Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Somerset have given away 40 byes - cost em the game.
22 byes actually. 18 assorted other extras. Bad day at the office for Keiswetter.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Somerset have given away 40 byes - cost em the game.
22 byes actually. 18 assorted other extras. Bad day at the office for Keiswetter.
22 in 2nd innings, 18 in first. Derby have given away 8 in 2 innings..
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Quite correct too.
A spot of light luncheon should not be indisposed even by the most pleasing connection of willow and leather.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
And by that time you can bet that GO will have some tax cuts to, ahem, bribe the electorate. Some feelgood stuff, a tax cut, subsidy, grant whatever it will take.
I have always contended that 'Jam tomorrow' will not be good enough topping. Tory promises will not be believed.
The government will need to show the voters a little of the money before the election.
I dont think the UK looks back more than any other country. For instance we don't have a significant national day. We build very modern buildings in the heart of London , we embrace immigration and do not try and protect a culture as such . We have world tastes in cuisine. The olympics were fun yet free of pomp. We are instinctively against protectionism etc
Celebrating the worst penis waving inter-family spat in history which cost millions of lives next year goes some way to telling me people do look back and imagine ye olde engerland if not actally brittania. Celebrate victory, but the start of an imperial war over nothing in Serbia? Another country starting in S and ending in ia, almost a 100 years later, where we claim to have the moral high ground. Why a million killed with machetes I Rwanda rates as less of a world issue I will never know.
Mr Farage said: “Our model should be the Liberal Democrats. Not in policy terms but on how they focussed on areas where they are strong, focussing on district councillors and parish and city councils. They trebled the number of seats in Westminster that way. We need a volunteer army. We need people to stand up and put their heads above the parapet.”
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Somerset have given away 40 byes - cost em the game.
22 byes actually. 18 assorted other extras. Bad day at the office for Keiswetter.
22 in 2nd innings, 18 in first. Derby have given away 8 in 2 innings..
Point taken. Apologies. Still worse for Kieswetter, though! Spelt his name right this time!
edmundintokyo - If the result is that decisive then Obama must have known it would never pass when he proposed going to Congress. Makes you think he is happy to say 'sorry folks' cannot launch any missiles i tried but there you are'
What's he going to do £2.88 a week for people who are married? Hardly make up for 37 out of 38 months falling living standards will it. Although he did give a huge bonus gift to top rate taxpayers, maybe some of that will trickle down
Call it a known unknown.
We don't know what it will be but it will be something. It's arguably GO's greatest challenge so with luck (for him) he will be advised well. And as we all know, no one ever went broke underestimating....
Trouble for your lot (although I appreciate you have gone a bit off-book, Labour Party-wise of late) is that the Chancellor has all the tools and people will forget the hardships, such that they have been, for a bit of bribery.
I don't think anyone believes anything about going to war from politicos any more but I think the Cons have built up some degree of credibility on the economy.
redcliffe - i am not sure we will 'celebrate ' world war one next year . Of course Britain has a history and we would be morons not to reflect ,look back on it and even celebrate it from time to time but my points earlier I think show that as countries go we are one of the most forward thinking of the lot
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Somerset have given away 40 byes - cost em the game.
22 byes actually. 18 assorted other extras. Bad day at the office for Keiswetter.
22 in 2nd innings, 18 in first. Derby have given away 8 in 2 innings..
Point taken. Apologies. Still worse for Kieswetter, though! Spelt his name right this time!
There's an irony that those people who relentlessly spam this site with dozens of links to the same Dan Hodges article can't go and read pieces for themselves
The undecided may well lean "support", but the "oppose" and "lean oppose" already add up to a majority.
The White House correspondent today said that BO is likely to do a national broadcast to try to push public opinion.
He should probably needs to make up some compelling evidence or something. He may be able to firm up support on the Democratic side, but the risk is that it just ends up hardening the Republican side against.
There's an irony that those people who relentlessly spam this site with dozens of links to the same Dan Hodges article can't go and read pieces for themselves
Irony:
tim (8,894 posts) complaining about people spamming this site...
Payrolls in the U.S. climbed less than projected in August after smaller gains the prior two months, indicating companies are being deliberate in their hiring as they wait for a pickup in demand. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell as more people left the labor force.
The gain of 169,000 workers last month followed a revised 104,000 rise in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 96 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an August increase of 180,000. Unemployment dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008.
The next election will be about osbourne being able to say ' we inherited a mess . we had to impose some hardship to mend it , the worst is over (critical bit) and give us 5 years to move on now'
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
If you take someone who is paying relatively little tax out of tax completely but cut a range of services and benefits they are receiving, the net effect may well be to leave them worse off. And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
If you take someone who is paying relatively little tax out of tax completely but cut a range of services and benefits they are receiving, the net effect may well be to leave them worse off. And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
Well Labour should not have p****d all the money away then.
The only way the poor will benefit longer term, is if our business and industry are improved to create jobs. Not by tax, borrow, and spend.
SouthernObserver - I think the low paid can spend their own money better and more efficiently than a westminster politician or Whitehall civil servant. That might not be the case further up the income scale but for low earners it is
Payrolls in the U.S. climbed less than projected in August after smaller gains the prior two months, indicating companies are being deliberate in their hiring as they wait for a pickup in demand. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell as more people left the labor force.
The gain of 169,000 workers last month followed a revised 104,000 rise in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 96 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an August increase of 180,000. Unemployment dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008.
The US now has a huge number of economically inactive people, if it's gone up again as suggested. In the UK it looks like there are 500,000-800,000 more economically active people than there 'should' be.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
If you take someone who is paying relatively little tax out of tax completely but cut a range of services and benefits they are receiving, the net effect may well be to leave them worse off. And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
Well Labour should not have p****d all the money away then.
The only way the poor will benefit longer term, is if our business and industry are improved to create jobs. Not by tax, borrow, and spend.
That is a different argument. My point on this thread is that trumpeting tax cuts for the low paid when the overall effect of government policy may be that they are actually worse off is not necessarily the best idea.
SouthernObserver - I think the low paid can spend their own money better and more efficiently than a westminster politician or Whitehall civil servant. That might not be the case further up the income scale but for low earners it is
It is important that everyone contributes, has a stake and understand that their relationship with the state is a two way street. The last thing this country needs is a detached underclass or a top tier.
The potentially good news is that the total number of involuntary underemployed (part time for economic reasons) declined dramatically in August. This was due to a sharp drop in those on slack work. The number of workers who could only find part time work rose slightly. The drop in slack work may signal an increase in production.
SouthernObserver - I think the low paid can spend their own money better and more efficiently than a westminster politician or Whitehall civil servant. That might not be the case further up the income scale but for low earners it is
VAT back down to 17.5%? I know there's no VAT on (most) food but it would affect a lot of other goods that everyone buys.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
If you take someone who is paying relatively little tax out of tax completely but cut a range of services and benefits they are receiving, the net effect may well be to leave them worse off. And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
Well Labour should not have p****d all the money away then.
The only way the poor will benefit longer term, is if our business and industry are improved to create jobs. Not by tax, borrow, and spend.
That is a different argument. My point on this thread is that trumpeting tax cuts for the low paid when the overall effect of government policy may be that they are actually worse off is not necessarily the best idea.
Wild Speculation Alert:
It always has been, and is now: The Pound in Your Pocket.
Most peoples' experience with cuts is limited, as they are somewhat nebulous. Everyone, meanwhile, knows how much everything costs and how much less money they have than they used to.
Address this latter point and you are halfway there.
GO knows this and can turn the perfectly sensible "cost of living" attack by Lab to his advantage; he is in charge of fiscal policy and has many other bribes at his disposal also.
jonathan -if you work in a low paid job you are contributing (even if you dont pay income tax). Most low paid jobs are more necessary than many higher paid desk type jobs .
Payrolls in the U.S. climbed less than projected in August after smaller gains the prior two months, indicating companies are being deliberate in their hiring as they wait for a pickup in demand. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell as more people left the labor force.
The gain of 169,000 workers last month followed a revised 104,000 rise in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 96 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an August increase of 180,000. Unemployment dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008.
The US now has a huge number of economically inactive people, if it's gone up again as suggested. In the UK it looks like there are 500,000-800,000 more economically active people than there 'should' be.
Yes: it's a very mixed day for economic news, after a month or so of universally good figures.
The Bad: US employment - slightly weaker than expected German manufacturing - slightly worse than expected UK trade deficit - worse than expected (and exports to non-EU countries were particularly weak)
The Good: French consumer confidence has rebounded sharply Greece GDP numbers were significantly better than expected (what a shame SeanT didn't take my bet on Greek GDP in 2013 :-()
Stock market are - of course - up on this bad news. As bad news means QE is less likely to be cancelled.
As government spending has gone up in the last 20 years, the average standard of living has gone down. Meddling government stops people even building houses these days.
Payrolls in the U.S. climbed less than projected in August after smaller gains the prior two months, indicating companies are being deliberate in their hiring as they wait for a pickup in demand. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell as more people left the labor force.
The gain of 169,000 workers last month followed a revised 104,000 rise in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 96 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an August increase of 180,000. Unemployment dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008.
The US now has a huge number of economically inactive people, if it's gone up again as suggested. In the UK it looks like there are 500,000-800,000 more economically active people than there 'should' be.
Yes: it's a very mixed day for economic news, after a month or so of universally good figures.
The Bad: US employment - slightly weaker than expected German manufacturing - slightly worse than expected UK trade deficit - worse than expected (and exports to non-EU countries were particularly weak)
The Good: French consumer confidence has rebounded sharply Greece GDP numbers were significantly better than expected (what a shame SeanT didn't take my bet on Greek GDP in 2013 :-()
Stock market are - of course - up on this bad news. As bad news means QE is less likely to be cancelled.
The potentially good news is that the total number of involuntary underemployed (part time for economic reasons) declined dramatically in August. This was due to a sharp drop in those on slack work. The number of workers who could only find part time work rose slightly. The drop in slack work may signal an increase in production.
''Labour's analysis is strong; the facts show a frightening trajectory of ever-rising inequality. Whose recovery is this? That's the great general election question: is it just for the upper echelons? Labour has good ideas and strong instincts – but its cautious remedies still fall short of a policy that would make a significant shift in earnings. There are signs that the Tories might jump ahead by promising sharper rises in the minimum wage, with two ministers hinting at it and a Newsnight leak.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
Apart from all those people taken out of tax - she probably doesn't know that given that top rate payers don't see that tax cut.
If you take someone who is paying relatively little tax out of tax completely but cut a range of services and benefits they are receiving, the net effect may well be to leave them worse off. And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
Well Labour should not have p****d all the money away then.
The only way the poor will benefit longer term, is if our business and industry are improved to create jobs. Not by tax, borrow, and spend.
That is a different argument. My point on this thread is that trumpeting tax cuts for the low paid when the overall effect of government policy may be that they are actually worse off is not necessarily the best idea.
Wild Speculation Alert:
It always has been, and is now: The Pound in Your Pocket.
Most peoples' experience with cuts is limited, as they are somewhat nebulous. Everyone, meanwhile, knows how much everything costs and how much less money they have than they used to.
Address this latter point and you are halfway there.
GO knows this and can turn the perfectly sensible "cost of living" attack by Lab to his advantage; he is in charge of fiscal policy and has many other bribes at his disposal also.
I agree that "bribes" will be made available. This has always been Osborne's plan, hence the original deficit reduction targets. But, as you say, it's the pound in the pocket that counts and with living standards stagnant or falling that is one area that the government is going to have to look at very closely. The challenge is to do something meaningful, while at the same time claiming to be fiscally prudent.
In terms of cuts, the higher up the income scale you go the less noticeable they are except in a very general way. Lower down, however, you may find they are biting substantially in all kinds of ways - big and small.
And if you cut the services and benefits of people who already paid no tax because their salary was not high enough, then you definitely leave them worse off.
Good point, which is why the government might target indirect taxation such as VAT or fuel duty.
I'm arguing if the tories want to do well they will have to offer something before 2015., with the promise of 'there's more where that came from'.
Low and middle income earners will get fed up with lectures about paying down debt if the recovery is shown to boost the upper echelon even further.
but jonathan you seemed to suggest that the low paid would not be contributing if they did not pay income tax . I say the contribution you make to society (or even the state) is in the job you do not especially how much you pay in tax (which is very badly spent in the main by self interested parties be they politcians , officials , private sector /public sector deals etc)
SouthernObserver - I think the low paid can spend their own money better and more efficiently than a westminster politician or Whitehall civil servant. That might not be the case further up the income scale but for low earners it is
VAT back down to 17.5%? I know there's no VAT on (most) food but it would affect a lot of other goods that everyone buys.
No chance - it will be income tax cuts - or allowance increases.
Let the voters spend more of their own money as they choose.
I doubt very much if Osborne will come up with any bribes. The message is too important, and too true, to risk spoiling. The next election will be about credibility, and Osborne will have oodles of credibility: "We said it would be tough, we've stuck to our guns, the benefits are beginning to come through, don't let the other lot wreck it all again - a vote for Labour is a vote for having to repeat all this again."
Labour's message? "Well, we first said it wouldn't have to be tough, then we said maybe it would have to be a little bit tough, but Osborne was going too far too fast, this will lead to a perma-slump, then we said: well, maybe we'd have to be tough too; or sometimes we said he wasn't cutting the deficit fast enough, then we reluctantly accepted all his spending plans, now we're grudgingly admitting things are getting better, but it's the wrong sort of getting better, and anyway we haven't a clue what we'd do differently..."
Why would Osborne throw away that fantastic advantage by sabotaging his nice, clear, and correct message with bribes?
but jonathan you seemed to suggest that the low paid would not be contributing if they did not pay income tax . I say the contribution you make to society (or even the state) is in the job you do not especially how much you pay in tax (which is very badly spent in the main by self interested parties be they politcians , officials , private sector /public sector deals etc)
The key point is to avoid seeing roads, hospitals, prisons, army pay (etc) as somebody else's problem.
I doubt very much if Osborne will come up with any bribes. The message is too important, and too true, to risk spoiling. The next election will be about credibility, and Osborne will have oodles of credibility: "We said it would be tough, we've stuck to our guns, the benefits are beginning to come through, don't let the other lot wreck it all again - a vote for Labour is a vote for having to repeat all this again."
Labour's message? "Well, we first said it wouldn't have to be tough, then we said maybe it would have to be a little bit tough, but Osborne was going too far too fast, this will lead to a perma-slump, then we said: well, maybe we'd have to be tough too; or sometimes we said he wasn't cutting the deficit fast enough, then we reluctantly accepted all his spending plans, now we're grudgingly admitting things are getting better, but it's the wrong sort of getting better, and anyway we haven't a clue what we'd do differently..."
Why would Osborne throw away that fantastic advantage by sabotaging his nice, clear, and correct message with bribes?
Because they work.
And as we are constantly told, the Cons haven't won a GE for bleedin' ages and they want to win the next one.
but jonathan you seemed to suggest that the low paid would not be contributing if they did not pay income tax . I say the contribution you make to society (or even the state) is in the job you do not especially how much you pay in tax (which is very badly spent in the main by self interested parties be they politcians , officials , private sector /public sector deals etc)
The key point is to avoid seeing roads, hospitals, prisons, army pay (etc) as somebodies else's problem.
Yes, and seeing the financing of all that as somebody else's (bankers', future generations') problem.
I doubt very much if Osborne will come up with any bribes. The message is too important, and too true, to risk spoiling. The next election will be about credibility, and Osborne will have oodles of credibility: "We said it would be tough, we've stuck to our guns, the benefits are beginning to come through, don't let the other lot wreck it all again - a vote for Labour is a vote for having to repeat all this again."
Labour's message? "Well, we first said it wouldn't have to be tough, then we said maybe it would have to be a little bit tough, but Osborne was going too far too fast, this will lead to a perma-slump, then we said: well, maybe we'd have to be tough too; or sometimes we said he wasn't cutting the deficit fast enough, then we reluctantly accepted all his spending plans, now we're grudgingly admitting things are getting better, but it's the wrong sort of getting better, and anyway we haven't a clue what we'd do differently..."
Why would Osborne throw away that fantastic advantage by sabotaging his nice, clear, and correct message with bribes?
Dunno, if he thinks he's heading for a win that makes sense, but if not I'd expect him to roll the dice.
all very necessary Jonathan (you can of course argue about the size of an army or indeed a prison population that you need). If only taxes were only spent on those things however. How many politicans do we have in Westminster including the Lords all having staff for instance. How many civil servant in Whitehall do we have on generous consitions and pensions doing nothing to advance the cause of the common man (if not to hinder him) , how many french farmers do we need to pay really through the EU and CAP? Why do we need the NHS to restrict its uppliers to a few big boys so that the price it pays for essentials is a complete rip off to the taxpayer.
and after spending about 50% of all income why does the state continue to be so useless to the common man as to not provide him with basics like free dental care , prescriptions or indeed free scholl meals ofr his children? The state is so big these days it canot possibly spend money as it needs to . For low income earners their money is better spent by themselves
Dunno, if he thinks he's heading for a win that makes sense, but if not I'd expect him to roll the dice.
I can't speak for Osborne, but one thing which is very striking in talking to ordinary Conservative party members, MPs and the occasional minister I've met is the unanimity on the need to keep on course for getting the deficit back to an acceptable level. (The only disagreement is that some in the party think we should have cut spending much faster). Whether it's right or not, at least it's a clear and consistent message, which is a big plus in electoral terms.
Dunno, if he thinks he's heading for a win that makes sense, but if not I'd expect him to roll the dice.
I can't speak for Osborne, but one thing which is very striking in talking to ordinary Conservative party members, MPs and the occasional minister I've met is the unanimity on the need to keep on course for getting the deficit back to an acceptable level. (The only disagreement is that some in the party think we should have cut spending much faster). Whether it's right or not, at least it's a clear and consistent message, which is a big plus in electoral terms.
And in the next breath all of those groups will accept they are late to the "cost of living" debate and are in danger of being outflanked.
All the technical stuff all well and good. As for living standards, cost of living, pound in your pocket, etc, they need to make this tangible for voters. Or, as @taffys says, people will switch off.
I've just caught up with those projected voting figures for the House of Representatives that ABC have compiled and EdmundinTokyo has posted below. If they are anything like correct, Barack Obama is in deep trouble. If he doesn't get this through, he'll be the lamest of lame ducks.
I also failed to add the biggest expenditure the state does by far is to pay people to do nothing at all. How is that contributing to society?
I sympathise with your arguments. The state, like all organisations, is flawed. But is necessary and valuable.
Certainly, none of your points justify taking people out of tax. In fact quite the reverse. We need people to care. We need people to feel personally responsible and offended when money is wasted.
Democracy is the worst system of govt, apart from all the others.
not sure he really wants the vote to go for him antifrank - Much easier to not fire missiles than to do so for a second term president who seemingly likes a easy life
We will have to disagree Jonathan. Its theargument Thatcher used for the poll tax in that everyone needs to have a stake and therefore pay. It seemed a weak argument to me
Dunno, if he thinks he's heading for a win that makes sense, but if not I'd expect him to roll the dice.
I can't speak for Osborne, but one thing which is very striking in talking to ordinary Conservative party members, MPs and the occasional minister I've met is the unanimity on the need to keep on course for getting the deficit back to an acceptable level. (The only disagreement is that some in the party think we should have cut spending much faster). Whether it's right or not, at least it's a clear and consistent message, which is a big plus in electoral terms.
Maybe, but traditionally in the run-up to an election you stop worrying as much about your members and MPs and start worrying about low-information floating voters.
I also failed to add the biggest expenditure the state does by far is to pay people to do nothing at all. How is that contributing to society?
I sympathise with your arguments. The state, like all organisations, is flawed. But is necessary and valuable.
Certainly, none of your points justify taking people out of tax. In fact quite the reverse. We need people to care. We need people to feel personally responsible and offended when money is wasted.
Democracy is the worst system of govt, apart from all the others.
I've often thought that one of the best ways of making people aware of how much tax they pay would be to have prices quoted with the VAT shown separately as is done in the US with sales tax. Ditto re petrol prices.
That would make people realise what they are paying and one hopes also make them care about how it is spent.
It's always amazing to me that cutting taxes for wealthy people increases revenues, but any even marginal cut for Joe ordinary to prove good faith is immediately subject to the deficit mantra. OOh goodness me no, your money is far too important to us.
I'm not asking for much really, just a token gesture for the squeezed middle so the tories can illustrate to voters what could be achieved if they keep the faith. A billion here or there is not going to throw things off course much. But it could be very important in terms of the signal it sends.
Maybe, but traditionally in the run-up to an election you stop worrying as much about your members and MPs and start worrying about low-information floating voters.
Of course - I wasn't suggesting that Osborne would do anything else, my point was that the message he'll be trying to get through to those floating voters is 'Don't let Labour wreck it', and consistency of message and tone is the way to get that message across, whereas anything which looks like a bribe will damage the message. After all, if there are bribes to dish out, why not trust Balls to do the bribing?
I've just caught up with those projected voting figures for the House of Representatives that ABC have compiled and EdmundinTokyo has posted below. If they are anything like correct, Barack Obama is in deep trouble. If he doesn't get this through, he'll be the lamest of lame ducks.
Maybe while they're at it Congress could impeach John Kerry so Obama can replace him with someone who's less of a doofus.
Comments
The undecided may well lean "support", but the "oppose" and "lean oppose" already add up to a majority.
If competition over living standards for low and middle earners does become the next battleground, that's a cause for celebration. But if so, Labour needs to keep well ahead. Housing, childcare, jobs for the young and stopping cartel fuel and rail prices are all Labour turf, but this autumn a bolder structural policy on sinking pay has to show where Labour would lead the country in the long term, or the benefit bill will go on rising.''
For those of a nervous disposition, above from Toynbee's article.
A spot of light luncheon should not be indisposed even by the most pleasing connection of willow and leather.
The undecided may well lean "support", but the "oppose" and "lean oppose" already add up to a majority.
The White House correspondent today said that BO is likely to do a national broadcast to try to push public opinion.
I have always contended that 'Jam tomorrow' will not be good enough topping. Tory promises will not be believed.
The government will need to show the voters a little of the money before the election.
Another country starting in S and ending in ia, almost a 100 years later, where we claim to have the moral high ground. Why a million killed with machetes I Rwanda rates as less of a world issue I will never know.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2013/09/06/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-spells-out-his-dream-at-telford-rally/last-5ukip-9/
Alaska feline mayor Stubbs the cat suffers dog attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23971537
Like you I don;t agree with Toynbee's perspective, but as to where the battleground will take place, she is spot on.
We don't know what it will be but it will be something. It's arguably GO's greatest challenge so with luck (for him) he will be advised well. And as we all know, no one ever went broke underestimating....
Trouble for your lot (although I appreciate you have gone a bit off-book, Labour Party-wise of late) is that the Chancellor has all the tools and people will forget the hardships, such that they have been, for a bit of bribery.
@taffys
I don't think anyone believes anything about going to war from politicos any more but I think the Cons have built up some degree of credibility on the economy.
He should probably needs to make up some compelling evidence or something. He may be able to firm up support on the Democratic side, but the risk is that it just ends up hardening the Republican side against.
tim (8,894 posts) complaining about people spamming this site...
???? really? what would you like it to be about??
The gain of 169,000 workers last month followed a revised 104,000 rise in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 96 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an August increase of 180,000. Unemployment dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-06/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-less-than-forecast-jobless-rate-at-7-3-.html
The only way the poor will benefit longer term, is if our business and industry are improved to create jobs. Not by tax, borrow, and spend.
http://www.athenaalliance.org/weblog/archives/2013/09/august-employment-data.html
It always has been, and is now: The Pound in Your Pocket.
Most peoples' experience with cuts is limited, as they are somewhat nebulous. Everyone, meanwhile, knows how much everything costs and how much less money they have than they used to.
Address this latter point and you are halfway there.
GO knows this and can turn the perfectly sensible "cost of living" attack by Lab to his advantage; he is in charge of fiscal policy and has many other bribes at his disposal also.
The Bad:
US employment - slightly weaker than expected
German manufacturing - slightly worse than expected
UK trade deficit - worse than expected (and exports to non-EU countries were particularly weak)
The Good:
French consumer confidence has rebounded sharply
Greece GDP numbers were significantly better than expected (what a shame SeanT didn't take my bet on Greek GDP in 2013 :-()
Stock market are - of course - up on this bad news. As bad news means QE is less likely to be cancelled.
http://www.athenaalliance.org/weblog/archives/2013/09/august-employment-data.html
Also want to say that Sir Bob Russell is a top man who seems to have cut through all the crap and bureaucracy to help me resolve an issue.
Assuming he is standing in 2015 thats 2 votes for him guaranteed - and I might even offer to deliver some leaflets.
In terms of cuts, the higher up the income scale you go the less noticeable they are except in a very general way. Lower down, however, you may find they are biting substantially in all kinds of ways - big and small.
Good point, which is why the government might target indirect taxation such as VAT or fuel duty.
I'm arguing if the tories want to do well they will have to offer something before 2015., with the promise of 'there's more where that came from'.
Low and middle income earners will get fed up with lectures about paying down debt if the recovery is shown to boost the upper echelon even further.
Let the voters spend more of their own money as they choose.
Labour's message? "Well, we first said it wouldn't have to be tough, then we said maybe it would have to be a little bit tough, but Osborne was going too far too fast, this will lead to a perma-slump, then we said: well, maybe we'd have to be tough too; or sometimes we said he wasn't cutting the deficit fast enough, then we reluctantly accepted all his spending plans, now we're grudgingly admitting things are getting better, but it's the wrong sort of getting better, and anyway we haven't a clue what we'd do differently..."
Why would Osborne throw away that fantastic advantage by sabotaging his nice, clear, and correct message with bribes?
And as we are constantly told, the Cons haven't won a GE for bleedin' ages and they want to win the next one.
Outright.
I worry that by 2015 people will see a strong recovery, maybe even a boom, but will also conclude there's nothing in it for them.
''The economy's doing well? so what. My bills are going through the roof and I haven;t had a raise in four years. Stuff your deficit reduction.
and after spending about 50% of all income why does the state continue to be so useless to the common man as to not provide him with basics like free dental care , prescriptions or indeed free scholl meals ofr his children? The state is so big these days it canot possibly spend money as it needs to . For low income earners their money is better spent by themselves
This lady seems to have taken it literally
@Noriko_Korst
Model, TV Personality
All the technical stuff all well and good. As for living standards, cost of living, pound in your pocket, etc, they need to make this tangible for voters. Or, as @taffys says, people will switch off.
Certainly, none of your points justify taking people out of tax. In fact quite the reverse. We need people to care. We need people to feel personally responsible and offended when money is wasted.
Democracy is the worst system of govt, apart from all the others.
That would make people realise what they are paying and one hopes also make them care about how it is spent.
I'm not asking for much really, just a token gesture for the squeezed middle so the tories can illustrate to voters what could be achieved if they keep the faith. A billion here or there is not going to throw things off course much. But it could be very important in terms of the signal it sends.