter-productive to treat being an MP as merely a 'job' or even worse a career. If people are employable and still able to represent their constituents to their satisfaction then let them work.
Interesting article Henry. This is a smart move by Ed. It's crucial for 2015 that he not only maximizes Labour's traditional virtues but is remorseless in hitting Tory weaknesses.
Osborne's reduction in the 50% tax rate shows the benefit-no one would have flinched if Labour had done the same but because it was the Tories they lost between 5 and 10% support that they haven't got back.
Fat cats looking after themselves and their supporters at a time of austerity feeds every prejudice voters have about them. An Achilles Heel that the Tories can do little about and one that Labour have to work on.
Labour mustn't allow this USP to disappear into the long grass while Ed tries to prove his leadership qualities. When push comes to shove and with the right prompting not being Tory is enough to win Ed the next election.
To this end an onslaught on 'second jobs' is tailor made.
Re Gordon brown "donating all his £1.37m outside earnings to charity", I thought the jury was still out on this one. It sounds great but the charity is "the office of Gordon and Sarah brown" and whilst their website seems to suggest they have "proposed initiatives" to a few educational charities it seems a bit light on how much of Gordon's earnings have been distributed. As we all know charities set up by individuals can be very tax efficient so until we know how these money's are spent then to give Gordon a halo as Mr Manson does here is slightly premature perhaps.
It is also somewhat easier to be so generous and helpful when you are not forced to turn up to your actual day job and the tax payer helps fund your travel....
According to polls, plain packaging is a long way from being a barnacle.
It is profoundly un-Conservative - a king barnacle of the worst type.
Precisely - along with minimum alcohol pricing - its from the totally wrong end of Conservatism. What Cameron/Letwin or whomever were thinking of is beyond me.
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
Really? It's just a form of marketing designed solely to make smoking attractive. Costs absolutely nothing to remove.
The world didn't end when cigarette advertising went. I guess you want that back if this is a point of Conservative principle.
If the health-fascist lobbyists within Labour think smoking is an evil, why didn't they ban it? Or perhaps that's the next step? There's something deeply unattractive about a certain puritanical strain on the left who want to make everything either illegal or compulsory (as long as they can write the list of what's on each).
Conservative principles would support freedom of choice, personal responsibility and accountability for an individual's actions. If people want to smoke, fine - but they should do so in the knowledge of what it is likely to do to them and they shouldn't complain if that then does happen. There is an argument against inflicting that smoke on third parties but providing the regulations against that aren't too draconian, that's fair enough. If smoking is to be legal, then it surely makes sense for the industry to be both properly regulated from manufacture to sale, which ought to include consumers being able to readily identify the manufacturer.
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
So why don't Labour ever mention the economy. With the disaster you seem to think (and no doubt hope) is going to occur it seems a no-brainer to go on this. Then again perhaps their grasp of economics isn't quite as superficial as your own?
When they are not on their 20 odd weeks holidays they start late and spend most of their time in the free bars and restaurants. You ever seen a debate outside of PMQ's , it is like a graveyard in the chamber. If it went by hours productive working they will be amongst the highest rewarded in the country for the worst possible output. Unless you are on a different planet , at least 97% of the public earn a fraction of what MP's earn for being on holiday or troughing
It's difficult to have a sensible discussion with this sort of stuff thrown in. Patiently:
(1) The bars and restaurants are not free, or now notably subsidised. I always pay more for lunch when I visit the Commons than when I go to my local fast food joint, and I don't notice the quality being much different. It's at most a marginal issue.
(2) The reason debates are largely deserted is 95% related to the way the Commons works. If you go to a debate with a view to contributing, you're expected to sit through most of the 4-5 hours - to be precise, all the front bench speeches, nearly all the speeches before yours, the two after yours and the wind-up speeches at the end. There is no guarantee that you'll be called. If you're called, you can reasonably expect a polite one-sentence reference in the wind-ups , but no other impact (other than whatever media stuff you choose to put out). If the European Parliament system was used - you register a slot to speak, you're guaranteed the time, and you don't have to sit there for five hours - it'd be very different.
Therefore, what most MPs do is work in their offices with the monitors on - that enables them to follow the debate when something interesting is being said and otherwise get on with correspondence, research or whatever else they're doing.
(3) They do start late, but then they go on till after 7 or after 10, depending on the day.
The problem is not that MPs are lazy - some are, most aren't. The problem is that normally the only way to achieve influence is through unofficial (and hence invisible to the public) channels - talking to the people who make decisions. If we channelled that more publicly, e.g. through the method I suggested of getting proposals considered by Select Committees if they got a majority, it'd be more obvious that they were doing the job. But sitting through debates all afternoon to maybe get a few sentences in is not the answer.
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
Yesterday you were whining that a govt backed lending scheme had only loaned 2p to a dog in Shropshire.
Now you think this other govt backed scheme will somehow be so successful that it will suck all the money out of the global economy causing the price of South Sea tulips to triple invert resulting in the FTSE to go negative.
Your faith in GO's powers must be flattering to him.
On topic: Is there any evidence whatsoever that those MPs who have other jobs are worse MPs than those who don't? Of course, Ed Miliband isn't interested in that, he's only interested in scoring a political point, but it's revealing nonetheless that, in true Labour style, the emphasis is on the inputs rather than the outputs.
In any case, Ed's proposal makes zero sense even in its own terms. If he was really concerned about MPs not devoting enough time to their constituency and parliamentary duties, his proposals would be about hours, not remuneration.
Public Sector Finances this morning and borrowing is down, down, down.
The bulletin contains the fourth revision to fiscal year 2012-13 borrowing figures. Public Sector Net Borrowing excluding financial interventions (and PO Pension assets & etc & etc) at year end was £116.5 billion. This revision means PSNB ex was £2.1 billion lower than in 2011/12. Reduction was due to increased tax receipts.
Remember last month when earlier years were revised down leaving a very small uptick in borrowing last year? Boom. Boom. Gone now, tim! Borrowing back to being down in every year this parliament.
Actual year end borrowing PSNB ex was £82.7 billion (i.e. including all the gold found down the back of the sofa but still excluding bank bailouts) meaning that net borrowing fell by £35.8 bn over the year from £118.5 bn.
Borrowing figures for June 2013 were also good, PSNB ex was £8.5 billion, some £3.4 billion lower than in June 2012 when it was £11.9 billion.
This continues the trend this year of borrowing being reduced by around £3 billion per month.
On the big numbers Public Sector Net Debt (excludng bank bail outs) rose to just over £1,200 billion or 74.9% of GDP (from 71.6% in 2012), a rise of £84 bn. Total PSND including bailouts was £2,232.bn up £100 bn from £2,132.8 at end June 2012, a rise of £100.0 bn taking total net debt from 136.5% to 139.1% of GDP.
So the conclusion is that deficit reduction is progressing at a cracking rate but there is still a long, long way to go before net borrowing goes into surplus and the debt figures start falling.
Re health fascists - I heard an intv with an NHS policy bod for a Manchester trust saying he'd be proud to implement a city wide ban on smoking even in public places/outside.
I just recoiled at his self-righteous and Puritanical attitude. I got the distinct impression he'd be keen on inspecting my fridge contents as well and fining me/insisting on re-education for non-compliance.
In these latest ONS borrowing figures, it is now shown borrowing did fall last year.
•In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions and also excluding the effects of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund was £116.5 billion. This is £2.1 billion lower than in 2011/12.
After last months excitement about borrowing in 2012/13 being higher than 2011/12, tax receipts for last year have been revised up so that the deficit time series now looks like:
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
So why don't Labour ever mention the economy. With the disaster you seem to think (and no doubt hope) is going to occur it seems a no-brainer to go on this. Then again perhaps their grasp of economics isn't quite as superficial as your own?
@david_herdson@Plato Honestly I think you are totally OTT on this. There is no shibboleth here. You already accept controls on cigarette advertising and packaging.
I can't see any costs financial, liberty or otherwise of removing one last refuge of cigarette marketing. If it doesn't work by all reverse it. But it has to be worth a try. It's effectively a cost free measure.
Chris Leslie, Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, said: "With borrowing now confirmed as rising last year, these figures are another damaging blow to George Osborne's economic credibility."
Labour don't want plain wrapping on cigarette packets , they want it in white with thin straight lines across it so they can keep their writing straight.
I have mentioned the way around this problem before . The answer, as with many things, is openness.
Introduce a timesheet system where MPs have to specify what they have been working on, and when. Many private-sector companies have such systems so that time spent can be allocated to different projects. If we have to do it, so should MPs.
Publicise all this information. In particular, items like constituency surgeries and attendance of select committees should be of interest.
It is perfectly possible to work as an MP in parliament, do constituency work and have other interests, especially if their family commitments are not onerous. After all, we all work hard and have hobbies, don't we?
When an election comes by, let the voters use the information to decide if their MP is working hard enough for them.
One moment we complain that MPs are out of touch, the next that they have perfectly legal outside interests. They cannot win. The last thing we need are political wonks whose only experience are the hangers-on and lobbyists in parliament.
Such a scheme might have shamed people like Stuart Bell, who did not hold any constituency surgeries for 14 years, despite his perma-presence on TV whenever a talking head was needed.
In these latest ONS borrowing figures, it is now shown borrowing did fall last year.
•In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions and also excluding the effects of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund was £116.5 billion. This is £2.1 billion lower than in 2011/12.
Whilst no good run of news lasts forever - I am finding it entertaining that Labour's pool of potential goal mouths is getting smaller by the day.
EdM doesn't have much of a puddle to fish in and so is diverting desperately onto Unknown Australian Employed By CCHQ and MP Second Jobs.
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
So why don't Labour ever mention the economy. With the disaster you seem to think (and no doubt hope) is going to occur it seems a no-brainer to go on this. Then again perhaps their grasp of economics isn't quite as superficial as your own?
Surely the "I told you so" argument will be pretty powerful come the election. Imagine if the Tories had constantly warned of the impending economic collapse under Gordon Brown. Far more benefit in that than talking about plain packaging.
ONS @statisticsONS Public sector net borrowing in June 2013 (excl. financial interventions and APF transfers) was £12.4bn bit.ly/111W5UT #ons ....
An interesting snippet from Al-Beeb:
Borrowing for May was also revised up, due to a more cautious estimate of revenues from a tax agreement with Switzerland, while borrowing for the previous fiscal year was revised down.
*
Can OGH, Junior or PtP confirm that the counter-party to my FY2013 bet has paid-up?
Chahs,
* Effective target was £120billion. Excluded from bet were QE-transfers and the Royal-Mail Pension-Fund. All figures were based upon the as-known (and not revised FY2012 - June '13) parameters....
As someone who has lost lung capacity after two pulmonary embolisms I am ultra sensitive to smoke and I can find even by other people outdoor smoking quiite hard to deal with.
I only started going back into pubs again when the smoking ban came in. Well done to the politicians of whatever party who supported it. Shame on those who didn't
Re health fascists - I heard an intv with an NHS policy bod for a Manchester trust saying he'd be proud to implement a city wide ban on smoking even in public places/outside.
I just recoiled at his self-righteous and Puritanical attitude. I got the distinct impression he'd be keen on inspecting my fridge contents as well and fining me/insisting on re-education for non-compliance.
Who gives a monkey's about plain fag packaging? Us none smokers don't want our politicians wasting time and money on wanky issues such as this. As smoking's so bad for health, you'd think such nannying b'stards as our main 3 parties would have the balls to ban it.
The Govt's own forecasts are that deficit reduction has stalled for the three years 11/12,12/13,13/14 Give or take a couple of hundred million one way or another (it rose last year by £100 million)
tim - talk about shooting yourself in the foot or indeed ignoring the comments on this thread highlighting actually figures now show the deficit fell by £2.1bn
but if you want to say it went up £100m in the face of facts on posts on exactly the same thread..... that's a challenging approach to your being taken seriously!
If the health-fascist lobbyists within Labour think smoking is an evil, why didn't they ban it? Or perhaps that's the next step? There's something deeply unattractive about a certain puritanical strain on the left who want to make everything either illegal or compulsory (as long as they can write the list of what's on each).
Conservative principles would support freedom of choice, personal responsibility and accountability for an individual's actions. If people want to smoke, fine - but they should do so in the knowledge of what it is likely to do to them and they shouldn't complain if that then does happen. There is an argument against inflicting that smoke on third parties but providing the regulations against that aren't too draconian, that's fair enough. If smoking is to be legal, then it surely makes sense for the industry to be both properly regulated from manufacture to sale, which ought to include consumers being able to readily identify the manufacturer.
I think that the health lobby's view (not just Labour's) is to make cigarette smoking as boring and unattractive as is consistent with public acceptance - banning them altogether would clearly fail the latter test and result in wholesale evasion a la prohibition.
But if there was a proposal to introduce cigarettes now, knowing that they on average appear to reduce life expectancy by 10 years, would you favour it on Conservative principles? If yes, do you also favour legalising anything personally dangerous - heroin, asbestos, medications with massive side-effects, dodgy consumer products - so long as the danger is well-described? If not, why do you disagree with chipping away at the ways that fags are made more attractive? (It's possible to argue that plain packaging doesn't have that effect, but the vehemence of the industry on the issue suggests that they fear otherwise.)
At anecdotal level, I had a friend (Richard Sharp, author of the seminal book for gamers, The Game of Diplomacy, available in full at http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm ) who used to go on about health fascism. He died of lung cancer in middle age, and wryly admitted that the health fascists were probably factually correct, though he didn't say if it had changed his mind in principle.
As Sarah Woolaston is repeatedly saying how can you say you are serious about health when you go back on an announced policy that would cut down on smoking and the avoidable deaths that it causes.
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
So why don't Labour ever mention the economy. With the disaster you seem to think (and no doubt hope) is going to occur it seems a no-brainer to go on this. Then again perhaps their grasp of economics isn't quite as superficial as your own?
Surely the "I told you so" argument will be pretty powerful come the election. Imagine if the Tories had constantly warned of the impending economic collapse under Gordon Brown. Far more benefit in that than talking about plain packaging.
As someone who has lost lung capacity after two pulmonary embolisms I am ultra sensitive to smoke and I can find even by other people outdoor smoking quiite hard to deal with.
I only started going back into pubs again when the smoking ban came in. Well done to the politicians of whatever party who supported it. Shame on those who didn't
Re health fascists - I heard an intv with an NHS policy bod for a Manchester trust saying he'd be proud to implement a city wide ban on smoking even in public places/outside.
I just recoiled at his self-righteous and Puritanical attitude. I got the distinct impression he'd be keen on inspecting my fridge contents as well and fining me/insisting on re-education for non-compliance.
I can't bear the smell of smoke even walking behind someone with a lit fag in the street will make me move out of the way - but its legal and until its illegal - it's something people have the freedom to do.
I worked in offices that in the 80s were the definition of *smoke filled rooms* and needed pub ionisers installed as they were revolting and frankly impossible to endure.
My best friend died of lung cancer and lived in the Smoking Room where he got the best gossip/hung outside in freezing rain when it was shut.
Making someone else ingest your habit needed to be stopped - a la Roy Castle, but plain packaging is nothing to do with this at all.
@patrickwintour Ashcroft polling Unite members asking how many wld opt in to political fund. Currently they must opt out, and how many join Labour. Out Tues
@EdConwaySky: Help to Buy is either an awful economic blunder or a political ploy to inflate house prices. Or both. My Times piece: http://t.co/FvAm4eEWN8
Perhaps Mr Conway should have used his interview time with GO to ask about this rather than bleat on and on about the important macro economic question of which class of train travel he preferred ?
I realise you think that the priority for the state at the moment is to subsidise people buying or remortgaging £600,000 houses to get a housing bubble going.
Inflation is good, especially house price inflation. And especially when it's taxpayer subsidised.
Thats your motto
So why don't Labour ever mention the economy. With the disaster you seem to think (and no doubt hope) is going to occur it seems a no-brainer to go on this. Then again perhaps their grasp of economics isn't quite as superficial as your own?
Surely the "I told you so" argument will be pretty powerful come the election. Imagine if the Tories had constantly warned of the impending economic collapse under Gordon Brown. Far more benefit in that than talking about plain packaging.
It would help if there was some evidence to support plain packaging reducing take up, however Labour seem convinced there is none:
“There is no evidence base that [plain packaging]actually reduces the number of young children smoking.” Alan Johnson Secretary of State for Health, House of Commons, 16 December 2008
“As yet, no studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the number of young people smoking or enable people who want to quit to do so.” Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, letter, 9 November 2009
@david_herdson@Plato Honestly I think you are totally OTT on this. There is no shibboleth here. You already accept controls on cigarette advertising and packaging.
I can't see any costs financial, liberty or otherwise of removing one last refuge of cigarette marketing. If it doesn't work by all reverse it. But it has to be worth a try. It's effectively a cost free measure.
A classic conservative "nudge".
Given that the Australians are kindly running a huge-scale trial of the policy for us, free of charge, doesn't it make sense to wait to see what effect it actually has?
Chris Leslie, Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, said: "With borrowing now confirmed as rising last year, these figures are another damaging blow to George Osborne's economic credibility."
"The Govt's own forecasts are that deficit reduction has stalled for the three years 11/12,12/13,13/14 Give or take a couple of hundred million one way or another (it rose last year by £100 million)"
tim and chris leslie - sticky wicket for their credibility?
And what is the polling to show that Andy Coulson shifted a single vote at GE2010? Or any other time?
Or Bernie Ecclestone? Or Michael Brown or in fact any micro Village story? It may contribute 0.0001% to a sleaze angle - but the world has moved on hugely since Neil Hamilton and £2k in a brown envelop for just *asking* a question. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/542252.stm
How quaint that seems today compared to Taxis For Hire, Cash4Peerages and the PM invt by Scotland Yard et al.
@david_herdson@Plato Honestly I think you are totally OTT on this. There is no shibboleth here. You already accept controls on cigarette advertising and packaging.
I can't see any costs financial, liberty or otherwise of removing one last refuge of cigarette marketing. If it doesn't work by all reverse it. But it has to be worth a try. It's effectively a cost free measure.
A classic conservative "nudge".
Given that the Australians are kindly running a huge-scale trial of the policy for us, free of charge, doesn't it make sense to wait to see what effect it actually has?
No. Different culture. Zero cost from starting now.
the BBC confirms this so Chris and tim should accept it now perhaps?
"The ONS shaved the total borrowing figure for 2012-13 down to £116.5bn, meaning that total borrowing last year - excluding the flattering but one-off effect of the Royal Mail pension transfer - did actually fall, by £2.1bn, from the year before according to the latest estimate.
Previous revisions to the data released in May had indicated that borrowing in 2012-13 had risen slightly from the year before."
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
Mike, that is absolutely ridiculous. What sleaze?
Link please: where is the evidence that there is the slightest scintilla of impropriety in this decision (which is, BTW, not to abandon the proposal, but to wait a bit longer to see the evidence from Australia)?
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
Surely the policy that no political party has come up with is:how can you discourage/stop children from taking up smoking?
Do you restrict sale of any form of tobacco to licensed tobacconists only where a specific ID has to be shown? But ID is used in the US for alcohol and is easily forged or got around.
Perhaps you just have to be brutal and visually shock them at a young age regarding the consequences of smoking. Any ideas?
Ofcourse the cost of the Mohammedian-cults propensity to crime, sexual-abuse and murder of Her Majesty's finest is a "positive" attribute to HMRC...! Time to bleach the 5cum from the bowl....
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
It matters not one jot to me if people want to smoke or drink themselves to death. We are all aware of the massive Health warnings that various Governments have been running for years, if drinkers and smokers choose to ignore it then that is entirely their choice.
the BBC confirms this so Chris and tim should accept it now perhaps?
"The ONS shaved the total borrowing figure for 2012-13 down to £116.5bn, meaning that total borrowing last year - excluding the flattering but one-off effect of the Royal Mail pension transfer - did actually fall, by £2.1bn, from the year before according to the latest estimate.
Previous revisions to the data released in May had indicated that borrowing in 2012-13 had risen slightly from the year before."
Hang on, aren't you the bloke that was arguing that a scheme in Canada on minimum alcohol pricing had worked and Cameron was following it?
How long do you want to give the "research" in Australia?
Yes, indeed, the Canadian evidence on minimum alcohol pricing was very relevant to the argument, but, as I said at the time, if it was my decision I wouldn't try to introduce it - too much political hassle. Looks like Cameron has come round to my view.
I'd have thought a year or two would be sensible to evaluate the Australian experience.
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
Mike, that is absolutely ridiculous. What sleaze?
Link please: where is the evidence that there is the slightest scintilla of impropriety in this decision (which is, BTW, not to abandon the proposal, but to wait a bit longer to see the evidence from Australia)?
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
I've yet to hear the LDs complaining about the EU's tobacco growing subsidies.
Curious that OGH chose to go on holiday to one of the countries in Europe with massively high cigarette consumption..no plain packaging there and cigs are in plain view in the tobacco shops.Sleazy Italians
@david_herdson@Plato Honestly I think you are totally OTT on this. There is no shibboleth here. You already accept controls on cigarette advertising and packaging.
I can't see any costs financial, liberty or otherwise of removing one last refuge of cigarette marketing. If it doesn't work by all reverse it. But it has to be worth a try. It's effectively a cost free measure.
A classic conservative "nudge".
I'm relatively sceptical about the prohibition of cigarette advertising. Clearly any advertising should be regulated and appropriate to its location if physical / virtual, or timing if electronic, and the potential audiences. I have no problem at all with the packages containing warnings about health risks.
Surely the policy that no political party has come up with is:how can you discourage/stop children from taking up smoking?
Do you restrict sale of any form of tobacco to licensed tobacconists only where a specific ID has to be shown? But ID is used in the US for alcohol and is easily forged or got around.
Perhaps you just have to be brutal and visually shock them at a young age regarding the consequences of smoking. Any ideas?
As we discussed the other day - perhaps only shock tactics will work.
Seeing the lungs of some poor soul in a Biology class? A seminar with a terminal patient? Kids think they won't die and most of us never contemplate it as a possibility until well into middle-age.
Soldiers and those involved in most violent crime are youngsters for a reason. If you really think you're at risk of dying - you won't do it.
Do the contents of your fringe impact on anyone else?
At least if you're going to get all angry about something try and make your comparisons apt. If you walked around chucking the contents of your fridge into someone elses face you'd be prosecuted.
Now I'm sure Philip Davies wants some people to have to work in bars with smoke blown into their faces (at below minimum wage if they have a disability, that's his policy too) but you and he lost this one a long long time ago.
This argument holds if you want to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces. It does not hold if you are simply setting out to use coercive measures to reduce the incidence of smoking.
"In 2010 Mr Jenkin urged Mr Cameron to form a minority government and try his luck with a maintenance and supply arrangement. “He disregarded that advice and the consequence has been a relatively paralysed administration.” He says a Conservative majority is needed to do the hard work on the deficit that the Coalition – to his mind – has failed to do. Next time though, if a majority is not available, and Mr Cameron is denied a free hand by the Lib Dems, then he should seek to lead a minority government. “If we cannot secure an agreement with a coalition partner that gives us freedom to address the things that are holding the country back, including relations with the EU, if we can't deregulate, increase incentives and liberate the economy to grow faster, well, then we should be in opposition. Because we need a clear mandate or accept that we've lost the election.”
This time, however, the parliamentary party should be “properly consulted”. If it is “it will be much harder for the leadership to bounce us into an agreement like they did last time”. Last time MPs had no experience, and most of them were new anyway. “This time he will be dealing with coalition hardened veterans who are going to be much more wary.” "
@RichardNabavi I've seen it all. A Tory advocating copying EU partners. You'll have us in the Euro by Tuesday.
You can add the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Switzerland to the list of countries not as yet doing this if it makes you happier. That Crosby fellow must get around.
Nonsense. Schools are just being given greater choice about how they teach PSHE. Any school should be able to do this without state direction. It's a pretty basic part of the job. Teachers may find it awkward because it is. So there needs to be advise and support from colleagues within the school. This is actually a good idea.
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
Mike, that is absolutely ridiculous. What sleaze?
Link please: where is the evidence that there is the slightest scintilla of impropriety in this decision (which is, BTW, not to abandon the proposal, but to wait a bit longer to see the evidence from Australia)?
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
The cigarette packets in Australia, that Cameron was planning to introduce.
Are you expecting that to put off children once they have the cigarettes in their hand?
Surely the objective is to put them off when they are 9-11 (or younger) and somehow discredit the belief that it is "cool" or "grown-up" to smoke.
You would have to do the same for drugs also. Again little is done to show the consequences of drug abuse - in fact it is glorified by the film, tv and pop "stars".
The Govt's own forecasts are that deficit reduction has stalled for the three years 11/12,12/13,13/14 Give or take a couple of hundred million one way or another (it rose last year by £100 million)
tim - talk about shooting yourself in the foot or indeed ignoring the comments on this thread highlighting actually figures now show the deficit fell by £2.1bn
but if you want to say it went up £100m in the face of facts on posts on exactly the same thread..... that's a challenging approach to your being taken seriously!
I think the head of the OBR told the Treasury select committee that the error bars on the deficit were about +/- £10bn. You are all arguing about differences that are too small to measure accurately.
The big picture is that Osborne missed his deficit-reduction plan, but has decided that it was not as crucial as he first said, arguably because the markets trust that this was a response to a one-off factor [problems in the Eurozone], rather than a change in policy.
Since Welsh and Scottish MPs have less work because the devolved issues are the responsibilities of the Assemblies, a better idea would be to cut their salaries e.g. by 30% to reflect that fact. Gordon Brown is a prime example of what few hours he judges is needed to represent his constituency. And what Labour supporter could argue with Gordon's judgement?
Far better we get out of Westminster and save a lot lot more than 30% of MP's salaries , Westminster is full to overflowing with troughers and hangers on just bleeding us dry and wrecking the country in the process. MP's are grossly overpaid given their results.
Hate to disillusion you malc but the first thing Holyrood MSPs will do will be vote themselves a pay rise for all the extra responsibilities they have. Irish TDs earn 92K Euros.
Alan , at least we will not be paying for all the jumped up Lords and thousands of hangers on , even with excess they will be limited on how much they can spend compared to Westminster
Ya think ? An Indy Scotland would also need a second chamber, just about every democracy has one.
Alan, would not be hordes involved all supping and filling their pockets though , Westminster is a gravy train for shysters and hangers on, only the EU has bigger troughs
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
Mike, that is absolutely ridiculous. What sleaze?
Link please: where is the evidence that there is the slightest scintilla of impropriety in this decision (which is, BTW, not to abandon the proposal, but to wait a bit longer to see the evidence from Australia)?
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
Sorry, but piffle - Labour had Tom Watson and he can't be called a shrinking violet. What difference did his Idee Fixe with NInt and Coulson have in the end even after uber fuss making in the media from their rivals?
Nowt apparently given Labour's lead is now 5pts and Tom Watson only resigned a week ago.
Comments
It didn't change out of the blue - all barnacle policies are being scraped off.
P**n filters
plain packets
minimum pricing
all women golf commentary teams
etc.
Another reason the lefties are peeved - they can't get all pasty tax on the fringe stuff.
Given I'm all for the NHS being treated like HMRC, DWP or the DLVA - anything that helps us to objectively assess the NHS' performance is good to me. And it not being the *property* of any one Party is the start.
It seems that the Labour party have come up with their own rallying call to the nation "Woodbines, Crosby and the golf club".
Risible stuff from an opposition utterly defeated on the big economic questions of the day.
Public sector net borrowing in June 2013 (excl. financial interventions and APF transfers) was £12.4bn bit.ly/111W5UT #ons
ONS @statisticsONS
SMEs account for nearly 90% of workplaces in London but only 42% of employees bit.ly/15rW78e
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPhgfvuCcAAWf9n.jpg:large
The question is simply why has this govt's policy changed.
Evil lobbyist, only explanation.
Of the 99.6 per cent of respondents who voiced their opinion through co-ordinated campaigns, nearly two-thirds opposed plain packaging. That, surely, is the relevant figure..." http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/ Chris Snowden is a Fellow at Adam Smith Inst and well worth reading re stats on this and other stuff.
Either that or often they get presents which you KNOW are unwanted Christmas presents.. mostly bath salts or somesuch..
This, from 2008, seems relevant
http://www.cityunslicker.com/2008/10/i-see-no-hips.html
Lansley knew it was wrong, Soubry is all for it - big blackmark for her from me here.
The world didn't end when cigarette advertising went. I guess you want that back if this is a point of Conservative principle.
Public sector net borrowing excluding financial interventions fell by £3.4 billion to £8.5 billion in June
If you didn't know what packet a cigarette came in = how would you know? Are you going to take up smoking because B&H are in a gold box compared to the silver and black of L&B? You won't even see these on the pub table as its banned everywhere anyway.
It's a complete red herring - boxes are already covered with SMOKING MAKES YOU IMPOTENT AND YOU'LL DIE warnings - how will having that on a brown paper wrapper make it more effective?
If HMG want to discourage smoking raise the age at which you can buy it, prosecute vigorously who sell to those underage or ban it and get the NHS to give out nicotine patches for free.
This silly fiddling about it precisely that - fiddling about and it profoundly nannying which is why I'm against it. I know you think a single death from smoking is appalling - but until its illegal, people make choices to do it.
Osborne's reduction in the 50% tax rate shows the benefit-no one would have flinched if Labour had done the same but because it was the Tories they lost between 5 and 10% support that they haven't got back.
Fat cats looking after themselves and their supporters at a time of austerity feeds every prejudice voters have about them. An Achilles Heel that the Tories can do little about and one that Labour have to work on.
Labour mustn't allow this USP to disappear into the long grass while Ed tries to prove his leadership qualities. When push comes to shove and with the right prompting not being Tory is enough to win Ed the next election.
To this end an onslaught on 'second jobs' is tailor made.
It is also somewhat easier to be so generous and helpful when you are not forced to turn up to your actual day job and the tax payer helps fund your travel....
Conservative principles would support freedom of choice, personal responsibility and accountability for an individual's actions. If people want to smoke, fine - but they should do so in the knowledge of what it is likely to do to them and they shouldn't complain if that then does happen. There is an argument against inflicting that smoke on third parties but providing the regulations against that aren't too draconian, that's fair enough. If smoking is to be legal, then it surely makes sense for the industry to be both properly regulated from manufacture to sale, which ought to include consumers being able to readily identify the manufacturer.
(1) The bars and restaurants are not free, or now notably subsidised. I always pay more for lunch when I visit the Commons than when I go to my local fast food joint, and I don't notice the quality being much different. It's at most a marginal issue.
(2) The reason debates are largely deserted is 95% related to the way the Commons works. If you go to a debate with a view to contributing, you're expected to sit through most of the 4-5 hours - to be precise, all the front bench speeches, nearly all the speeches before yours, the two after yours and the wind-up speeches at the end. There is no guarantee that you'll be called. If you're called, you can reasonably expect a polite one-sentence reference in the wind-ups , but no other impact (other than whatever media stuff you choose to put out). If the European Parliament system was used - you register a slot to speak, you're guaranteed the time, and you don't have to sit there for five hours - it'd be very different.
Therefore, what most MPs do is work in their offices with the monitors on - that enables them to follow the debate when something interesting is being said and otherwise get on with correspondence, research or whatever else they're doing.
(3) They do start late, but then they go on till after 7 or after 10, depending on the day.
The problem is not that MPs are lazy - some are, most aren't. The problem is that normally the only way to achieve influence is through unofficial (and hence invisible to the public) channels - talking to the people who make decisions. If we channelled that more publicly, e.g. through the method I suggested of getting proposals considered by Select Committees if they got a majority, it'd be more obvious that they were doing the job. But sitting through debates all afternoon to maybe get a few sentences in is not the answer.
Now you think this other govt backed scheme will somehow be so successful that it will suck all the money out of the global economy causing the price of South Sea tulips to triple invert resulting in the FTSE to go negative.
Your faith in GO's powers must be flattering to him.
In any case, Ed's proposal makes zero sense even in its own terms. If he was really concerned about MPs not devoting enough time to their constituency and parliamentary duties, his proposals would be about hours, not remuneration.
Government borrowing down in June
.......three months into the fiscal year, the government remains on course to reduce the budget deficit in line with its forecasts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23372309
Public Sector Finances this morning and borrowing is down, down, down.
The bulletin contains the fourth revision to fiscal year 2012-13 borrowing figures. Public Sector Net Borrowing excluding financial interventions (and PO Pension assets & etc & etc) at year end was £116.5 billion. This revision means PSNB ex was £2.1 billion lower than in 2011/12. Reduction was due to increased tax receipts.
Remember last month when earlier years were revised down leaving a very small uptick in borrowing last year? Boom. Boom. Gone now, tim! Borrowing back to being down in every year this parliament.
Actual year end borrowing PSNB ex was £82.7 billion (i.e. including all the gold found down the back of the sofa but still excluding bank bailouts) meaning that net borrowing fell by £35.8 bn over the year from £118.5 bn.
Borrowing figures for June 2013 were also good, PSNB ex was £8.5 billion, some £3.4 billion lower than in June 2012 when it was £11.9 billion.
This continues the trend this year of borrowing being reduced by around £3 billion per month.
On the big numbers Public Sector Net Debt (excludng bank bail outs) rose to just over £1,200 billion or 74.9% of GDP (from 71.6% in 2012), a rise of £84 bn. Total PSND including bailouts was £2,232.bn up £100 bn from £2,132.8 at end June 2012, a rise of £100.0 bn taking total net debt from 136.5% to 139.1% of GDP.
So the conclusion is that deficit reduction is progressing at a cracking rate but there is still a long, long way to go before net borrowing goes into surplus and the debt figures start falling.
Re health fascists - I heard an intv with an NHS policy bod for a Manchester trust saying he'd be proud to implement a city wide ban on smoking even in public places/outside.
I just recoiled at his self-righteous and Puritanical attitude. I got the distinct impression he'd be keen on inspecting my fridge contents as well and fining me/insisting on re-education for non-compliance.
•In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions and also excluding the effects of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund was £116.5 billion. This is £2.1 billion lower than in 2011/12.
2010/11 - 139bn
2011/12 - 118.5bn
2012/13 - 116.5bn
You focus on the areas which you think will most benefit you at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23353996
And another wheel comes off the electric car bandwagon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23143786
I can't see any costs financial, liberty or otherwise of removing one last refuge of cigarette marketing. If it doesn't work by all reverse it. But it has to be worth a try. It's effectively a cost free measure.
A classic conservative "nudge".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22999023
Chris Leslie, Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, said: "With borrowing now confirmed as rising last year, these figures are another damaging blow to George Osborne's economic credibility."
...which is why he wants to ban successful business people from standing as Labour MPs
Oh, wait...
Introduce a timesheet system where MPs have to specify what they have been working on, and when. Many private-sector companies have such systems so that time spent can be allocated to different projects. If we have to do it, so should MPs.
Publicise all this information. In particular, items like constituency surgeries and attendance of select committees should be of interest.
It is perfectly possible to work as an MP in parliament, do constituency work and have other interests, especially if their family commitments are not onerous. After all, we all work hard and have hobbies, don't we?
When an election comes by, let the voters use the information to decide if their MP is working hard enough for them.
One moment we complain that MPs are out of touch, the next that they have perfectly legal outside interests. They cannot win. The last thing we need are political wonks whose only experience are the hangers-on and lobbyists in parliament.
Such a scheme might have shamed people like Stuart Bell, who did not hold any constituency surgeries for 14 years, despite his perma-presence on TV whenever a talking head was needed.
(Edited for typos)
EdM doesn't have much of a puddle to fish in and so is diverting desperately onto Unknown Australian Employed By CCHQ and MP Second Jobs.
Vote winners - both of them. Honest.
Can OGH, Junior or PtP confirm that the counter-party to my FY2013 bet has paid-up?
Chahs,
* Effective target was £120billion. Excluded from bet were QE-transfers and the Royal-Mail Pension-Fund. All figures were based upon the as-known (and not revised FY2012 - June '13) parameters....
I only started going back into pubs again when the smoking ban came in. Well done to the politicians of whatever party who supported it. Shame on those who didn't
tim - talk about shooting yourself in the foot or indeed ignoring the comments on this thread highlighting actually figures now show the deficit fell by £2.1bn
but if you want to say it went up £100m in the face of facts on posts on exactly the same thread..... that's a challenging approach to your being taken seriously!
But if there was a proposal to introduce cigarettes now, knowing that they on average appear to reduce life expectancy by 10 years, would you favour it on Conservative principles? If yes, do you also favour legalising anything personally dangerous - heroin, asbestos, medications with massive side-effects, dodgy consumer products - so long as the danger is well-described? If not, why do you disagree with chipping away at the ways that fags are made more attractive? (It's possible to argue that plain packaging doesn't have that effect, but the vehemence of the industry on the issue suggests that they fear otherwise.)
At anecdotal level, I had a friend (Richard Sharp, author of the seminal book for gamers, The Game of Diplomacy, available in full at http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm ) who used to go on about health fascism. He died of lung cancer in middle age, and wryly admitted that the health fascists were probably factually correct, though he didn't say if it had changed his mind in principle.
No it didn't
How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h467wqdgkd/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-180713-Lynton-Crosby.pdf
I worked in offices that in the 80s were the definition of *smoke filled rooms* and needed pub ionisers installed as they were revolting and frankly impossible to endure.
My best friend died of lung cancer and lived in the Smoking Room where he got the best gossip/hung outside in freezing rain when it was shut.
Making someone else ingest your habit needed to be stopped - a la Roy Castle, but plain packaging is nothing to do with this at all.
:phone-a-friend-[snigger]:
What will it be like in May 2015?
I remember making the same arguments about Coulson in the 2009/11 period. I was as you will be.
Ashcroft polling Unite members asking how many wld opt in to political fund. Currently they must opt out, and how many join Labour. Out Tues
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5rt6ma97cr/YG-Archive-primary-school-assessments-results-180713.pdf
Support for testing at 11 (62:21) but more evenly split on ranking by decile: (41:32)
Of themselves, 18% reckon they would have been in the top 10%.......16% the second decile, 18% the third.....only 1% reckon the bottom decile.
It would help if there was some evidence to support plain packaging reducing take up, however Labour seem convinced there is none:
“There is no evidence base that [plain packaging]actually reduces the number of young children smoking.” Alan Johnson Secretary of State for Health, House of Commons, 16 December 2008
“As yet, no studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the number of young people smoking or enable people who want to quit to do so.” Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, letter, 9 November 2009
"The Govt's own forecasts are that deficit reduction has stalled for the three years 11/12,12/13,13/14
Give or take a couple of hundred million one way or another (it rose last year by £100 million)"
tim and chris leslie - sticky wicket for their credibility?
There are obviously some differences with the Coulson story. Do you really think Crosby is going to achieve the same level of prominence?
Wishful thinking
Or Bernie Ecclestone? Or Michael Brown or in fact any micro Village story? It may contribute 0.0001% to a sleaze angle - but the world has moved on hugely since Neil Hamilton and £2k in a brown envelop for just *asking* a question. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/542252.stm
How quaint that seems today compared to Taxis For Hire, Cash4Peerages and the PM invt by Scotland Yard et al.
"The ONS shaved the total borrowing figure for 2012-13 down to £116.5bn, meaning that total borrowing last year - excluding the flattering but one-off effect of the Royal Mail pension transfer - did actually fall, by £2.1bn, from the year before according to the latest estimate.
Previous revisions to the data released in May had indicated that borrowing in 2012-13 had risen slightly from the year before."
Link please: where is the evidence that there is the slightest scintilla of impropriety in this decision (which is, BTW, not to abandon the proposal, but to wait a bit longer to see the evidence from Australia)?
I'd also be interested in your explanation of why 26 out of the other 27 EU countries have so far also not gone ahead on similar measures. Is that Tory sleaze as well, or is perhaps possible that they too share doubts about the as-yet unproven merits of the proposal?
Do you restrict sale of any form of tobacco to licensed tobacconists only where a specific ID has to be shown? But ID is used in the US for alcohol and is easily forged or got around.
Perhaps you just have to be brutal and visually shock them at a young age regarding the consequences of smoking. Any ideas?
Ofcourse the cost of the Mohammedian-cults propensity to crime, sexual-abuse and murder of Her Majesty's finest is a "positive" attribute to HMRC...! Time to bleach the 5cum from the bowl....
Tory sleaze. Only explanation.
QED
I'd have thought a year or two would be sensible to evaluate the Australian experience.
Seeing the lungs of some poor soul in a Biology class? A seminar with a terminal patient? Kids think they won't die and most of us never contemplate it as a possibility until well into middle-age.
Soldiers and those involved in most violent crime are youngsters for a reason. If you really think you're at risk of dying - you won't do it.
"How many extra people will die because of Tory sleaze?"
.................................................................
It's a government policy Mike. So is it LibDem sleaze too ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100227193/nigel-farage-is-a-great-excuse-to-ditch-the-tv-debates/
"In 2010 Mr Jenkin urged Mr Cameron to form a minority government and try his luck with a maintenance and supply arrangement. “He disregarded that advice and the consequence has been a relatively paralysed administration.” He says a Conservative majority is needed to do the hard work on the deficit that the Coalition – to his mind – has failed to do. Next time though, if a majority is not available, and Mr Cameron is denied a free hand by the Lib Dems, then he should seek to lead a minority government. “If we cannot secure an agreement with a coalition partner that gives us freedom to address the things that are holding the country back, including relations with the EU, if we can't deregulate, increase incentives and liberate the economy to grow faster, well, then we should be in opposition. Because we need a clear mandate or accept that we've lost the election.”
This time, however, the parliamentary party should be “properly consulted”. If it is “it will be much harder for the leadership to bounce us into an agreement like they did last time”. Last time MPs had no experience, and most of them were new anyway. “This time he will be dealing with coalition hardened veterans who are going to be much more wary.” "
Well, if you will bring up character:
Ed Miliband
Strong leader : 12
Weak leader : 46
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zinooici1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-120713.pdf
Your Oz has upped the ante and make no mistake the other parties will compete.
Politics is dirty. Remember how the NO campaign linked AV to cancer patients.
Surely the objective is to put them off when they are 9-11 (or younger) and somehow discredit the belief that it is "cool" or "grown-up" to smoke.
You would have to do the same for drugs also. Again little is done to show the consequences of drug abuse - in fact it is glorified by the film, tv and pop "stars".
Do men still have fringes? Even when bestowed with full head of hair?
I can't recall the last time I saw a chap with one that didn't look like a poor sap who's mother cut his hair or a paedo.
That reminds me of this tweet from Ed West that made me LOL
Ed West @edwestonline
This summer smart casual look Ive gone for definitively has an elderly sex tourist air to it. all I need is the panama hat
The big picture is that Osborne missed his deficit-reduction plan, but has decided that it was not as crucial as he first said, arguably because the markets trust that this was a response to a one-off factor [problems in the Eurozone], rather than a change in policy.
Nowt apparently given Labour's lead is now 5pts and Tom Watson only resigned a week ago.