There isn't anything very unexpected in any of these figures, other than finding out that 19% of the public are mad enough to believe that failings on the ground in some hospital trusts are primarily the responsibility of the last government. You'd have to be pretty partisan to believe that was even conceivable.
JohnO disagrees about the economy - he reckons that if it gradually recovers then there will be a substantial swing. Perhaps. The thing is that people don't feel that any of the parties have a brilliant plan on the economy, and they tend to ascribe both the downturn and any upturn alike to global conditions (they're probably about 75% right, too). If you quiz them they'll give a variety of answers - it was Gordon, it's Osborne, it's both, dunno - but it's not uppermost in their minds. (Equally, Labour isn't really succeeding in making people feel that everything is crap because of Osborne.)
If voters were personally doing really well it might help, but they're not - they've been taking real wage cuts for years and are just hanging on to jobs. News that GDP is up 2.1% or whatever by 2015 will leave the swing voters (yes, largely those left-wing LibDems) pretty cold.
GDP numbers alone won't swing many votes, that's why I would expect there to be some pre-election goodies to lighten the mood.
More likely to be Tory promises to make tax cuts should they win in 2015. For there to actually be cuts before an election the Tories and LDs will have to agree how they are going to be paid for. Given what the LDs have said about welfare spending and the promsises the Tories have made on the NHS, aid and pensioner benefits in this parliament there does not look to be much wriggle room.
ya think ? More likely the coalition has already made some budget room for goodies to reward voters for their patience and say hang in there. I'd go for more raising of tax thresholds and maybe something energy related.
Good morning. Below is the sad story of Detroit's decline and fall. For Democrats read Lab/Lib/Con to prevent the same happening here. Oh, I nearly forgot the NHS and other sundry public bodies.
As I've said before - if Labour and the LDs want to talk about Mr Crosby, let them - the more they do that, the less they talk about education, health, jobs and the economy which is what everyone bar a handful of activists and Guardian readers who'd never vote Tory in a million years care about.
If anyone can show that a Get Lynton strategy will shift a single vote - I'll be astonished. And similarly, the Tories aren't going to sack him as he's clearly scaring the crap out of Labour right now :^ )
So all in all, its a bit of a win-win for the Tories.
As things stand, Labour does not need to shift a single vote. If things stay as they are they will be back in power in 2015.
but things won't stay as they are, they never do.
They never have in the past, but we have never had a coalition before. Labour regularly began to hit 35% in the polls in July 2010, two months after the GE and at a time when the Tories had a poll lead, the coalition had a plus approval rating, no cuts had been made and no legislaiton had been introduced. Its polling range has been the most consistent of all the parties. That has never happened before either.
well things never stay the same, the Labour lead could increase, however its more likely it will drop back and the blues will recover with the economy, it still says a HP atm and suddenly everyone will be agreeing with Nick again ...though Ed may have to eat a few crows first.
Yup, the hung parliament scenario looks the most likely. Dave, of course, has promised that there will be an EU referendum in 2017 if he is the PM. I wonder what Nick will think of that.
he won't like it and will demand a quid pro quo, probably something equally as fun to the blues.
Indeed. That plus Dave having failed again to get a majority and campaigning to stay in the EU should there be a vote will surely cheer up the Tory right.
If they're in government and Labour isn't, why wouldn't it ?
'nobody sets up photo ops with bereaved relatives like Dave" Good job Blair didn't do that in Iraq, he would still be there..lots and lots of bereaved relatives there, but so messy with all that blood.
JohnO disagrees about the economy - he reckons that if it gradually recovers then there will be a substantial swing. Perhaps. The thing is that people don't feel that any of the parties have a brilliant plan on the economy, and they tend to ascribe both the downturn and any upturn alike to global conditions (they're probably about 75% right, too). If you quiz them they'll give a variety of answers - it was Gordon, it's Osborne, it's both, dunno - but it's not uppermost in their minds. (Equally, Labour isn't really succeeding in making people feel that everything is crap because of Osborne.)
If voters were personally doing really well it might help, but they're not - they've been taking real wage cuts for years and are just hanging on to jobs. News that GDP is up 2.1% or whatever by 2015 will leave the swing voters (yes, largely those left-wing LibDems) pretty cold.
GDP numbers alone won't swing many votes, that's why I would expect there to be some pre-election goodies to lighten the mood.
More likely to be Tory promises to make tax cuts should they win in 2015. For there to actually be cuts before an election the Tories and LDs will have to agree how they are going to be paid for. Given what the LDs have said about welfare spending and the promsises the Tories have made on the NHS, aid and pensioner benefits in this parliament there does not look to be much wriggle room.
ya think ? More likely the coalition has already made some budget room for goodies to reward voters for their patience and say hang in there. I'd go for more raising of tax thresholds and maybe something energy related.
Thresholds most likely I'd have thought. I was thinking more about tax cuts. Those would be difficult to find. To be effective any goodies would have to be more than symbolic. I think that will be impossible. But we'll see.
"Cut from "wide-ranging" interview with Cameron and the first thing Sophie Raworth wants to talk about is Lynton ruddy Crosby. And people wonder why most of us are turned off politics."
Well Sophie did say opening the show that it was going the PM`s way stating level pegging with Labour in the polls. Hardly unhelpful.
'What is so dismaying is that hopes that investment and exports would lead recovery have been completely dashed. Instead the British are returning to what they are best at – running down their savings and borrowing enormous mortgages, partially guaranteed by the state under the Help to Buy scheme, to force up house prices.
I did not join the chorus of criticism of Help to Buy when it was launched: it was a clever, time-limited Keynesian use of the public balance sheet to support a distressed part of the economy, and no recovery is conceivable without some rise in house prices rekindling animal spirits and lifting confidence. What was wrong was: to superimpose it upon a market that privileges buyers who want to let rather than own; the Treasury vetoing an extension to lending to business in general; and not recognising that the same Keynesian thinking is needed across the board.'
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the one area the Tories would endorse a kind of Keynesian stimulus would be the housing market.
JohnO disagrees about the economy - he reckons that if it gradually recovers then there will be a substantial swing. Perhaps. The thing is that people don't feel that any of the parties have a brilliant plan on the economy, and they tend to ascribe both the downturn and any upturn alike to global conditions (they're probably about 75% right, too). If you quiz them they'll give a variety of answers - it was Gordon, it's Osborne, it's both, dunno - but it's not uppermost in their minds. (Equally, Labour isn't really succeeding in making people feel that everything is crap because of Osborne.)
If voters were personally doing really well it might help, but they're not - they've been taking real wage cuts for years and are just hanging on to jobs. News that GDP is up 2.1% or whatever by 2015 will leave the swing voters (yes, largely those left-wing LibDems) pretty cold.
Absolutely wrong.
Most voters still blame Labour for the mess. Most voters don't like the medicine but prefer Dr Cameron to Dr Miliband to administer it.
Will swing and differential voters opt for Dr Miliband ? .... No they don't want the economic sh*ts again.
Jackass! you're swearing again. The truth, unpalatable to you it may be, is that the Lab/Lib/Con game is up. More and more voters are realising that the three parties are the same bad wankers making the same bad policies, driving the UK into an ever growing spiral of decline.
More and more voters are seeing Dr. Cameron and equally Drs. Milliband and Clegg as the poisoners they are.
Logic and the Tory right are not regular bedfellows. To get the LDs to wave through an EU referendum in 2017 Cameron is going to have to give a lot of ground elsewhere. Personally, I'd be all for it - the more say the LDs have in a Tory/LD coalition the better - but I am not sure that I am typical of right wing Tory MPs (or party members). I'd hazard that such concessions, plus seeing their party leader campaign alongside Labour and the LDs to remain in the EU, will take a lot of swallowing - especially if the In side wins. But we will have to see.
9, 5, 6, 6, 8 is, I think the joint-lowest Lab lead since the 2012 budget. Notable still is the fact that there are very few 2010 Con > 2013 Lab switchers (and there are some the other way, reducing the net effect further). Whilst ex-LibDem votes can see Labour over the line, it's a different mechanism to what we're used to and to what campaign HQs are used to.
Hospitals clearly bear responsibility for the care of their patients. Although I feel that mistakes were made by the last government, these aren't to the exclusion of hospital managers, so 19% if anything sounds high.
YouGov say "73% of the public have never heard of, or don’t know anything about, Lynton Crosby" which means the take home message from Labour is more strained, although it clearly still has some impact.
Cut from "wide-ranging" interview with Cameron and the first thing Sophie Raworth wants to talk about is Lynton ruddy Crosby. And people wonder why most of us are turned off politics.
It's not really about Crosby though is it, it's about Cameron's character.
Thresholds most likely I'd have thought. I was thinking more about tax cuts. Those would be difficult to find. To be effective any goodies would have to be more than symbolic. I think that will be impossible. But we'll see.
Tax free threshold put up to the equivalent of 37.5h per week on the national minimum wage, around £12500 in 2015. At least make that a manifesto commitment. How effective it would be is not clear for economic terms, but for political terms it would instantly put the Tories on the side of the working poor and working classes. Exempting people on low incomes from income tax altogether is definitely something the government should look at.
JohnO disagrees about the economy - he reckons that if it gradually recovers then there will be a substantial swing. Perhaps. The thing is that people don't feel that any of the parties have a brilliant plan on the economy, and they tend to ascribe both the downturn and any upturn alike to global conditions (they're probably about 75% right, too). If you quiz them they'll give a variety of answers - it was Gordon, it's Osborne, it's both, dunno - but it's not uppermost in their minds. (Equally, Labour isn't really succeeding in making people feel that everything is crap because of Osborne.)
If voters were personally doing really well it might help, but they're not - they've been taking real wage cuts for years and are just hanging on to jobs. News that GDP is up 2.1% or whatever by 2015 will leave the swing voters (yes, largely those left-wing LibDems) pretty cold.
GDP numbers alone won't swing many votes, that's why I would expect there to be some pre-election goodies to lighten the mood.
JohnO disagrees about the economy - he reckons that if it gradually recovers then there will be a substantial swing. Perhaps. The thing is that people don't feel that any of the parties have a brilliant plan on the economy, and they tend to ascribe both the downturn and any upturn alike to global conditions (they're probably about 75% right, too). If you quiz them they'll give a variety of answers - it was Gordon, it's Osborne, it's both, dunno - but it's not uppermost in their minds. (Equally, Labour isn't really succeeding in making people feel that everything is crap because of Osborne.)
If voters were personally doing really well it might help, but they're not - they've been taking real wage cuts for years and are just hanging on to jobs. News that GDP is up 2.1% or whatever by 2015 will leave the swing voters (yes, largely those left-wing LibDems) pretty cold.
Absolutely wrong.
Most voters still blame Labour for the mess. Most voters don't like the medicine but prefer Dr Cameron to Dr Miliband to administer it.
Will swing and differential voters opt for Dr Miliband ? .... No they don't want the economic sh*ts again.
Jackass! you're swearing again. The truth, unpalatable to you it may be, is that the Lab/Lib/Con game is up. More and more voters are realising that the three parties are the same bad wankers making the same bad policies, driving the UK into an ever growing spiral of decline.
More and more voters are seeing Dr. Cameron and equally Drs. Milliband and Clegg as the poisoners they are.
Unfortunately for you most voters see Farage as a quack and Ukip economic policies, such as they are, as about as much use as patent medicine from a snake oil salesman !!
Cut from "wide-ranging" interview with Cameron and the first thing Sophie Raworth wants to talk about is Lynton ruddy Crosby. And people wonder why most of us are turned off politics.
It's not really about Crosby though is it, it's about Cameron's character.
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
I would prefer to see measures aimed at the further support of people on incomes less than the personal allowance, since a rise would not help them further. The NMW people might be able to suggest a rise, which is an option I think the Tories should take.
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
An increase on Tax Free Income threshold is surely a given?
Given how Cameron has said repeatedly that reducing the deficit as qucikly as possible is the most important thing, reducing taxes and at the same time saying no tax rises as well makes it a difficult sell.
Most reasonable persons would state the 2008 world banking collapse was not caused by Labour.
It was on their watch, but it would have been the same if the Conservatives won in 2005.
Both parties agreed with joining the ERM in 90, when that came apart, the Conservatives took the hit, as Labour will now.
However on both occasions neither party was in a good place to blame the other.
mot reasonable people would agree the scale of the banking collapse in the UK would have been much smaller if Labour had taken their role as banking regulator seriously.
you're still re-writing history and you still won't apologise, it's why you're not fit to govern.
I would prefer to see measures aimed at the further support of people on incomes less than the personal allowance, since a rise would not help them further. The NMW people might be able to suggest a rise, which is an option I think the Tories should take.
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
I think Labour will invent 'rich friends' just as they did over 'cheques for millionaires'. It's just par for the course - I'd like to see cuts on business/corp rates - and raising the rate for 40% to take the 'squeezed middle' out where they can.
Aren't the new HMRC tax statements coming in from April as well - with a breakdown on every return re where your taxes are spent?
I would prefer to see measures aimed at the further support of people on incomes less than the personal allowance, since a rise would not help them further. The NMW people might be able to suggest a rise, which is an option I think the Tories should take.
Like reducing VAT perhaps?
Consumption taxes in a wide sense would need to be looked at (where they apply/rates/market effects).
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
Aren't the new HMRC tax statements coming in from April as well - with a breakdown on every return re where your taxes are spent?
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
I think Labour will invent 'rich friends' just as they did over 'cheques for millionaires'. It's just par for the course - I'd like to see cuts on business/corp rates - and raising the rate for 40% to take the 'squeezed middle' out where they can.
Aren't the new HMRC tax statements coming in from April as well - with a breakdown on every return re where your taxes are spent?
As we know from the IPSOS-MORI study, people are about a million miles off knowing where their money goes. What was it, 22% or something, who though overseas aid was in the top 3?
I think "welfare" would be best subdivided though.
"mot reasonable people would agree the scale of the banking collapse in the UK would have been much smaller if Labour had taken their role as banking regulator seriously."
I agree.
However I honestly do not remember the Conservatives at the time asking for greater regulation during this time .
So I stand by my comment is would not have been any different .
And the next tranche of taxpayer subsidised mortgages isn't limited to new build. If you're remortgaging a £600,000 flat Osborne is providing a £120,000 taxpayer subsidised gift.
The maddest policy you could dream up, and even the PB Tories are loathe to defend it, that's how insane it is.
As wrong as wrong can be, tim.
The next stage of the housing and mortgage market stimulus is to replace the equity participation scheme with a guarantee scheme.
Please would you explain how you reached the figure of £120,000 on a £600,000 flat?
Once you have sorted out your figures, perhaps you might like to explain how a 14.25% contingent liability on a funded guarantee can be described a "subsidised gift"?
I trust you will respond quickly and substantively otherwise we might conclude your refusal to answer questions is "all about your character".
Most reasonable persons would state the 2008 world banking collapse was not caused by Labour.
It was on their watch, but it would have been the same if the Conservatives won in 2005.
Both parties agreed with joining the ERM in 90, when that came apart, the Conservatives took the hit, as Labour will now.
However on both occasions neither party was in a good place to blame the other.
My word I've never been "reasonable" at all. I'm far too opinionated and correct all the time and being "bitter and twisted" is a waste of life and most certainly not to be accommodated.
Of course Labour isn't entirely to blame for our economic woes but they must accept responsibility for what they both did and also didn't do - Plenty on the debit side there.
The Coalition must also accept their responsibilities for their policies on their watch. IMO much more on the positive side there.
The voters will decide where the balance sheet lies. For my part I know who I want to remain in charge until 2020.
Aren't the new HMRC tax statements coming in from April as well - with a breakdown on every return re where your taxes are spent?
Detroit suggests that there is a massive battle ahead on public sector pension liabilities. Its this that has broken the city. Wait till tax payers see what they are paying on that here.
Effectively citizens in detroit are having to endure third world conditions in an attempt to make good on pension schemes most of them could only dream of.
The BBC is the next cab off the rank. Are license payers going to stump up to pay its two billion pension deficit? For a scheme that allows executives to retire at 55 on 200 hundred grand a year????
Reporters overheard Keogh apologising to Andy Burnham about the way Keogh’s report had been used as an excuse to attack AB & Labour’s record on the NHS.'
And they just happened to be Guardian journalists,amazing coincidence.
Yup, the hung parliament scenario looks the most likely. Dave, of course, has promised that there will be an EU referendum in 2017 if he is the PM. I wonder what Nick will think of that.
If Dave could stick to timetables, Nick Ferrari or Mike Read would have been the Tories' candidate for London mayor in 2008.
"mot reasonable people would agree the scale of the banking collapse in the UK would have been much smaller if Labour had taken their role as banking regulator seriously."
I agree.
However I honestly do not remember the Conservatives at the time asking for greater regulation during this time .
So I stand by my comment is would not have been any different .
they didn't and Cameron and Osborne were fools to parrot the same line. But nor did they break up the existing regulator to create a toothless policeman in the FSA and nor did they run a structural deficit of 5.2% whilst denying they were running a deficit at all.
As ever Labour just won't face up to its responsibilities and where it went wrong and is trapped in a cul de sac of its own making.
Yup, the hung parliament scenario looks the most likely. Dave, of course, has promised that there will be an EU referendum in 2017 if he is the PM. I wonder what Nick will think of that.
If Dave could stick to timetables, Nick Ferrari or Mike Read would have been the Tories' candidate for London mayor in 2008.
What? Mike Read? The dead actor? Or the sunglasses wearing ancient DJ? Or Nick Ferrari? LBC radio presenter?
I suspect that voters will be more inclined to choose to vote for Tory/Labour to avoid another one. That they may have no idea how best to do this is another matter.
Cameron hinted tax cuts with Marr - if there weren't any, I'd be astonished.
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
Two second tier economic problems will not be solved in this parliamentary term: falls in productivity and real terms standards of living.
Cuts in taxes on income are the best option to start solving both problems in the next parliament.
Rather than relax pay restraints and risk inflationary pressures, the government would be far better to 'reward the country for its sacrifices' by increasing real income through tax cuts.
Linking pay rises and tax cuts to productivity gains and performance would also be a sensible, if difficult to achieve, next move.
By 2015, tax cuts will not be needed as an electoral bribe so much as the next logical and justifiable step in managing the final stages of the economic recovery. Current consumption growth is largely coming from reduced savings ratios. This is a limited source for fuelling future growth and will need fiscal easing to continue.
If anyone's noticed my absence for the last few weeks its been because I decided to take a few weeks away from PB and its hothouse atmosphere.
I can recommned such breaks to others here.
The only time I returned to read a thread or two I was privileged to see Avery still doing his 'comical Ali' routine about the economic stats, Easterross predicting a Conservative majority in 2015 but not bothering to say which were the 20+ constituency gains they would make to achieve this and IOS making unpleasant comments about another PBer and sections of society.
All pretty depressing.
What I'm drawn back to comment about today was a radio 4 discussion about SamCam pressing for British intervention in Syria. An aspect which the Times had reported earlier last week.
Now to 'boho princesses' Syrian intervention might be this season's touchy-feely fashionable cause. But to the poor buggers who would get sent there it would mean trying to stop a religious civil war where one side is backed by Hizbollah and Iran and the other by Al Qaeda and the Saudis.
As far as I'm concerned the Syrians and their backers can kill each other until the end of time. At least while they're doing that they're less of a threat to us.
Reporters overheard Keogh apologising to Andy Burnham about the way Keogh’s report had been used as an excuse to attack AB & Labour’s record on the NHS.'
And they just happened to be Guardian journalists,amazing coincidence.
Or perhaps other reporters may have overheard it but it didn't fit with their newpapers' agendas so they ignored it. I think it's pretty clear what Keogh thinks of the way the government has used his report.
I would prefer to see measures aimed at the further support of people on incomes less than the personal allowance, since a rise would not help them further. The NMW people might be able to suggest a rise, which is an option I think the Tories should take.
Like reducing VAT perhaps?
VAT is a tax on the greedy, the lazy and the stupid.
For example a VAT cut would mean that people who eat grotty takeaway food are rewarded while those who cook healthy, nutritious meals are not.
Yup, the hung parliament scenario looks the most likely. Dave, of course, has promised that there will be an EU referendum in 2017 if he is the PM. I wonder what Nick will think of that.
If Dave could stick to timetables, Nick Ferrari or Mike Read would have been the Tories' candidate for London mayor in 2008.
What? Mike Read? The dead actor? Or the sunglasses wearing ancient DJ? Or Nick Ferrari? LBC radio presenter?
Are you kidding?
No. When nominations first went out for the Conservative candidate, Nick Ferrari was the most prominent "name", so Cameron extended the deadline. By the deadline, Mike Read (the DJ) was in the frame, so the deadline got extended again (I noted this on pb.c at the time but this was in 2007, pre-Disqus even, so can't give the link) - Cameron got lucky third time around with Boris.
I honestly do not remember the Conservatives at the time asking for greater regulation during this time .
So I stand by my comment is would not have been any different .
It is not who said what that matters, YC, but who did what. Just compare the following two tables and the explanation of why Brown made the financial crisis worse will stare you in the face.
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change £ bn % | £ bn % | % % ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
Summary: Brown increased spending in real terms by 15% between 2005-10 all financed by additional borrowing. Osborne will have reduced it by 3% in real terms between 2010-15 and will have reduced borrowing at the same time.
And before you argue that Brown was managing the economy at a time of global crisis, I should warn you the stats for 2001-2005 are even worse and the 2005-2010 figures exclude the costs of bank bailouts.
Good news. Presumably, like with minimum alchohol pricing, Labour are against it in Scotland (because the SNP want it) and for it in England (because the Tories don't) ?
Looking at our leading politicians and why they are not rated by the electorate, one reason may be is that pretty well all of them lack that almost indefinable, but essential for a leader, quality - presence.
This should not be confused with charisma or its near relation, charm, or even physical stature.
A person with presence commands attention when they enter a room and has the ability to get people to do things for them which are often above their self-recognised ability.
I cannot think of any UK current politician I have met who has that quality. BJ has it somewhat but it is heavily overladen with charisma. TM has a steely determination but not really presence.
Margaret T had it, and before her MacMillan had it and so I presume did Churchill (but did not meet him). Frau Merkel has it a bit.
Similarly Fidel C, Mandela, Gorbachev and even the head of the KCB all had it, but I cannot think of a modern US president who had/has it - Kennedy and Clinton had/have charm (enough to charm the pants of you) but not presence.
I still think that if the tories want to win, they will have to show the voters at least a little of the money before the 2015 election.
Promises, especially David Cameron promises, will not secure much.
Beyond "promised" rises in personal allowances and already announced corporation tax reductions, I can't see much change in the tax burden before 2015. A little surprise on the good side perhaps on income tax banding but not much more.
What has changed though over the past two decades is the extent of forward announcement of fiscal measures. The June spending review covered the first year of the next parliament and the government's investment plans were announced up to 2020. Similarly corporation and (to a slightly lesser degree) household taxes are pre-annnounced to 2015.
So I don't see too many unannounced tax cuts coming our way before 2015. What we will see instead is a battle between a worked fiscal plan for the next term presented by the Tories and Lib Dems (separately and differing) and a blank sheet of paper with a child's drawing of a tower block on it from Labour.
So the public will be asked to vote for cost justified tax cuts if they want to receive them.
Avery - What would have happened if expenditure hadn't increased after 2008? I'll tell you, a full on economic depression. Do you honestly believe the economic collapse was caused by an (unwise) public deficit during the boom? Bank assests had morphed from around 100% GDP to about 500% since the 1970s. Household debt in the UK was around £2.5tn. In light of that forget a £30bn government deficit.
However it's clear right-wing idealogues like yourself have a pathological aversion to public spending and nothing is going to convince you it's anything but a very bad thing. Incidentally it's a curious counter-factual as to what would have happened had the Bank Of England still had the regulatory oversight post-1997. Given the Bank hardly covered itself in glory over the crisis, you have to wonder whether it would have done a very good job, although that's not a defence of the FSA. Handing everything back to the Bank particularly giving so much power to the Governor himself strikes me as a little worrying.
There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.
It's interesting that the left can't see the issue of NHS failures outside the prism of how it impacts politically. This is an issue because there has been some disgraceful neglect in the NHS and it has unquestionably cost lives. That is the issue, not Burnham's career. or the YouGov small print.
Additionally, the left continue to throw the kitchen sink at a tory advisor few have heard of whilst, simultaneously claiming he's a liability. Desperate. IMHO Crosby has done nothing outstanding yet, all he's done appears to be to suggest the tories start attacking Labour's dismal record on, well, everything. Not exactly rocket science yet Labour seem to think he's some unbeatable guru who must be taken out at any cost. Makes them look pretty odd to the man in the street.
When nominations first went out for the Conservative candidate, Nick Ferrari was the most prominent "name", so Cameron extended the deadline. By the deadline, Mike Read (the DJ) was in the frame, so the deadline got extended again (I noted this on pb.c at the time but this was in 2007, pre-Disqus even, so can't give the link) - Cameron got lucky third time around with Boris.
Not sure about your "if Dave could stick to timetables" jibe. Only a fool appoints a poor candidate to a position just because an artificial deadline has been reached.
Avery - What would have happened if expenditure hadn't increased after 2008? I'll tell you, a full on economic depression. Do you honestly believe the economic collapse was caused by an (unwise) public deficit during the boom? Bank assests had morphed from around 100% GDP to about 500% since the 1970s. Household debt in the UK was around £2.5tn. In light of that forget a £30bn government deficit.
However it's clear right-wing idealogues like yourself have a pathological aversion to public spending and nothing is going to convince you it's anything but a very bad thing. Incidentally it's a curious counter-factual as to what would have happened had the Bank Of England still had the regulatory oversight post-1997. Given the Bank hardly covered itself in glory over the crisis, you have to wonder whether it would have done a very good job, although that's not a defence of the FSA. Handing everything back to the Bank particularly giving so much power to the Governor himself strikes me as a little worrying.
I think we can sum up the period in the words of the great Lord Mandelson, you were relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Maybe you should have thought about how filthy you'd get.
If anyone's noticed my absence for the last few weeks its been because I decided to take a few weeks away from PB and its hothouse atmosphere.
I can recommned such breaks to others here.
The only time I returned to read a thread or two I was privileged to see Avery still doing his 'comical Ali' routine about the economic stats, Easterross predicting a Conservative majority in 2015 but not bothering to say which were the 20+ constituency gains they would make to achieve this and IOS making unpleasant comments about another PBer and sections of society.
All pretty depressing.
What I'm drawn back to comment about today was a radio 4 discussion about SamCam pressing for British intervention in Syria. An aspect which the Times had reported earlier last week.
Now to 'boho princesses' Syrian intervention might be this season's touchy-feely fashionable cause. But to the poor buggers who would get sent there it would mean trying to stop a religious civil war where one side is backed by Hizbollah and Iran and the other by Al Qaeda and the Saudis.
As far as I'm concerned the Syrians and their backers can kill each other until the end of time. At least while they're doing that they're less of a threat to us.
ar
In the middle of a heatwave everyone welcomes the temporary respite of a dark cloud passing overhead. You visit is therefore most welcome.
My advice to you, if you want to make only occasional visits, is to return on Thursday morning to join in our welcome of the Q2 GDP figures but to stay away when the BoE release their next figures on movements in the household savings ratio.
As now to Sam Cam. If we can win Wimbledon, the Tour de France, the Ashes, the US Open, the Lions Tour of Australia, why not the Battle of Syria?
When nominations first went out for the Conservative candidate, Nick Ferrari was the most prominent "name", so Cameron extended the deadline. By the deadline, Mike Read (the DJ) was in the frame, so the deadline got extended again (I noted this on pb.c at the time but this was in 2007, pre-Disqus even, so can't give the link) - Cameron got lucky third time around with Boris.
Not sure about your "if Dave could stick to timetables" jibe. Only a fool appoints a poor candidate to a position just because an artificial deadline has been reached.
To extend a deadline once is unfortunate, to extend it twice looks like carelessness.
'There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.'
Yes,a whopping 10% Labour lead on NHS trust. When it comes to NHS failings uncovered by Keogh Labour get 19% of blame,the coalition zero.
Caroline Flint is trying very hard on Sky to say the economy is crap because erm... it's not going too far and fast enough...
Whilst I know its the job of Oppos to say whatever they can to nitpick - there is something very amusing about this volte face.
When Labourites are still calling for a cut in VAT as if that'd make some watershed impact on the economy, it tells me they have nothing substantial or smart to add.
I've been a supporter of Osborne as a good CoE with v little wiggle room since he got the job for real.
Things are picking up over a sustained period/there was no DoubleDip at all and Labour can't decide what they're about with less than 2yrs to go. What they come up with for Manifesto 2015 on the economy will be interesting - if its on housing, how they'll pay for it is the test. And of course there's all their other soft promises and things paid for using Banker's Bonuses 7x.
There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.
It's interesting that the left can't see the issue of NHS failures outside the prism of how it impacts politically. This is an issue because there has been some disgraceful neglect in the NHS and it has unquestionably cost lives. That is the issue, not Burnham's career. or the YouGov small print.
Additionally, the left continue to throw the kitchen sink at a tory advisor few have heard of whilst, simultaneously claiming he's a liability. Desperate. IMHO Crosby has done nothing outstanding yet, all he's done appears to be to suggest the tories start attacking Labour's dismal record on, well, everything. Not exactly rocket science yet Labour seem to think he's some unbeatable guru who must be taken out at any cost. Makes them look pretty odd to the man in the street.
'There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.'
Yes,a whopping 10% Labour lead on NHS trust. When it comes to NHS failings uncovered by Keogh Labour get 19% of blame,the coalition zero.
That question wasn't asked;
The options were:
Hospital Mgt: 43 Last Labour Govt: 19 Civil Servants: 15 Doctors/Nurses: 4 Someone Else: 1 Don't know: 18
"Last year, when the coffee giant Costa threatened to open a branch in Totnes, almost 6,000 residents signed a petition against it causing the chain to pull out. By contrast this June, when former wildlife hospital owner Liz Dyas decided to open a “cat cafe” there, it was welcomed with open arms.
The cat cafe phenomenon began in Asia with the world’s first opening in Taipei, Taiwan, in 1998. They are now hugely popular in Japan where living conditions are often too cramped for pet ownership. Customers pay an hourly fee that allows them to relax with a drink and a cat to stroke: a form of on-site pet rental-meets-pet therapy.
A double electric door system means there’s no possibility of feline escape on to Totnes’s busy Fore Street, and the six moggies have a giant climbing wall on which to amuse themselves (and patrons).
Customers sit and order drinks and snacks and wait for the cats to interact with them. “They’ll often get talking to each other as well, because of the common bond of cats,” says Liz. That said, one of the cats, Lilac, does have a reputation as a bit of a thief: “She went off with a lady’s purse recently.”
A session at the cafe costs £2 for half an hour and most people stay from 30 minutes to a couple of hours. Liz divides customers into several distinct types, including “university students missing their cat at home” as well as “people in sheltered accommodation” or “people living in high rise flats” and “people with a partner who is allergic to cat fur”...
The more worrying numbers for Labour are on the 'cover up' question - which, in whether it took place or not, splits along predictable partisan lines (OA: 43, Lab 13).
However, even among Lab supporters, the most common view is while they didn't cover it up & tried to fix it they failed (36), while only a quarter (24) think they succeeded.
And among our pet 2010 Lib Dems, a third (33) think there was a cover up, and only one in ten think there was no cover up & the issues fixed (11).
Difficult to see how Labour have 'won' this one - especially when its the patients that lost....not something Mr Burnham seems to spend much time dwelling on...
Good to be back after ten days cruising to Norway and back. I found Norway a surprisingly complex and multi-layered society where relative affluence sits uncomfortably close to poverty. The Norwegians I spoke to were very polite and kind but those who imagine it as some kind of utopia will be disappointed.
Interesting to hear all nationalities on the ship complaining about how expensive the place was though I'm reminded that all these things are relative and the Norwegians travelling abroad probably can't believe how cheap everything is.
Anyway, I imagine the midweek ICM caused much excitement. OGH says ICM is the "gold standard" of polls and in a sense it is. However, it does throw out occasional outlier numbers for individual parties and it may be that the 36% Conservative figure is one such - we'll see. I'm sure all professional poll watchers would caution against taking any single poll in isolation.
There's clear evidence the Conservatives are off their spring lows but an overall majority still looks a way away.
@Plato - presumably an across the board VAT cut would be dubbed a "tax cut for millionairres" by Labour on the grounds that millionairres incur some VAT.
On topic - were they the only three options offered on why plain packaging was dropped? Because I would be hard pressed to answer. It does not cover all possibilities. A poor question IMO.
'There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.'
Yes,a whopping Labour 10% lead on NHS trust. When it comes to NHS failings uncovered by Keogh Labour get 19% of blame,the coalition zero.
There was no question on the coalition, therefore they got zero. Well spotted, genius.
Whilst I note that you are being typically and uneccesarily rude, I guess its quite possible that there was no question on the Coalition as from what I recall all the NHS failings that the equiry was investigating predate May 2010?
What is also perhaps a much smaller but much more sticky problem for Labour is that the NHS is rapidly losing its Sacred Cow Status.
Like worrying about immigration had you painted as a racist, complaining about poor NHS care was rubbished as either an isolated incident, being horrible to the Saints & Angels that work for it or heresy.
That's profoundly unhealthy as the Catholic Church discovered. Now ordinary people feel they can speak out about substandard care without adding the rider of 'but of course its really very good everywhere else'.
Given those who've experienced poor service are likely to tell 6 others/make them less tolerant of it - the NHS is in for quite a rollercoaster if they think this is almost over.
The more worrying numbers for Labour are on the 'cover up' question - which, in whether it took place or not, splits along predictable partisan lines (OA: 43, Lab 13).
However, even among Lab supporters, the most common view is while they didn't cover it up & tried to fix it they failed (36), while only a quarter (24) think they succeeded.
And among our pet 2010 Lib Dems, a third (33) think there was a cover up, and only one in ten think there was no cover up & the issues fixed (11).
Difficult to see how Labour have 'won' this one - especially when its the patients that lost....not something Mr Burnham seems to spend much time dwelling on...
Scotland, according to the Herald. I'm looking forward to the 'casual' snaps of Dave chillaxing in a chunky Fair Isle while sipping 25 year old Bunnahabhain with ice & a slice and nibbling a piece of deep-fried pizza ('and very good it was too').
"In the meantime, we might think of the 13,000 figure as, at best, offering us a sense of scale. At worst, it's scaremongering. With this in mind it's significant that no politician has given credence to the number, or quoted it as evidence. But as many in the media have refused to show the same restraint, the damage may already have been done."
To extend a deadline once is unfortunate, to extend it twice looks like carelessness.
A nice phrase, but completely devoid of content.
Do you really think there's going to be a referendum on the EU in 2017, even if somehow Cameron wins a majority in the 2015 GE?
We simply don't know what the Labour position post 2015 will be. To say "there won't be a referendum if Miliband is Prime Minister" isn't accurate. The three main parties are all clear that there won't be a referendum before 2015. We know Cameron is offering a referendum in 2017 after a re-negotiation process but that's all we know.
I suspect the position will be slightly clearer by May 2015 but nuanced.
As for holidays, it's ludicrous that political leaders should somehow be "compelled" to stay in the UK as if their economic contribution will single-handedly lift the country to Avery's utopia.
To my knowledge, the Cleggs have always taken holidays in Spain with family. I could care less whether the Camerons go to Portugal, Cornwall or Las Vegas. I also suspect many of the Currant Bun's readership will be off to the Med or other more exotic venues.
"Attacked by the Tories over his handling of hospital crises when he was Health Secretary, Andy Burnham now faces a bout of friendly fire. Labour MPs claim that ambitious Liz Kendall, Burnham’s deputy on the party’s frontbench health team, refused to give her boss a helping hand in his hour of need. To make things worse, Dog hears Ed Miliband wants to replace bumbling Burnham with his Shadow Cabinet favourite, super-smooth Chuka Umunna."
Camilla Cavendish who's a non-exec for the CQC and penned part of the response for training re Keogh has some interesting thoughts.
" When bits of the NHS go wrong...one thing no government has tried, until last week, is to trust the public...Limited competition has wrought remarkable successes in the NHS where it has been tried...It slashed waiting times for MRI scans by licensing private providers. Yet this kind of improvement always attracts the accusation of “privatisation”, a word that Burnham practically spat across the dispatch box, although it was hard to see what connection it had to the Keogh review.
...The previous government let Circle, a healthcare partnership half owned by nurses and doctors, take over Hinchingbrooke Hospital NHS Trust in Cambridge. When I visited, nurses told me they felt they were being listened to for the first time in years, perhaps because Circle had removed several layers of management and put clinicians into key roles. While it’s early days, patients are giving the hospital high scores in surveys. And why not? Their care is still free at the point of use.
In Germany, patients choose between a wide variety of hospital providers, with better outcomes than in Britain. In Spain, I have been to hospitals that are licensed to private companies on stringent state contracts. They are not allowed to cherry-pick lucrative elective surgery. They have electronic record systems that work, GPs in the same building and high patient satisfaction rates. Competition does not have to be the enemy of integration. For 65 years the public has been told that the NHS provides services that are equally good everywhere. As a result, MPs have lobbied to save local services that gave poor care, when they should have been demanding that they improve. Last week the public began to be let in on the truth. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/CamillaCavendish/article1290047.ece
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft RT@politicshome Fallon on Crosby: “He’s sharpened up our act and made us focus on the issues that really matter to people.” >>>>#wow!
Given that the LDs and labour will certainly not want to risk a "no" vote in an EU referendum, and the Tories just might - my cynicism on whether the Tories will actually do so will not affect my vote.
That only 18 Labour MPs turned up for Labour's own Emergency Debate on Keogh spoke volumes.
The Tory benches were well populated as they knew they were on a winner. Labour voted with their feet by being elsewhere.
If EdM leaves Burnham in place - I'll be amazed. If Chuka is being lined up instead - oh dear, he's got that oily New Labour £2000 suit look about him. I'd leave him at BIS where at least he looks the part.
"Attacked by the Tories over his handling of hospital crises when he was Health Secretary, Andy Burnham now faces a bout of friendly fire. Labour MPs claim that ambitious Liz Kendall, Burnham’s deputy on the party’s frontbench health team, refused to give her boss a helping hand in his hour of need. To make things worse, Dog hears Ed Miliband wants to replace bumbling Burnham with his Shadow Cabinet favourite, super-smooth Chuka Umunna."
Do you honestly believe the economic collapse was caused by an (unwise) public deficit during the boom?
....
However it's clear right-wing idealogues like yourself have a pathological aversion to public spending and nothing is going to convince you it's anything but a very bad thing.
Mr. Booth.
I do not have a "pathological aversion to public spending". My aversion is threefold:
1. Government spending, on a cyclical average, which is neither covered by tax receipts nor prudential levels of borrowing.
2. Government spending which is unsustainable on a long term objective appraisal of a country's real economic prospects.
3. Government spending on services which could be more efficiently and effectively provided by the private sector.
The three Labour governments between 1997 and 2010 moved from an extreme of highly prudent fiscal management to utterly unjustified profligacy.
In the 1997-2001 government Labour only increased spending in real terms by 1.5% and reduced the spending to GDP ratio from 38% to 35%. Yes, it was during a time of general economic boom and of peak North Sea revenues, but no independent viewer could reasonably conclude it was profligate management. A case could even be made for increasing spend to a higher ratio to GDP.
Unfortunately, the landslide confirmation victory of Blair in 2001 led to Brown becoming far too aggressive in putting his foot down on the spending and borrowing pedals. Spending in 2001-2, for example, increased in real terms by 12% in a single year (24% over the full term). Having reduced borrowing from 42.1% of GDP to 30.8% in the first term, Brown now pumped it back up to 33.9%. And all this at a time of economic boom.
So my pathological aversion is not simply to Labour governments: it is to Labour governments which mismanage the country's finances. And it is based on factual outcomes rather than pure prejudice.
'If EdM leaves Burnham in place - I'll be amazed. If Chuka is being lined up instead - oh dear, he's got that oily New Labour £2000 suit look about him.'
I would have thought the last person Labour needed at Health is a Savile Row socialist that refers to voters as trash.
Financier - IKE, LBJ and Nixon (pre Watergate), Reagan had charm but not presence like JFK and Clinton. Mitterand and Chirac. John Howard, Putin clearly, even Blair began to develop it a bit by 2005, although was still more on the charm side
I prefer to see things in the round. You wouldn't have a good word for Hunt or anyone in the Coalition (unless they were a Lib Dem attacking the Govt), so why would anyone take what you have to say as gospel? I am sure most on here look as what you write with considerable suspicion. You have form. The truth about the NHS is somewhere in the middle, it certainly isn't anywhere near where you want to try and pin the blame.
I'd give someone like Stella Creasy a go - she's good on the telly, is female so a bit harder to be aggressive against [I know] and really should be higher profile.
If it went to an ice pixie like Yvette - I don't think it'd work - she isn't warm at all. In HoC Yvette vs May is like IceMan re SubZero.
'If EdM leaves Burnham in place - I'll be amazed. If Chuka is being lined up instead - oh dear, he's got that oily New Labour £2000 suit look about him.'
I would have thought the last person Labour needed at Health is a Savile Row socialist that refers to voters as trash.
Good news. Presumably, like with minimum alchohol pricing, Labour are against it in Scotland (because the SNP want it) and for it in England (because the Tories don't) ?
Comments
Below is the sad story of Detroit's decline and fall. For Democrats read Lab/Lib/Con to prevent the same happening here. Oh, I nearly forgot the NHS and other sundry public bodies.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100227266/detroit-bankruptcy-this-is-what-happens-if-you-vote-democrat-for-51-years/
"LABOUR grandee Lord Mandelson is facing a sleaze probe over claims he broke House of Lords lobbying rules."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5025601/Lord-Mandelson-House-of-Lords-lobbying-probe.html#ixzz2ZfXQS4Tf
Good job Blair didn't do that in Iraq, he would still be there..lots and lots of bereaved relatives there, but so messy with all that blood.
Not if you're a Pol:
Nick’s Clegging it to Spain, France, then Spain again
Lib chief is king of the hols
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5025041/MPs-summer-holidays-Nick-Clegg.html#ixzz2ZfYqoZ1a
"Cut from "wide-ranging" interview with Cameron and the first thing Sophie Raworth wants to talk about is Lynton ruddy Crosby. And people wonder why most of us are turned off politics."
Well Sophie did say opening the show that it was going the PM`s way stating level pegging with Labour in the polls.
Hardly unhelpful.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/british-economy-still-in-bad-position
I liked this in particular:
'What is so dismaying is that hopes that investment and exports would lead recovery have been completely dashed. Instead the British are returning to what they are best at – running down their savings and borrowing enormous mortgages, partially guaranteed by the state under the Help to Buy scheme, to force up house prices.
I did not join the chorus of criticism of Help to Buy when it was launched: it was a clever, time-limited Keynesian use of the public balance sheet to support a distressed part of the economy, and no recovery is conceivable without some rise in house prices rekindling animal spirits and lifting confidence. What was wrong was: to superimpose it upon a market that privileges buyers who want to let rather than own; the Treasury vetoing an extension to lending to business in general; and not recognising that the same Keynesian thinking is needed across the board.'
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the one area the Tories would endorse a kind of Keynesian stimulus would be the housing market.
More and more voters are seeing Dr. Cameron and equally Drs. Milliband and Clegg as the poisoners they are.
Logic and the Tory right are not regular bedfellows. To get the LDs to wave through an EU referendum in 2017 Cameron is going to have to give a lot of ground elsewhere. Personally, I'd be all for it - the more say the LDs have in a Tory/LD coalition the better - but I am not sure that I am typical of right wing Tory MPs (or party members). I'd hazard that such concessions, plus seeing their party leader campaign alongside Labour and the LDs to remain in the EU, will take a lot of swallowing - especially if the In side wins. But we will have to see.
Hospitals clearly bear responsibility for the care of their patients. Although I feel that mistakes were made by the last government, these aren't to the exclusion of hospital managers, so 19% if anything sounds high.
YouGov say "73% of the public have never heard of, or don’t know anything about, Lynton Crosby" which means the take home message from Labour is more strained, although it clearly still has some impact.
An increase on Tax Free Income threshold is surely a given?
You used to be quite reasonable .
But now just seem bitter and twisted.
Most reasonable persons would state the 2008 world banking collapse was not caused by Labour.
It was on their watch, but it would have been the same if the Conservatives won in 2005.
Both parties agreed with joining the ERM in 90, when that came apart, the Conservatives took the hit, as Labour will now.
However on both occasions neither party was in a good place to blame the other.
Clegg is having two foreign holidays - Miliband is off to France - Cameron is the only one having a holiday in the UK.....
Indeed, plato, but the tories will have to be careful. Tax cuts will have to be firmly and squarely targeted at low paid workers to avoid the charge of the tories 'helping their rich friends'.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was done on fuel duty.
You forgot to mention that Clegg is a smoker and that government restrictions on smoking are less stringent in France and Spain.
It would be unfair to deny our hard-working politicians their hard won holiday pleasures.
you're still re-writing history and you still won't apologise, it's why you're not fit to govern.
Aren't the new HMRC tax statements coming in from April as well - with a breakdown on every return re where your taxes are spent?
Example here
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/20/article-2117387-123E51C7000005DC-935_634x970.jpg
I think "welfare" would be best subdivided though.
"mot reasonable people would agree the scale of the banking collapse in the UK would have been much smaller if Labour had taken their role as banking regulator seriously."
I agree.
However I honestly do not remember the Conservatives at the time asking for greater regulation during this time .
So I stand by my comment is would not have been any different .
The next stage of the housing and mortgage market stimulus is to replace the equity participation scheme with a guarantee scheme.
Please would you explain how you reached the figure of £120,000 on a £600,000 flat?
Once you have sorted out your figures, perhaps you might like to explain how a 14.25% contingent liability on a funded guarantee can be described a "subsidised gift"?
I trust you will respond quickly and substantively otherwise we might conclude your refusal to answer questions is "all about your character".
Of course Labour isn't entirely to blame for our economic woes but they must accept responsibility for what they both did and also didn't do - Plenty on the debit side there.
The Coalition must also accept their responsibilities for their policies on their watch. IMO much more on the positive side there.
The voters will decide where the balance sheet lies. For my part I know who I want to remain in charge until 2020.
Detroit suggests that there is a massive battle ahead on public sector pension liabilities. Its this that has broken the city. Wait till tax payers see what they are paying on that here.
Effectively citizens in detroit are having to endure third world conditions in an attempt to make good on pension schemes most of them could only dream of.
The BBC is the next cab off the rank. Are license payers going to stump up to pay its two billion pension deficit? For a scheme that allows executives to retire at 55 on 200 hundred grand a year????
Absolutely no way.
" For my part I know who I want to remain in charge until 2020."
Sorry to inform you coalition will not be on the ballot paper .
You will have to put your cross as I suspect you always have Conservative.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/20/keogh-apology-burnham-tory-smear-hospital-deaths
Reporters overheard Keogh apologising to Andy Burnham about the way Keogh’s report had been used as an excuse to attack AB & Labour’s record on the NHS.'
And they just happened to be Guardian journalists,amazing coincidence.
If Dave could stick to timetables, Nick Ferrari or Mike Read would have been the Tories' candidate for London mayor in 2008.
As ever Labour just won't face up to its responsibilities and where it went wrong and is trapped in a cul de sac of its own making.
Are you kidding?
And re Hung Parlies - voters have seen them and don't like them. The YouGov stats are very clear. 30 Approve 61 Disapprove http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/xec1rhsx50/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-190713.pdf
I suspect that voters will be more inclined to choose to vote for Tory/Labour to avoid another one. That they may have no idea how best to do this is another matter.
Cuts in taxes on income are the best option to start solving both problems in the next parliament.
Rather than relax pay restraints and risk inflationary pressures, the government would be far better to 'reward the country for its sacrifices' by increasing real income through tax cuts.
Linking pay rises and tax cuts to productivity gains and performance would also be a sensible, if difficult to achieve, next move.
By 2015, tax cuts will not be needed as an electoral bribe so much as the next logical and justifiable step in managing the final stages of the economic recovery. Current consumption growth is largely coming from reduced savings ratios. This is a limited source for fuelling future growth and will need fiscal easing to continue.
My GE voting 92-10 as previously noted on PB :
92 Con .. 97 Lab .. 01 Lab .. 05 Abstain .. 10 Con
I can recommned such breaks to others here.
The only time I returned to read a thread or two I was privileged to see Avery still doing his 'comical Ali' routine about the economic stats, Easterross predicting a Conservative majority in 2015 but not bothering to say which were the 20+ constituency gains they would make to achieve this and IOS making unpleasant comments about another PBer and sections of society.
All pretty depressing.
What I'm drawn back to comment about today was a radio 4 discussion about SamCam pressing for British intervention in Syria. An aspect which the Times had reported earlier last week.
Now to 'boho princesses' Syrian intervention might be this season's touchy-feely fashionable cause. But to the poor buggers who would get sent there it would mean trying to stop a religious civil war where one side is backed by Hizbollah and Iran and the other by Al Qaeda and the Saudis.
As far as I'm concerned the Syrians and their backers can kill each other until the end of time. At least while they're doing that they're less of a threat to us.
I still think that if the tories want to win, they will have to show the voters at least a little of the money before the 2015 election.
Promises, especially David Cameron promises, will not secure much.
For example a VAT cut would mean that people who eat grotty takeaway food are rewarded while those who cook healthy, nutritious meals are not.
I honestly do not remember the Conservatives at the time asking for greater regulation during this time .
So I stand by my comment is would not have been any different .
It is not who said what that matters, YC, but who did what. Just compare the following two tables and the explanation of why Brown made the financial crisis worse will stare you in the face. Summary: Brown increased spending in real terms by 15% between 2005-10 all financed by additional borrowing. Osborne will have reduced it by 3% in real terms between 2010-15 and will have reduced borrowing at the same time.
And before you argue that Brown was managing the economy at a time of global crisis, I should warn you the stats for 2001-2005 are even worse and the 2005-2010 figures exclude the costs of bank bailouts.
Well my vote for Lib Dem in 2010 went to the coalition.
So that could be counted as a winner in your book.
But living in the new seat of York Outer, formerly Ryedale , I have never voted for the winning party in GE or council.
Maybe one day it will count if we ever get PR.
Presumably, like with minimum alchohol pricing, Labour are against it in Scotland (because the SNP want it) and for it in England (because the Tories don't) ?
This should not be confused with charisma or its near relation, charm, or even physical stature.
A person with presence commands attention when they enter a room and has the ability to get people to do things for them which are often above their self-recognised ability.
I cannot think of any UK current politician I have met who has that quality. BJ has it somewhat but it is heavily overladen with charisma. TM has a steely determination but not really presence.
Margaret T had it, and before her MacMillan had it and so I presume did Churchill (but did not meet him). Frau Merkel has it a bit.
Similarly Fidel C, Mandela, Gorbachev and even the head of the KCB all had it, but I cannot think of a modern US president who had/has it - Kennedy and Clinton had/have charm (enough to charm the pants of you) but not presence.
What has changed though over the past two decades is the extent of forward announcement of fiscal measures. The June spending review covered the first year of the next parliament and the government's investment plans were announced up to 2020. Similarly corporation and (to a slightly lesser degree) household taxes are pre-annnounced to 2015.
So I don't see too many unannounced tax cuts coming our way before 2015. What we will see instead is a battle between a worked fiscal plan for the next term presented by the Tories and Lib Dems (separately and differing) and a blank sheet of paper with a child's drawing of a tower block on it from Labour.
So the public will be asked to vote for cost justified tax cuts if they want to receive them.
However it's clear right-wing idealogues like yourself have a pathological aversion to public spending and nothing is going to convince you it's anything but a very bad thing. Incidentally it's a curious counter-factual as to what would have happened had the Bank Of England still had the regulatory oversight post-1997. Given the Bank hardly covered itself in glory over the crisis, you have to wonder whether it would have done a very good job, although that's not a defence of the FSA. Handing everything back to the Bank particularly giving so much power to the Governor himself strikes me as a little worrying.
It's interesting that the left can't see the issue of NHS failures outside the prism of how it impacts politically. This is an issue because there has been some disgraceful neglect in the NHS and it has unquestionably cost lives. That is the issue, not Burnham's career.
or the YouGov small print.
Additionally, the left continue to throw the kitchen sink at a tory advisor few have heard of whilst, simultaneously claiming he's a liability. Desperate. IMHO Crosby has done nothing outstanding yet, all he's done appears to be to suggest the tories start attacking Labour's dismal record on, well, everything. Not exactly rocket science yet Labour seem to think he's some unbeatable guru who must be taken out at any cost. Makes them look pretty odd to the man in the street.
In the middle of a heatwave everyone welcomes the temporary respite of a dark cloud passing overhead. You visit is therefore most welcome.
My advice to you, if you want to make only occasional visits, is to return on Thursday morning to join in our welcome of the Q2 GDP figures but to stay away when the BoE release their next figures on movements in the household savings ratio.
As now to Sam Cam. If we can win Wimbledon, the Tour de France, the Ashes, the US Open, the Lions Tour of Australia, why not the Battle of Syria?
'There's some unwarrented desperateness from the left this morning. They seem to be suggesting that not reversing a generally held six decade Labour lead on the NHS overnight means the tory approach to the NHS in the last week, is a failure.'
Yes,a whopping 10% Labour lead on NHS trust.
When it comes to NHS failings uncovered by Keogh Labour get 19% of blame,the coalition zero.
Whilst I know its the job of Oppos to say whatever they can to nitpick - there is something very amusing about this volte face.
When Labourites are still calling for a cut in VAT as if that'd make some watershed impact on the economy, it tells me they have nothing substantial or smart to add.
I've been a supporter of Osborne as a good CoE with v little wiggle room since he got the job for real.
Things are picking up over a sustained period/there was no DoubleDip at all and Labour can't decide what they're about with less than 2yrs to go. What they come up with for Manifesto 2015 on the economy will be interesting - if its on housing, how they'll pay for it is the test. And of course there's all their other soft promises and things paid for using Banker's Bonuses 7x.
Really looking forward to conference season.
The options were:
Hospital Mgt: 43
Last Labour Govt: 19
Civil Servants: 15
Doctors/Nurses: 4
Someone Else: 1
Don't know: 18
"Last year, when the coffee giant Costa threatened to open a branch in Totnes, almost 6,000 residents signed a petition against it causing the chain to pull out. By contrast this June, when former wildlife hospital owner Liz Dyas decided to open a “cat cafe” there, it was welcomed with open arms.
The cat cafe phenomenon began in Asia with the world’s first opening in Taipei, Taiwan, in 1998. They are now hugely popular in Japan where living conditions are often too cramped for pet ownership. Customers pay an hourly fee that allows them to relax with a drink and a cat to stroke: a form of on-site pet rental-meets-pet therapy.
A double electric door system means there’s no possibility of feline escape on to Totnes’s busy Fore Street, and the six moggies have a giant climbing wall on which to amuse themselves (and patrons).
Customers sit and order drinks and snacks and wait for the cats to interact with them. “They’ll often get talking to each other as well, because of the common bond of cats,” says Liz. That said, one of the cats, Lilac, does have a reputation as a bit of a thief: “She went off with a lady’s purse recently.”
A session at the cafe costs £2 for half an hour and most people stay from 30 minutes to a couple of hours. Liz divides customers into several distinct types, including “university students missing their cat at home” as well as “people in sheltered accommodation” or “people living in high rise flats” and “people with a partner who is allergic to cat fur”...
However, even among Lab supporters, the most common view is while they didn't cover it up & tried to fix it they failed (36), while only a quarter (24) think they succeeded.
And among our pet 2010 Lib Dems, a third (33) think there was a cover up, and only one in ten think there was no cover up & the issues fixed (11).
Difficult to see how Labour have 'won' this one - especially when its the patients that lost....not something Mr Burnham seems to spend much time dwelling on...
Good to be back after ten days cruising to Norway and back. I found Norway a surprisingly complex and multi-layered society where relative affluence sits uncomfortably close to poverty. The Norwegians I spoke to were very polite and kind but those who imagine it as some kind of utopia will be disappointed.
Interesting to hear all nationalities on the ship complaining about how expensive the place was though I'm reminded that all these things are relative and the Norwegians travelling abroad probably can't believe how cheap everything is.
Anyway, I imagine the midweek ICM caused much excitement. OGH says ICM is the "gold standard" of polls and in a sense it is. However, it does throw out occasional outlier numbers for individual parties and it may be that the 36% Conservative figure is one such - we'll see. I'm sure all professional poll watchers would caution against taking any single poll in isolation.
There's clear evidence the Conservatives are off their spring lows but an overall majority still looks a way away.
Whilst I note that you are being typically and uneccesarily rude, I guess its quite possible that there was no question on the Coalition as from what I recall all the NHS failings that the equiry was investigating predate May 2010?
If it really is a factor in where you put your cross then assisting Miliband to power seems rather unwise.
Like worrying about immigration had you painted as a racist, complaining about poor NHS care was rubbished as either an isolated incident, being horrible to the Saints & Angels that work for it or heresy.
That's profoundly unhealthy as the Catholic Church discovered. Now ordinary people feel they can speak out about substandard care without adding the rider of 'but of course its really very good everywhere else'.
Given those who've experienced poor service are likely to tell 6 others/make them less tolerant of it - the NHS is in for quite a rollercoaster if they think this is almost over.
I'm looking forward to the 'casual' snaps of Dave chillaxing in a chunky Fair Isle while sipping 25 year old Bunnahabhain with ice & a slice and nibbling a piece of deep-fried pizza ('and very good it was too').
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371938/How-Shadow-Health-Secretarys-staff-editing-Wikipedia-remove-negative-references-role-NHS-scandal.html
The nasty party.
"In the meantime, we might think of the 13,000 figure as, at best, offering us a sense of scale. At worst, it's scaremongering. With this in mind it's significant that no politician has given credence to the number, or quoted it as evidence. But as many in the media have refused to show the same restraint, the damage may already have been done."
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/excess_nhs_hospital_deaths_13000_keogh_review_mortality-29053
'Newspapers write headlines to sell Newspapers Shocker'......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10193346/Shadow-Health-Secretary-Andy-Burnhams-staff-deleted-negative-Wikipedia-references.html
I suspect the position will be slightly clearer by May 2015 but nuanced.
As for holidays, it's ludicrous that political leaders should somehow be "compelled" to stay in the UK as if their economic contribution will single-handedly lift the country to Avery's utopia.
To my knowledge, the Cleggs have always taken holidays in Spain with family. I could care less whether the Camerons go to Portugal, Cornwall or Las Vegas. I also suspect many of the Currant Bun's readership will be off to the Med or other more exotic venues.
Labour MPs claim that ambitious Liz Kendall, Burnham’s deputy on the party’s frontbench health team, refused to give her boss a helping hand in his hour of need.
To make things worse, Dog hears Ed Miliband wants to replace bumbling Burnham with his Shadow Cabinet favourite, super-smooth Chuka Umunna."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2372063/BLACK-DOG-Wounded-Andy-fights-alone.html#ixzz2Zg2uwwEE
" When bits of the NHS go wrong...one thing no government has tried, until last week, is to trust the public...Limited competition has wrought remarkable successes in the NHS where it has been tried...It slashed waiting times for MRI scans by licensing private providers. Yet this kind of improvement always attracts the accusation of “privatisation”, a word that Burnham practically spat across the dispatch box, although it was hard to see what connection it had to the Keogh review.
...The previous government let Circle, a healthcare partnership half owned by nurses and doctors, take over Hinchingbrooke Hospital NHS Trust in Cambridge. When I visited, nurses told me they felt they were being listened to for the first time in years, perhaps because Circle had removed several layers of management and put clinicians into key roles. While it’s early days, patients are giving the hospital high scores in surveys. And why not? Their care is still free at the point of use.
In Germany, patients choose between a wide variety of hospital providers, with better outcomes than in Britain. In Spain, I have been to hospitals that are licensed to private companies on stringent state contracts. They are not allowed to cherry-pick lucrative elective surgery. They have electronic record systems that work, GPs in the same building and high patient satisfaction rates. Competition does not have to be the enemy of integration. For 65 years the public has been told that the NHS provides services that are equally good everywhere. As a result, MPs have lobbied to save local services that gave poor care, when they should have been demanding that they improve. Last week the public began to be let in on the truth. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/CamillaCavendish/article1290047.ece
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft
RT@politicshome Fallon on Crosby: “He’s sharpened up our act and made us focus on the issues that really matter to people.” >>>>#wow!
Given that the LDs and labour will certainly not want to risk a "no" vote in an EU referendum, and the Tories just might - my cynicism on whether the Tories will actually do so will not affect my vote.
The Tory benches were well populated as they knew they were on a winner. Labour voted with their feet by being elsewhere.
If EdM leaves Burnham in place - I'll be amazed. If Chuka is being lined up instead - oh dear, he's got that oily New Labour £2000 suit look about him. I'd leave him at BIS where at least he looks the part.
I do not have a "pathological aversion to public spending". My aversion is threefold:
1. Government spending, on a cyclical average, which is neither covered by tax receipts nor prudential levels of borrowing.
2. Government spending which is unsustainable on a long term objective appraisal of a country's real economic prospects.
3. Government spending on services which could be more efficiently and effectively provided by the private sector.
The three Labour governments between 1997 and 2010 moved from an extreme of highly prudent fiscal management to utterly unjustified profligacy.
In the 1997-2001 government Labour only increased spending in real terms by 1.5% and reduced the spending to GDP ratio from 38% to 35%. Yes, it was during a time of general economic boom and of peak North Sea revenues, but no independent viewer could reasonably conclude it was profligate management. A case could even be made for increasing spend to a higher ratio to GDP.
Unfortunately, the landslide confirmation victory of Blair in 2001 led to Brown becoming far too aggressive in putting his foot down on the spending and borrowing pedals. Spending in 2001-2, for example, increased in real terms by 12% in a single year (24% over the full term). Having reduced borrowing from 42.1% of GDP to 30.8% in the first term, Brown now pumped it back up to 33.9%. And all this at a time of economic boom.
So my pathological aversion is not simply to Labour governments: it is to Labour governments which mismanage the country's finances. And it is based on factual outcomes rather than pure prejudice.
[Answers to your points on regulation to come].
'If EdM leaves Burnham in place - I'll be amazed. If Chuka is being lined up instead - oh dear, he's got that oily New Labour £2000 suit look about him.'
I would have thought the last person Labour needed at Health is a Savile Row socialist that refers to voters as trash.
Time to give Abbott a chance.
I prefer to see things in the round. You wouldn't have a good word for Hunt or anyone in the Coalition (unless they were a Lib Dem attacking the Govt), so why would anyone take what you have to say as gospel?
I am sure most on here look as what you write with considerable suspicion. You have form.
The truth about the NHS is somewhere in the middle, it certainly isn't anywhere near where you want to try and pin the blame.
If it went to an ice pixie like Yvette - I don't think it'd work - she isn't warm at all. In HoC Yvette vs May is like IceMan re SubZero.