@MIKE Is it not worth trying out a membership at £10/£15 a year. Hopefully most regular posters would join up and it would help supplement advert income and hopefully keep you solvent.
Syria: Cameron, Hollande at odds with their voters; Peter Kellner's latest YouGov comment.
European Union foreign ministers meet in Dublin this Friday to discuss whether to lift or ease the EU's arms embargo on Syria. YouGov surveys this week in Britain and France find that voters in both countries are reluctant to back David Cameron's and President Hollande's demands to allow military supplies to flow to the Syrian forces ranged against the Assad regime.
The surveys, for Channel 4 News, find overwhelming backing in both countries for continuing to send in humanitarian supplies, which both countries have been sending throughout the conflict. There is also widespread, if less overwhelming, support for sending in protective clothing such as helmets and flak jackets - something the EU already allows.
After that, support for any greater form of military support ebbs away sharply.
I've seen this happen on other forums in the past. On one or two occasions people have offered to write a specific forum for the site owner. There were loads of promises 'it'll do exactly what you want', 'it'll be free' and 'it'll save server costs'.
One owner took up the offer, and it killed a well-used forum ten years or so ago. It's fairly simple to knock-up a prototype system, especially using one of the web frameworks, but making it reliable, efficient and most of all secure are much greater problems. Then there's the issue of what would happen if the creator disappears, leaving a mess of code.
Whatever we do, let's stick with a well-used solution.
On the subject of a subscription fee, I'm open to the idea with obvious caveats.
The previous Government published a framework of what they were to do in terms of cuts and tax rises. under their forecasts, adjusted for the actuality of the international issues and what did happen, the IFS projected a 2012/13 deficit for them of over £140bn
I made £1,600 on Eastleigh, much of which was attributable to information deriving from the Site, one way or another, so obviously for me such a fee would be inconsequential. It *might* discourage non-punting posters, but would that be such a bad thing? I have nothing against them, but the Site built its reputation very much on the back of its punting community.
If a fee encouraged a return to the punting theme, the Site might become stronger, though perhaps less regularly visited.
I'd be wary of making subscription mandatory. It'd put off lurkers from starting to post, and I think a voluntary approach would bring in a fair amount. Badges for donors/subscribers also sounds like a nice touch. I think the ARRSE forum (which I haven't checked for ages, now I think of it) does something similar.
The subscription for advanced sight of political tips sounds like a decent idea. I used to do that for Mr. Manson's tennis tips.
@Morris_Dancer - I agree. Having a subscription perk would be the best route. It allows people to contribute while still allowing new blood to join. We can of course shame long-standing posters to subscribe if it is made obvious who paid and who didn't!
@Andy_Cookethe IFS projected a 2012/13 deficit for them of over £140bn
And that of course was before the international situation got even worse than it now is.
Frankly, anyone who thinks we wouldn't have an even more humoungous deficit under Labour needs his head examining.
Labour supporters, and especially Ed Balls, really ought to read yesterday's IFS stuff. The projections for the cuts needed, or tax rises, or both, in the next parliament are horrendous. I find it gobsmacking that Labour is doing absolutely nothing to prepare the ground for this - indeed, quite the opposite - given that there is a substantial risk that they might be in government. It's one thing carping, being entirely negative, and pretending to be an 'insurgent', when you're sure you are going to lose, but quite another when all the problems might well land on your lap with an almighty thump in May 2015.
"On the recommendation of a recent Paul Krugman blog I've been re-reading George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language". Besides reminding us all what a superb writer Orwell was, it contains some eternal truths which are as relevant today as they ever were.
Here are a couple of choice quotes.
*In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
*Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
This sounds like the basis of an excellent thread. A £20 charge with tim saying it fails the fairness test and asking Charles what he's spent his subsciption rebate on. Richard Nabavi can argue its a near perfect charge though the revenue raise isn't enough. LDs can ask that subsciptions are based on the size of your house and argue with Nats who claim they're subsidising us all and if it wasn't for them PB will collapse only to be contradicted by antifrank saying Londoners pay for everything. And slowly but surely cat photos become more prevalent.
@Andy_Cooke The key passage in that document relevant to the current discussion is found at pp 58-59: 'What tax and spending plans a new Labour government would have followed had it been elected in 2010 cannot be known. The size of the hole in the public finances is now thought to be bigger than was estimated when Labour were in power before the election. Just as the coalition government has implemented policies to reduce borrowing that were not in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Parties’ manifestos, Labour too may have raised taxes or cut spending further in areas they had not mentioned in their manifesto, just as they did in the first year after the 1997, 2001 and 2005 general elections.' So there is no way of knowing whether the last Labour government would have had the mettle to face up to its fiscal commitments had it been returned in 2010. What we now know for sure is that the coalition's fiscal policy has been based on empty rhetoric.
We will never know what the current economic situation would be like at the present, if Labour had won in 2010. Labour passed a law which required the deficit to be cut by 50% by the budget in 2014, so presumably Labour would have had to make more cuts to spending, if there had been the same level of growth as under the coalition.
It is always an interesting discussion about 'what would have happened if', but as you know pretty pointless. It is always annoys me when politicians play these games.
Very interesting bbc article in which Nigel Farage muses on UKIP strategy:
"This is what Mr Farage told me he had learned:
1. The by-election that Reform won in 1989 was crucial in convincing voters that a vote for them was not as wasted vote. Expect UKIP to throw everything at its next chance for a seat in Parliament.
2. Reform had, he says, a good slogan - "A common sense revolution" - that reflected Reform's anti-establishment, blue collar agenda. Expect a similar slogan from UKIP in this summer's local elections.
3. Reform had a foundation, an organisation that promoted its views and carried out research. "There is a big gap in UKIP's armoury and that is a foundation," Farage says. "Margaret Thatcher had the IEA. We need a UKIP-friendly think tank."
4. Reform's greatest influence came in changing the Conservative Party with which it ultimately merged, in what Mr Farage, as a former City man, describes as a "reverse takeover". No one can ever say that UKIP's leader lacks ambition; he is clearly aiming high and long. "Doing a deal with the Conservatives is not uppermost on our agenda," he says. "It is not something I would consider until after the next election." But the idea has clearly crossed his mind."
"Well this new system lets people have badges. So why not a donor badge if you pay £x a year?"
I think this is an excellent middle ground. It brings in money without compulsion, and without creating a barrier to new posters, while giving those supporting the site public acknowledgment for their contribution to the rest of us.
@hucks67Labour passed a law which required the deficit to be cut by 50% by the budget in 2014,
Well, quite. What a mind-blowingly stupid thing to do. You might as well pass a law saying 'growth will be 5%' or 'Britain will win the Eurovision Song Contest'.
Sorting out the finances requires taking decisions. Labour, quite deliberately and cynically, refused to take any, not even carrying out a spending review.
Maybe they were lying through their teeth and had a secret plan to do something, but there is absolutely no sign of any such plan or intention. This is not suprising, since they were certain they were not going to be in government. Next time they might well be, but still they oppose almost every saving the government proposes. This is bonkers - they are heading for a massive car crash if, God forbid, they end up being the ones having to make the savings.
Great stuff Pong. One thing UKIP should do is make much more focus on (a) crime and punishment, of which the major parties are all out of touch and (b) infrastructure spending, which accords with their values, gives them something positive to say on economic growth and also prevents them being seen as hard right.
Richard Nabavi: Only tim still believes that labour (darling) had a plan. They didn't. The only plan was to make things as tough for the tories as possible.
I would be happy to put up for the benefit of donors only all my strongest betting tips. I don't mean the kind of 'shoot from the hip' stuff I do occasionally, as for example on my recent Cheltenham Festival thread piece. I have in mind the high value bets (20% or more margin) which I rely upon for my annual profits.
To put these in perspective, I have had nine such bets this year at an average stake of £200. The profit on them is £1,600.
I'd be very happy to throw this service in free for fee-paying PBers.
When even the LDs are changing their cherished position on immigration - and Labour are still bemoaning every cut - they are clearly a long way from grasping any nettle that looks tricky.
Just look at Labour's vote re the Welfare Bill.
"Yet the media have been – with a few exceptions – silent.
It was barely noticed, for example, that Gateshead MP Ian Mearns had resigned as PPS to Ivan Lewis on Tuesday night as a result of the vote. Or that former Housing Minister and Shadow Health Secretary John Healey voted against the Labour front bench for the first time in his parliamentary career. Or that Nick Brown – a former Chief Whip who wanted to stay on in the role until Miliband urged him not to in 2010 – voted against the party line not once but twice. Labour’s biggest affiliate Unite attacked the decision to abstain, and said that those MPs who opposed the legislation “saved the party’s honour”. I’m told than Len McCluskey will be writing to all of the Labour rebels today..." http://labourlist.org/2013/03/the-welfare-sanctions-vote-was-labours-own-omnishambles/
@Life_ina_market_town http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/671/#Comment_671 Oh, indeed they'd have had to change course - but the magnitude of change they'd have needed to apply was significantly greater than that needed by the Coalition, given what had been previously published. It's a political truism that the further you have to shift from a starting point, the harder it is - and not just linearly (ie that twice as far is twice as hard), but geometrically or even exponentially. Which is a factor of ourselves as the public - we (as a whole) are sadly entranced by the pap that the media feed us when they're stoking our basest desires for controversy and story. So it is fairly well established that Labour's original course would have taken us further down the debt and deficit route than the Coalition's original course (as per the IFS), and that tacking into the winds of reality would have been a harder swerve fiscally and a far, far harder swerve politically.
Morris, Cyclefree and others. I'd appreciate an insight into my mut! We got her from The Dog's Trust and think she has Rhodesian Ridgeback and Staffy in her but we're not sure. She's soft as anything and daft as a brush.
"It is baffling that it should have come to this over such a relatively trivial sum of money: €5.8 billion. Hundreds of billions have been spent already bailing out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, and another €100bn has been earmarked for Spain. And yet, for a fraction of that, it seems that they are prepared to allow the first exit from the Eurozone and all the disruption that will follow. The reason it has come to this is discipline.
Berlin has only been prepared to sanction the programme of bailouts if the recipients agree to terms laid out by Berlin and Brussels, and then stick to them. So when, last weekend, they agreed to stump up €10bn of (mostly) German taxpayers money they added a raft of conditions. But for the first time a nation in Southern Europe said no. Which for Angela Merkel is a problem...
Allow the Cypriots to get away with defying the paymasters and soon they'll all be doing it. Greece came very close last year, but Europe called their bluff. Italy has just voted decisively against austerity, but it's still not clear that a new Government (when it gets a new Government) will be as robust as the electorate. Letting Cyprus leave the Eurozone will certainly be problematic; letting Cyprus dictate the terms of its own bailout may be even worse in German eyes." http://www.itv.com/news/2013-03-22/deadline-day-arrives-for-cyprus/
@Andy_Cooke at 10:50 AM 'It's a political truism that the further you have to shift from a starting point, the harder it is' The coalition's starting point was that in 2015-2016 (a) the structural budget deficit would be in balance and (b) net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling. It argued in June 2010 that these were 'structural [targets] – to give us flexibility to respond to external shocks'. It has shifted from this starting point further and further as time has passed, because that was the politically expedient option. The politically difficult option, of sticking to the starting point, was never contemplated.
Interesting thoughts posited about site finance. Do we really wish to see a class-based poster system?
As for 'insider-information' bets, would this not undermine any-and-all "tips" posited on this site? It's bad enough that positions are made - and then they are recorded here - when oportunities arise.
Clearly it is upto OGH and Junior to find the best solution: Any puntah-led proposition should be avoided. A case-in-point:
* I have a bet with Wee Timmy regarding the June revision for the deficit FY2012-13, * The loser pays £50 to this site. * If we award "badges/magnolia-stars" based upon contributions then, ** The loser will be marked as someone who failed to understand the current ecoonomic situation, and ** Has 'chosen' to make a positive contribution to this site.
Surely a losing bettor should not be rewarded? As oneself and Wee-Timmy are both going down-to-the-wire on this, can you please think carefully....
Clegg's been v keen on illegal immigrant amnesties for donkeys - now he seems to be singing another tune. I can see why those who think the UK is a *pygmy* without the EU for example may wonder why Clegg is now talking like a Kipper.
@RichardNabavi Unless you're a rabid Tea-Partier, I don't think most people consider building new roads and bridges an expansion of the state. They're one-off construction projects that, once done, the government is barely involved. It's paying for expansions of entitlements and the public sector work force, that will go on permanently unless reversed, that is actually a big-state strategy.
2. Reform had, he says, a good slogan - "A common sense revolution" - that reflected Reform's anti-establishment, blue collar agenda. Expect a similar slogan from UKIP in this summer's local elections
I've been saying for a while that it's Common Sense v Common Purpose, obviously they can't use that as a strapline but something with common sense included might work.
I genuinely believe that Common Purpose are out to destroy this country, they have gradually infiltrated every public service, politics included. Who was really behind Hacked Off? The likes of Coogan and Grant are no more than useful idiots adding a touch of glamour to their sinister campaign.
The EU are exactly the same, trying to force schools to include positive things about the EU whilst also trying to ban any bad press about them. I know I will be derided as a conspiracy theorist but people need to wake up to what is going on around them, we are being manipulated by a shadowy group. Look at the NHS, if Nicholson worked in the private sector he could be facing corporate manslaughter charges, but our elite defend him. Look at the gags on whistleblowers, classic cover up stuff.
I genuinely believe this country will never get back to normality until Common Purpose is smashed once and for all. And before anyone asks, the Bildeberg Group is every bit as bad, and the vast majority of people are caught between these two sinister and evil organisations.
@Neil, seeing that the Germans have a lot more cash because of huge capital transfers from the South, due to the catastrophically designed Euro, I don't think they can play the role of the samaritan here.
Just in case The Stours result hasn't been posted-thanks to Luke Akehurst,The Stours Ward, North Dorset DC. Con hold. Con 207 (80.2%, +11.8), Lab 51 (19.8%, +19.8). Swing of 4% from Con to Lab since 2011.
@Plato Now you mention the EU, that reminds me. I was speaking to someone from the CBI the other day, who admitted that CBI's membership was actually split on the issue. While many of the big boys in London that have EU operations tend to be in favour, most of the small and medium companies in the rest of the country actually consider the EU a net negative, due to the large and increasing volume of regulation. There are also increasing numbers exporting to China, India that don't care that much about the EU any more. Apparently this means they are going to be very bound on the issue should a referendum happen. It's food for thought and makes me think UKIP should start courting the Federation of Small Business pretty heavily.
She also said that the big boys main concern was actually the uncertainty. Most of their trade to Europe would be fine with an FTA, but as definite confirmation of that wouldn't be determined for years, it made them uncomfortable. The lesson for UKIP is to do a much better job of assuring big business they would definitely maintain a trade agreement, whatever happens.
I think that's going a bit far but there is certainly a group of fellow travellers who are in an awful lot of positions of influence. It's like Militant in the 80s but less gobby. It's everywhere from the RSPCA to the BBC to the NHS or Hacked Off and a load of quangos/senior council employees. And even the police. It's just another form of freemasonry which depending on your POV was a harmless rotary club style benevolent organisation/insiders looking after each other cabal.
It reminds me of what happened to the education establishment in the 60/70s. And it takes decades to change the wind once they're in positions to influence others. Who had a rightish lecturer at college or uni? There wasn't a single one when I attended in the 80s, it seems no different now as they're the product of that culture from 30yrs and still have tenure.
If Labour hadn't been so gung-ho about immigration - I suspect it would've taken even longer before the backlash appeared in our politics. Now it and their *racist* rhetoric is biting them on the bum.
I rather embarrassingly went to university in 2010 as a 35 year old, studying Humanities, and at the very heart of the course was the teachers determination to tell the students there was "no such thing as common sense" .... It was nicknamed the communist factory and I lasted 12 months. I was turning into Richard Littlejohn, and the staff were sinister versions of The Modern Parents from Viz.
@Morris_Dancer 11:17AM Mr. Rog, not that good at discerning breeds, I must admit. What's his behaviour like?
He's a she :-) Generally very loving, still a bit bouncy at 2 1/2 daft as a brush and a complete wimp. I've been told that this morning she freaked out when the low battery alarm went off on the smoke alarm and was reduced to a quivering heap of jelly on our bed.
That's interesting re the EU and SMEs. I can see the logic in that position - I remain a Less EUer myself and am waiting to see what we can extract from them, very painfully.
At the mo, I'm pretty down on Cameron re Leveson and HMG on secret courts and just glad that his stupid nannying has been dropped re alcohol pricing. I can't help wondering if he's in the wrong party - but then again what's the difference between any of the Big Three when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of speech. Bugger all IMO.
1982 Dec 7 Archive Elections: Christopher Monckton minute to Gow ("General Election Forecasts") [computer model predicts Conservative gain of 52 seats] [released 2013]
Vince Cable pointing out that the Government has no control over immigration from the EU and that the best thing to do to achieve its net immigration target is to encourage more emigration from this country.
As this point gets aired more, people will begin to understand UKIP's position that the only way to control ommigration from East Europe is to leave the EU. Other policies don't work.
In fact Vince Cable points out that the Government's current policy to reduce immigration from non EU countries hurts business because it is with the non EU countries that we have a chance of improving trade.
I just find it so repellent - a grubby deal cooked up by the self-interested at 3am and rushed out.
Why? There's no reason for it - we aren't on the edge of a war or a financial crisis - its the press for heaven's sake. It's bizarre and that's what I find most insulting and worrying.
It's the Dangerous Dogs Act with almost all of the dangerous dogs already caught or expecting a knock on their kennels.
I can't help feeling this is an exercise in *never let a good crisis go to waste*.
That A TORY can touch any of this with a bargepole let alone a LibDem makes me weep.
Do you have an estimate of what percentage of 'customers' you have lost because of moving across platforms and the difficulties of logging into a new system?
Cameron basically shot himself in the foot for the whole press fiasco. He should just have pushed on with enforcing the laws we have and forgotten the whole Leveson charade. He could quite happily have pinned the blame on Labour who let all the hacking etc. happen on their watch. Why he did what he did I have no idea.
There's some views that unless Cameron *gave in* the LDs and Labour would have forced it anyway. But he could've refused to have any Bill at all - he's PM for heaven's sake. He dumped the Defamation Bill after all.
I've come to the view that he'd really be okay with it in his heart of heart even if his head tells him no. Ditto all the nannying stuff, and greeny taxes and and and.
What happened to the libertarian things in their manifesto? The bonfire of the quangos were mostly a reshuffling of the deck, the Bill of Rights went nowhere, recall for MPs kicked into the long grass, removing red tape/laws - I can't think of many that've been dumped bar ancient statute stuff that no longer applies anyway.
We had some things binned like HIPS back in 2010 - but that's it. It's more New Labour now. EdM doesn't need to be in power.
@Alanbrooke @ 11:48 AM: 'He should just have pushed on with enforcing the laws we have and forgotten the whole Leveson charade.' That wasn't an option. Cameron faced a choice of bringing the issue to a head or watching every single government Bill being sunk by the addition of "Levesonian" amendments in the Lords where amendments can be moved which do not touch the subject matter of the Bill in question. It is testament to Cameron's complete lack of principles that he decided to agree to a squalid deal on the matter rather than threaten his tenancy in Number 10. The government's only purpose is the maintenance of that tenancy until 2015.
aww malc that's a nice photo of Ed and Ed. Anyway you all geared up for September 2014 ? I'm surpised at the timing, 100 years of WW1 (August ) followed by 75 years of WW2 ( Sept ) I'd have thought there would be a lot of proud to be british nostalgia about at that time which might offset the Commonwealth games and Bannockburn effects.
Doing deals is one of those irregular verbs, you know, like: We do art, they do erotica, you do porn. Our deals are victories, their deals are compromises, your deals are grubby. You would have been singing the priases of the deal had Cameron produced what you wanted, but he didnt, so it's "grubby" to you. Big deal.
Out in the real worl, you'll find that people just dont give a damn what time the clock was showing when agreement was reached. You do, apparently, so we get to hear your whinging on it now. It's just like the boundaries all over again! You lot just cant cope with not having something to whinge about endlessly...
Comments
9:47AM
Fantastic betting tip coming up
I've just set up Henry G's piece which has a brilliant political betting tip at a very long price which won't last five minutes once I click publish.
-I seem to recall a neon ago, Mike offered exclusive access to jiucy tips in return for a donation to a new server.
Does thisone count?
You now have a system which everybody likes. Maybe now is the time to introduce some sort of fee.
European Union foreign ministers meet in Dublin this Friday to discuss whether to lift or ease the EU's arms embargo on Syria. YouGov surveys this week in Britain and France find that voters in both countries are reluctant to back David Cameron's and President Hollande's demands to allow military supplies to flow to the Syrian forces ranged against the Assad regime.
The surveys, for Channel 4 News, find overwhelming backing in both countries for continuing to send in humanitarian supplies, which both countries have been sending throughout the conflict. There is also widespread, if less overwhelming, support for sending in protective clothing such as helmets and flak jackets - something the EU already allows.
After that, support for any greater form of military support ebbs away sharply.
I've seen this happen on other forums in the past. On one or two occasions people have offered to write a specific forum for the site owner. There were loads of promises 'it'll do exactly what you want', 'it'll be free' and 'it'll save server costs'.
One owner took up the offer, and it killed a well-used forum ten years or so ago. It's fairly simple to knock-up a prototype system, especially using one of the web frameworks, but making it reliable, efficient and most of all secure are much greater problems. Then there's the issue of what would happen if the creator disappears, leaving a mess of code.
Whatever we do, let's stick with a well-used solution.
On the subject of a subscription fee, I'm open to the idea with obvious caveats.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/647/#Comment_647
The previous Government published a framework of what they were to do in terms of cuts and tax rises. under their forecasts, adjusted for the actuality of the international issues and what did happen, the IFS projected a 2012/13 deficit for them of over £140bn
http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap3.pdf
£20 a year strikes me as very reasonable.
I made £1,600 on Eastleigh, much of which was attributable to information deriving from the Site, one way or another, so obviously for me such a fee would be inconsequential. It *might* discourage non-punting posters, but would that be such a bad thing? I have nothing against them, but the Site built its reputation very much on the back of its punting community.
If a fee encouraged a return to the punting theme, the Site might become stronger, though perhaps less regularly visited.
The subscription for advanced sight of political tips sounds like a decent idea. I used to do that for Mr. Manson's tennis tips.
And that of course was before the international situation got even worse than it now is.
Frankly, anyone who thinks we wouldn't have an even more humoungous deficit under Labour needs his head examining.
Labour supporters, and especially Ed Balls, really ought to read yesterday's IFS stuff. The projections for the cuts needed, or tax rises, or both, in the next parliament are horrendous. I find it gobsmacking that Labour is doing absolutely nothing to prepare the ground for this - indeed, quite the opposite - given that there is a substantial risk that they might be in government. It's one thing carping, being entirely negative, and pretending to be an 'insurgent', when you're sure you are going to lose, but quite another when all the problems might well land on your lap with an almighty thump in May 2015.
"On the recommendation of a recent Paul Krugman blog I've been re-reading George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language". Besides reminding us all what a superb writer Orwell was, it contains some eternal truths which are as relevant today as they ever were.
Here are a couple of choice quotes.
*In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
*Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Quite so." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100023644/george-orwell-and-the-uk-budget/
This sounds like the basis of an excellent thread. A £20 charge with tim saying it fails the fairness test and asking Charles what he's spent his subsciption rebate on. Richard Nabavi can argue its a near perfect charge though the revenue raise isn't enough. LDs can ask that subsciptions are based on the size of your house and argue with Nats who claim they're subsidising us all and if it wasn't for them PB will collapse only to be contradicted by antifrank saying Londoners pay for everything. And slowly but surely cat photos become more prevalent.
The key passage in that document relevant to the current discussion is found at pp 58-59:
'What tax and spending plans a new Labour government would have followed had
it been elected in 2010 cannot be known. The size of the hole in the public finances is now
thought to be bigger than was estimated when Labour were in power before the election.
Just as the coalition government has implemented policies to reduce borrowing that were
not in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Parties’ manifestos, Labour too may
have raised taxes or cut spending further in areas they had not mentioned in their
manifesto, just as they did in the first year after the 1997, 2001 and 2005 general elections.'
So there is no way of knowing whether the last Labour government would have had the mettle to face up to its fiscal commitments had it been returned in 2010. What we now know for sure is that the coalition's fiscal policy has been based on empty rhetoric.
£20 sounds fine to me - cat videos are of course a prerequisite ;^ )
We can only hope that Labour wouldnt really have halved capital spending as implied by their plans.
10:24AM
We will never know what the current economic situation would be like at the present, if Labour had won in 2010. Labour passed a law which required the deficit to be cut by 50% by the budget in 2014, so presumably Labour would have had to make more cuts to spending, if there had been the same level of growth as under the coalition.
It is always an interesting discussion about 'what would have happened if', but as you know pretty pointless. It is always annoys me when politicians play these games.
"This is what Mr Farage told me he had learned:
1. The by-election that Reform won in 1989 was crucial in convincing voters that a vote for them was not as wasted vote. Expect UKIP to throw everything at its next chance for a seat in Parliament.
2. Reform had, he says, a good slogan - "A common sense revolution" - that reflected Reform's anti-establishment, blue collar agenda. Expect a similar slogan from UKIP in this summer's local elections.
3. Reform had a foundation, an organisation that promoted its views and carried out research. "There is a big gap in UKIP's armoury and that is a foundation," Farage says. "Margaret Thatcher had the IEA. We need a UKIP-friendly think tank."
4. Reform's greatest influence came in changing the Conservative Party with which it ultimately merged, in what Mr Farage, as a former City man, describes as a "reverse takeover". No one can ever say that UKIP's leader lacks ambition; he is clearly aiming high and long. "Doing a deal with the Conservatives is not uppermost on our agenda," he says. "It is not something I would consider until after the next election." But the idea has clearly crossed his mind."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21894316
I think this is an excellent middle ground. It brings in money without compulsion, and without creating a barrier to new posters, while giving those supporting the site public acknowledgment for their contribution to the rest of us.
Well, quite. What a mind-blowingly stupid thing to do. You might as well pass a law saying 'growth will be 5%' or 'Britain will win the Eurovision Song Contest'.
Sorting out the finances requires taking decisions. Labour, quite deliberately and cynically, refused to take any, not even carrying out a spending review.
Maybe they were lying through their teeth and had a secret plan to do something, but there is absolutely no sign of any such plan or intention. This is not suprising, since they were certain they were not going to be in government. Next time they might well be, but still they oppose almost every saving the government proposes. This is bonkers - they are heading for a massive car crash if, God forbid, they end up being the ones having to make the savings.
I thought they wanted smaller government?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/662/#Comment_662
That's an interesting idea Morris.
I would be happy to put up for the benefit of donors only all my strongest betting tips. I don't mean the kind of 'shoot from the hip' stuff I do occasionally, as for example on my recent Cheltenham Festival thread piece. I have in mind the high value bets (20% or more margin) which I rely upon for my annual profits.
To put these in perspective, I have had nine such bets this year at an average stake of £200. The profit on them is £1,600.
I'd be very happy to throw this service in free for fee-paying PBers.
When even the LDs are changing their cherished position on immigration - and Labour are still bemoaning every cut - they are clearly a long way from grasping any nettle that looks tricky.
Just look at Labour's vote re the Welfare Bill.
"Yet the media have been – with a few exceptions – silent.
It was barely noticed, for example, that Gateshead MP Ian Mearns had resigned as PPS to Ivan Lewis on Tuesday night as a result of the vote. Or that former Housing Minister and Shadow Health Secretary John Healey voted against the Labour front bench for the first time in his parliamentary career. Or that Nick Brown – a former Chief Whip who wanted to stay on in the role until Miliband urged him not to in 2010 – voted against the party line not once but twice. Labour’s biggest affiliate Unite attacked the decision to abstain, and said that those MPs who opposed the legislation “saved the party’s honour”. I’m told than Len McCluskey will be writing to all of the Labour rebels today..." http://labourlist.org/2013/03/the-welfare-sanctions-vote-was-labours-own-omnishambles/
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/671/#Comment_671
Oh, indeed they'd have had to change course - but the magnitude of change they'd have needed to apply was significantly greater than that needed by the Coalition, given what had been previously published.
It's a political truism that the further you have to shift from a starting point, the harder it is - and not just linearly (ie that twice as far is twice as hard), but geometrically or even exponentially. Which is a factor of ourselves as the public - we (as a whole) are sadly entranced by the pap that the media feed us when they're stoking our basest desires for controversy and story.
So it is fairly well established that Labour's original course would have taken us further down the debt and deficit route than the Coalition's original course (as per the IFS), and that tacking into the winds of reality would have been a harder swerve fiscally and a far, far harder swerve politically.
http://www.espn.co.uk/malaysia/motorsport/story/103810.html
Might be the chance of an outside bet on them if it's rainy.
You can see Oldest First if you click on your user name and read the discussion in the Vanilla backoffice format by choosing Discussions.
There's a lot of Twitterage about this from LDs. What is Clegg doing? Anti-immigration people aren't going to vote LD in a month of Sundays.
"It is baffling that it should have come to this over such a relatively trivial sum of money: €5.8 billion. Hundreds of billions have been spent already bailing out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, and another €100bn has been earmarked for Spain. And yet, for a fraction of that, it seems that they are prepared to allow the first exit from the Eurozone and all the disruption that will follow. The reason it has come to this is discipline.
Berlin has only been prepared to sanction the programme of bailouts if the recipients agree to terms laid out by Berlin and Brussels, and then stick to them. So when, last weekend, they agreed to stump up €10bn of (mostly) German taxpayers money they added a raft of conditions. But for the first time a nation in Southern Europe said no. Which for Angela Merkel is a problem...
Allow the Cypriots to get away with defying the paymasters and soon they'll all be doing it. Greece came very close last year, but Europe called their bluff. Italy has just voted decisively against austerity, but it's still not clear that a new Government (when it gets a new Government) will be as robust as the electorate. Letting Cyprus leave the Eurozone will certainly be problematic; letting Cyprus dictate the terms of its own bailout may be even worse in German eyes." http://www.itv.com/news/2013-03-22/deadline-day-arrives-for-cyprus/
Yes, anything that makes it clear that the Germans are offering to stump up cash not trying to steal people's deposits is welcome.
Cheers got it! The site looks a lot better.
'It's a political truism that the further you have to shift from a starting point, the harder it is'
The coalition's starting point was that in 2015-2016 (a) the structural budget deficit would be in balance and (b) net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling. It argued in June 2010 that these were 'structural [targets] – to give us flexibility to respond to external shocks'. It has shifted from this starting point further and further as time has passed, because that was the politically expedient option. The politically difficult option, of sticking to the starting point, was never contemplated.
We started operating on March 23rd 2004
As for 'insider-information' bets, would this not undermine any-and-all "tips" posited on this site? It's bad enough that positions are made - and then they are recorded here - when oportunities arise.
Clearly it is upto OGH and Junior to find the best solution: Any puntah-led proposition should be avoided. A case-in-point:
* I have a bet with Wee Timmy regarding the June revision for the deficit FY2012-13,
* The loser pays £50 to this site.
* If we award "badges/magnolia-stars" based upon contributions then,
** The loser will be marked as someone who failed to understand the current ecoonomic situation, and
** Has 'chosen' to make a positive contribution to this site.
Surely a losing bettor should not be rewarded? As oneself and Wee-Timmy are both going down-to-the-wire on this, can you please think carefully....
Clegg's been v keen on illegal immigrant amnesties for donkeys - now he seems to be singing another tune. I can see why those who think the UK is a *pygmy* without the EU for example may wonder why Clegg is now talking like a Kipper.
Happy Birthday - you're now like the Queen with two of them ;^ )
I've been saying for a while that it's Common Sense v Common Purpose, obviously they can't use that as a strapline but something with common sense included might work.
I genuinely believe that Common Purpose are out to destroy this country, they have gradually infiltrated every public service, politics included. Who was really behind Hacked Off? The likes of Coogan and Grant are no more than useful idiots adding a touch of glamour to their sinister campaign.
The EU are exactly the same, trying to force schools to include positive things about the EU whilst also trying to ban any bad press about them. I know I will be derided as a conspiracy theorist but people need to wake up to what is going on around them, we are being manipulated by a shadowy group. Look at the NHS, if Nicholson worked in the private sector he could be facing corporate manslaughter charges, but our elite defend him. Look at the gags on whistleblowers, classic cover up stuff.
I genuinely believe this country will never get back to normality until Common Purpose is smashed once and for all. And before anyone asks, the Bildeberg Group is every bit as bad, and the vast majority of people are caught between these two sinister and evil organisations.
Animal Farm, coming to your town very soon.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/701/#Comment_701
And by a curious coincidence, my first post was exactly one year later.
Happy Anniversary to us both.
The Germans would be putting up their taxpayers' cash, not funds that have been transferred to Germany from the South.
If the site was 'born' on the 23rd March, then we share a birthday!
(although today's the 22nd...)
She also said that the big boys main concern was actually the uncertainty. Most of their trade to Europe would be fine with an FTA, but as definite confirmation of that wouldn't be determined for years, it made them uncomfortable. The lesson for UKIP is to do a much better job of assuring big business they would definitely maintain a trade agreement, whatever happens.
I cant remember my first post either. Hopefully it was far-sighted enough to ask Rik and Marcus for a bet on them winning their seats in that election
(Only kidding Rik and Marcus, hope you're both well!)
I think that's going a bit far but there is certainly a group of fellow travellers who are in an awful lot of positions of influence. It's like Militant in the 80s but less gobby. It's everywhere from the RSPCA to the BBC to the NHS or Hacked Off and a load of quangos/senior council employees. And even the police. It's just another form of freemasonry which depending on your POV was a harmless rotary club style benevolent organisation/insiders looking after each other cabal.
It reminds me of what happened to the education establishment in the 60/70s. And it takes decades to change the wind once they're in positions to influence others. Who had a rightish lecturer at college or uni? There wasn't a single one when I attended in the 80s, it seems no different now as they're the product of that culture from 30yrs and still have tenure.
If Labour hadn't been so gung-ho about immigration - I suspect it would've taken even longer before the backlash appeared in our politics. Now it and their *racist* rhetoric is biting them on the bum.
I rather embarrassingly went to university in 2010 as a 35 year old, studying Humanities, and at the very heart of the course was the teachers determination to tell the students there was "no such thing as common sense" .... It was nicknamed the communist factory and I lasted 12 months. I was turning into Richard Littlejohn, and the staff were sinister versions of The Modern Parents from Viz.
11:17AM
Mr. Rog, not that good at discerning breeds, I must admit. What's his behaviour like?
He's a she :-) Generally very loving, still a bit bouncy at 2 1/2 daft as a brush and a complete wimp. I've been told that this morning she freaked out when the low battery alarm went off on the smoke alarm and was reduced to a quivering heap of jelly on our bed.
That's interesting re the EU and SMEs. I can see the logic in that position - I remain a Less EUer myself and am waiting to see what we can extract from them, very painfully.
At the mo, I'm pretty down on Cameron re Leveson and HMG on secret courts and just glad that his stupid nannying has been dropped re alcohol pricing. I can't help wondering if he's in the wrong party - but then again what's the difference between any of the Big Three when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of speech. Bugger all IMO.
Mr. Sam, not sure why going to university, at any age, is embarrassing.
1982 Dec 7
Archive
Elections: Christopher Monckton minute to Gow ("General Election Forecasts") [computer model predicts Conservative gain of 52 seats] [released 2013]
RT @whyoutloud: http://t.co/MTCaC2ySvH 1982 computer prediction of 147 seat majority for the Tories (1983 = 144 seat majority)
Has Plato finally woken up to the fact that Cammo is as far from being a conservative as Millipede. welcome to the real world.
our main politicos are very nervous on this freedom of speech stuff as people might use it.
As this point gets aired more, people will begin to understand UKIP's position that the only way to control ommigration from East Europe is to leave the EU. Other policies don't work.
In fact Vince Cable points out that the Government's current policy to reduce immigration from non EU countries hurts business because it is with the non EU countries that we have a chance of improving trade.
OMG, I couldn't see your avatar very clearly (old eyes) so clicked on it thinking it might be a snap of your pooch. What a shock!!!!
I just find it so repellent - a grubby deal cooked up by the self-interested at 3am and rushed out.
Why? There's no reason for it - we aren't on the edge of a war or a financial crisis - its the press for heaven's sake. It's bizarre and that's what I find most insulting and worrying.
It's the Dangerous Dogs Act with almost all of the dangerous dogs already caught or expecting a knock on their kennels.
I can't help feeling this is an exercise in *never let a good crisis go to waste*.
That A TORY can touch any of this with a bargepole let alone a LibDem makes me weep.
Do you have an estimate of what percentage of 'customers' you have lost because of moving across platforms and the difficulties of logging into a new system?
[It's actually a small part of the cover of Bane of Souls, available at all good e-book retailers].
Its a great signature isn't it! Very classy - mine is so scrawling that when I got divorced and reverted to my maiden name, I kept the same signature!
I share some of your suspicions on Common Purpose. If they are a benign organisation, then why so secretive?
They have a lot of alumni in NHS management.
Cameron basically shot himself in the foot for the whole press fiasco. He should just have pushed on with enforcing the laws we have and forgotten the whole Leveson charade. He could quite happily have pinned the blame on Labour who let all the hacking etc. happen on their watch. Why he did what he did I have no idea.
There's some views that unless Cameron *gave in* the LDs and Labour would have forced it anyway. But he could've refused to have any Bill at all - he's PM for heaven's sake. He dumped the Defamation Bill after all.
I've come to the view that he'd really be okay with it in his heart of heart even if his head tells him no. Ditto all the nannying stuff, and greeny taxes and and and.
What happened to the libertarian things in their manifesto? The bonfire of the quangos were mostly a reshuffling of the deck, the Bill of Rights went nowhere, recall for MPs kicked into the long grass, removing red tape/laws - I can't think of many that've been dumped bar ancient statute stuff that no longer applies anyway.
We had some things binned like HIPS back in 2010 - but that's it. It's more New Labour now. EdM doesn't need to be in power.
This little app has the ability to totally misrepresent any twitter account
http://lemmetweetthatforyou.com/
Like this for example from Ed Miliband
http://lemmetweetthatforyou.com/t/2q1taw
Cameron is more in to managing the status quo than reforming the country.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/03/ten-reasons-why-the-governments-blog-regulation-plans-wont-work/
'He should just have pushed on with enforcing the laws we have and forgotten the whole Leveson charade.'
That wasn't an option. Cameron faced a choice of bringing the issue to a head or watching every single government Bill being sunk by the addition of "Levesonian" amendments in the Lords where amendments can be moved which do not touch the subject matter of the Bill in question. It is testament to Cameron's complete lack of principles that he decided to agree to a squalid deal on the matter rather than threaten his tenancy in Number 10. The government's only purpose is the maintenance of that tenancy until 2015.
aww malc that's a nice photo of Ed and Ed. Anyway you all geared up for September 2014 ? I'm surpised at the timing, 100 years of WW1 (August ) followed by 75 years of WW2 ( Sept ) I'd have thought there would be a lot of proud to be british nostalgia about at that time which might offset the Commonwealth games and Bannockburn effects.
Doing deals is one of those irregular verbs, you know, like: We do art, they do erotica, you do porn. Our deals are victories, their deals are compromises, your deals are grubby. You would have been singing the priases of the deal had Cameron produced what you wanted, but he didnt, so it's "grubby" to you. Big deal.
Out in the real worl, you'll find that people just dont give a damn what time the clock was showing when agreement was reached. You do, apparently, so we get to hear your whinging on it now. It's just like the boundaries all over again! You lot just cant cope with not having something to whinge about endlessly...
He used the word grubby not me.