So, even Gordon knew that the BBC were run by Tories. I thought this was a secret. I will let him of another one. ITV too ! The Political Editor is now in No.10. His wife works for BBC to balance.
Are you not in the least bit concerned that Gordon Brown was a violent and aggressive employer how routine abused his subordinates?
Will we get an answer to this one? Perhaps "He's Labour, and Labour always do the correct thing. The people on the receiving end were probably Tories, and deserved it".
One thing I don't get... How can children who haven't had the MMR vaccine put other children at risk if all the other children have been vaccinated, so are immune? Is the vaccine not effective?
One thing I don't get... How can children who haven't had the MMR vaccine put other children at risk if all the other children have been vaccinated, so are immune? Is the vaccine not effective?
It's herd immunity - when it falls below a certain level, the chances of transmission grows quickly. That's one of the reasons Wales had a measles outbreak - enough children weren't immune so it spread to young adults who were missed due to the scare.
One thing I don't get... How can children who haven't had the MMR vaccine put other children at risk if all the other children have been vaccinated, so are immune? Is the vaccine not effective?
Question Timer @QuestionTimer Labour Policy We're going to give u more for doing less, paid for by people like ur boss so they then struggle to afford to employ u #lab13
Personally I wouldn`t support compulsory vaccinations.
But it looks like the Tories are rattled at the first set of policy proposals from Labour as they try feverishly to pick holes in them.But the general gist of Labour positioning will get through to the public eventhough the Tory supporting media will only try to focus on the faults of the policies rather than discussing the merits/demerits of them.
The general gist being spend more and tax the bankers?
Sounds populist, but not credible, at least to me.
"So now we know what he wants to do with the country. It’s “socialism”, folks! For years now, Ed Miliband has been studiously blank about his intentions. To a degree that has maddened supporters and opponents alike, he has refused to say much about how Labour would govern the country. He has curled himself into an ideological foetal position – so as to present as small a target as possible – and hoped that Coalition unpopularity would allow him to stand up at the last minute and slither unobtrusively into power.
And now, in an incautious admission, he has reminded us of his core beliefs – as the proud son of a Marxist academic. He wants to restore socialism to Britain. In spite of everything, the mission of Labour under Ed Miliband is to revive a political belief system that brought Britain to its knees, that blighted the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, that was responsible for untold murders and abuses of human rights, and that in the past 30 years has been decisively rejected across the planet in favour of liberty, free enterprise and market economics – a rival system that has lifted and is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and servitude. Someone needs to tell Ed Miliband that socialism failed, and I have just the man to do it... Damian McBride.
If you take MP satisfaction as a balance between national level satisfaction e.g. expenses, policies, one law for them etc, and local level satisfaction e.g. surgery stuff, not an embarrassment on the telly, doesn't bite people at the local fete etc, then (given the very negative national level satisfaction)
either
a) Lab MPs are better at the constituency level activity - housing problems etc
or
b) Con voters are less needful at that level and so weight their local MP's performance more on their national level activity
Just a guess.
I think that sums the reality up very well.
An interesting example is Malcolm Rifkind (my MP).
He is absolutely someone who should be in Parliament. Even if you don't agree with his political outlook, he's experienced, thoughtful and value added/
But he's a terrible local MP. I've seen him once since he was elected - he turns out for the bare minimum of local events and spends much of his time living in Edinburgh.
" And that is the problem with socialism. It has always involved the use of revolting means to pursue an unattainable end. It has seen the rights and liberties of individuals trampled in the name of a collective good. Damian McBride is a small but interesting example of the mental contortions of socialists over the last century, when there is no abuse or tyranny – large or trivial – that has not been justified in the name of the people.
When the Securitate persuaded children to inform against their parents in Ceausescu’s Romania, they knew – at one level – that what they were doing was creepy. But they believed it was in the wider interests of the state, and therefore of the people themselves. When thousands of Soviet dissidents and bourgeois reactionaries were hauled off to perish in Siberian gulags, the authorities knew – with one side of their brains – that this was morally no better than Nazism; but they persuaded themselves that it was for the greater good, and that you could not make an omelette without breaking eggs.
When the North Koreans shoot anyone who falls foul of their deranged and psychotic regime, they don’t blame their evil dictator; they think – or at least they assert – that they are protecting a system of government that is morally superior to that of South Korea and the rest of the capitalist world.
There may be a significant newspaper realignment taking place at present. The FT seems to be decisively shifting from Labour for the first time since 1992. Its current articles include a derisive account of Labour's conference:
"The shift in Labour’s fortunes has exposed weaknesses in Mr Miliband’s leadership. More than three years of opposition have not brought the party closer to making substantive challenges to conventional thinking. It has retreated into what Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, called its “comfort zones”. Senior figures bemoan the glacial pace of a policy review that should have been the engine for government-ready ideas. While it may be sound tactics to hold back on publishing detailed policy ideas until nearer the election, Mr Miliband can only make the case for a Labour government if the groundwork has been done.
One striking area of vacuity is in education. Where the coalition has pushed through a programme of reforms to create free schools and academies, and establish serious examination standards, Labour offers only the policy equivalent of a black hole. Another is foreign policy. In the recent Commons vote over Syria, Mr Miliband revealed a preference for short-term tactics over statesmanship.
Mr Miliband has left it very late to define himself and his party. His personal ratings are in decline. At Brighton next week, he must take the chance to unveil a prospectus."
Now you might have expected the FT to be naturally Conservative in any case, but for many years it has represented Labour's success at making inroads with professionals. If this is changing, this is important.
This thread reads like election week, frantic spinning in all directions. It's not as though conference season usually changes the election dynamics - the net effect is usually close to 0. We've got 19 months to go, chaps. Chill!
Admit I'm curious about tonight's YouGov, though. Will it show UKIP rising, falling or drifting as people react (or not) to Bloom etc.?
This thread reads like election week, frantic spinning in all directions. It's not as though conference season usually changes the election dynamics - the net effect is usually close to 0. We've got 19 months to go, chaps. Chill!
Admit I'm curious about tonight's YouGov, though. Will it show UKIP rising, falling or drifting as people react (or not) to Bloom etc.?
Last Mon-Sunday's YouGov gave Labour leads of 3,4,0,1,and 4. Nick, what do you predict for this week?
The only person who comes out of McBride's memoirs with his reputation enhanced is Nick Clegg. He deserves considerable praise for ensuring this odious bunch were booted away from the levers of power.
Must be difficult for tim, reading how inept his hero Darling was. You can also see why Campbell is livid - the assumption that he was Malcolm Tucker takes a serious knock whe you read this piece from McBride in the Mail:
"A friend there also tipped me off that when I saw the photos accompanying the piece I would flip.
Alistair had posed on a beach with black storm clouds behind him, and dangled out of a small fishing boat in a fluorescent life-jacket as it washed up on to the rocks.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the proof this was a total amateur-night shambles was that no one had made a tape recording of the interview.
That was when I exploded.
‘What the !!!! are you guys doing? This is the Chancellor. The Chancellor! His words matter. Even if he’s making papier-mache hats on !!!!ing Blue Peter, you have someone there with a tape recorder. This is bloody basic!’"
On the TODAY programme R4, it was disclosed that legally the OBR is not allowed to help Ed Balls with his sums, nor with any other political manifesto. Apparently Parliament would have to change the law to allow this.
So his time at Harvard did not improve his arithmetic - thought Alan Johnson resigned from the post of Shadow Chancellor for similar reasons?
It's very simple. Ed Balls is seeking a political advantage for the Labour party, paid for by the taxpayer.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue
That's interesting - I assumed he had a Scottish one but now recalling he's a K&C MP?
His son Hugo is an excellent columnist and good egg if his Twitter personality is anything to go by - he even intervened when I was having subscription issues and asked the IT Dept to pull their finger out.
If you take MP satisfaction as a balance between national level satisfaction e.g. expenses, policies, one law for them etc, and local level satisfaction e.g. surgery stuff, not an embarrassment on the telly, doesn't bite people at the local fete etc, then (given the very negative national level satisfaction)
either
a) Lab MPs are better at the constituency level activity - housing problems etc
or
b) Con voters are less needful at that level and so weight their local MP's performance more on their national level activity
Just a guess.
I think that sums the reality up very well.
An interesting example is Malcolm Rifkind (my MP).
He is absolutely someone who should be in Parliament. Even if you don't agree with his political outlook, he's experienced, thoughtful and value added/
But he's a terrible local MP. I've seen him once since he was elected - he turns out for the bare minimum of local events and spends much of his time living in Edinburgh.
Incidentally, I'm expecting Labour to have a good conference week. By all accounts, there has been a lot of preparation for this, and the careful dripfeed of new policies so far backs this up.
I'm looking forward to Ed Miliband's speech with some anticipation.
Andy Bell @andybell5news When I put it to @edballsmp that he didn't brief because @DPMcBride did it for him he replies "Really not. Really not. Really not." @5_News
@Charles The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
In 2010 we had the magnificent afternoon when the AWESOME TORY TEACHER Katharine Birbalsingh managed to convince the PB Tories that black children in London schools were only allowed to play steel drums in music lessons.
Makes a change from BongoBongo land at least. ;^ )
Zombie fans across the country have been left disappointed after the annual Beach Of The Dead event was cancelled because of fears over health and safety.
The walking dead impersonators will not be descending on Brighton this year because the budget isn’t enough to handle the thousands of visitors that would have potentially showed up.
"Conference season is always fun" It certainly is so far, bl**dy hilarious. Yet another Bank Levy. No Jabs..No benefits..ECHR are gonna love that one. And Mc Bride is wiping the floor with the main players causing lots of chickens to run around trying to find their heads Browns ex Cabinet are all now in complete denial and slowly turning on each other And..its only Monday AM
Blair best post-war Opposition Leader, say experts Monday, 23rd September 2013
Tony Blair was the most successful Leader of the Opposition since 1945, according to a survey of leading political academics carried out by the Centre for Opposition Studies.
Current Labour Leader Ed Miliband misses out on the top ten, ranking at number 11, just behind Clement Attlee, but ahead of former Tory leaders Michael Howard and William Hague. Harold Wilson, who served two terms as Opposition Leader, comes in at second place, narrowly beating Margaret Thatcher into third.
David Cameron ranks at number four, whilst Iain Duncan Smith was considered to be the worst Opposition leader of the post-war period. Other data collected in the survey showed the experts considered the most agenda-setting opposition leader was Margaret Thatcher; the most effective media operator was Tony Blair, and the most effective Parliamentary performer was Harold Wilson, who was also considered the best at party management.
The survey was compiled by Dr Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster and Nigel Fletcher of the Centre for Opposition Studies, with advice from Professor Kevin Theakston of Leeds University, who has conducted similar surveys ranking Prime Ministers. >> http://oppositionstudies.weebly.com/leaders-of-the-opposition-survey.html
@Charles The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
Mere £27.9 billion black holes, eh? Where has Labour's ambition gone? What about those glory days when Darling was able to mislay half a TRILLION pounds between half-yearly statements to the House....
How Labour apologists can come on here and say they want a return to a Labour Govt. - without the humility of say hiding in an Orcadian cave for a quarter of a century by way of apology - is beyond me. Precisely what part of trashing the UK economy did Labour not complete in its previous thirteen years that requires finishing, I wonder?
The world would be a better place if they acknowledged they had done enough damage and so decided instead to dedicate their life to, oh I dunno, maybe animal welfare....
"Those who make it to the rostrum usually turn out to be union organisers and/or aspirant or prospective parliamentary candidates practising their campaign rhetoric. The notional subject is almost irrelevant.
“Hard-working people . . . hard-pressed families . . . really struggling . . . Tory cuts . . . not seen since the 1930s . . . raw deal of austerity . . . replace despair with hope . . . many not just the few . . . forgotten 50 per cent . . . total complacency . . .
There should be rich pickings for Labour in attacking the combination of privatisation, nationalisation and personal ministerial self-aggrandisement that is the essence of government schools policy. But in a feeble speech, Mr Twigg concentrated largely on childcare, content to let Michael Gove ride on with the narrative that education did not exist in Britain until he invented it...
I always assume that politicians talk so much about hardworking families precisely because they have no intention of doing anything that actually helps them.
@Charles The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
Rifkind withdrew declaring Ken Clarke as "head and shoulders" above Cameron as a potential PM
The only person who comes out of McBride's memoirs with his reputation enhanced is Nick Clegg. He deserves considerable praise for ensuring this odious bunch were booted away from the levers of power.
Must be difficult for tim, reading how inept his hero Darling was. You can also see why Campbell is livid - the assumption that he was Malcolm Tucker takes a serious knock whe you read this piece from McBride in the Mail:
"A friend there also tipped me off that when I saw the photos accompanying the piece I would flip.
Alistair had posed on a beach with black storm clouds behind him, and dangled out of a small fishing boat in a fluorescent life-jacket as it washed up on to the rocks.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the proof this was a total amateur-night shambles was that no one had made a tape recording of the interview.
That was when I exploded.
‘What the !!!! are you guys doing? This is the Chancellor. The Chancellor! His words matter. Even if he’s making papier-mache hats on !!!!ing Blue Peter, you have someone there with a tape recorder. This is bloody basic!’"
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
That ranking of opposition leaders in their role as opposition leaders looks about right. Neil Kinnock and Clement Attlee look a bit high and Sir Winston Churchill, Edward Heath and Ed Miliband look a bit low, but generally it looks fair enough. It's scarcely fair to rank John Major in this list at all.
That ranking of opposition leaders in their role as opposition leaders looks about right. Neil Kinnock and Clement Attlee look a bit high and Sir Winston Churchill, Edward Heath and Ed Miliband look a bit low, but generally it looks fair enough. It's scarcely fair to rank John Major in this list at all.
@Charles The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
Rifkind withdrew declaring Ken Clarke as "head and shoulders" above Cameron as a potential PM
Which just goes to show how poor Rifkind's political judgement was. There was no way on earth Clarke was ever going to win with his views on Europe.
There was no way he'd win over Tory MP's who are obsessed by Europe certainly, you're right. The public wouldn't have cared about that though.
When Cameron decided to pull his MP's from the group containing Merkels Party and ally with a load of nutters we could tell he wasn't going to be good enough to win a majority couldn't we?
He didn't have to just convince the Tory MPs. In fact they would have been the least of his problems. It was the rest of the Tory party he had to win over and there was absolutely no chance of that.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
It's just great isn't it, Ric is out there boasting about it
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 46m On BBC, @ChrisLeslieMP is just wrong. Labour's black-hole of £27.9 bn of EXTRA borrowing in 2015/16 is costed by HMT officials. #lab13
I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.
When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.
I have some sympathy with that.
I would imagine doing live interviews is unbelievably stressful and if he found swearing an effective way to release stress then I for one wouldn't blame him for it.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
Charles "It's very simple. Ed Balls is seeking a political advantage for the Labour party, paid for by the taxpayer.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue "
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 1h Ed B is right. I can't think of a good reason why the coalition shouldn't agree to a change allowing OBR to vet Labour's plans.
How about spending taxpayers money on something that solely benefits a political party?
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
The Treasury will of course routinely cost many hundreds of policy proposals.
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
It's just great isn't it, Ric is out there boasting about it
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 46m On BBC, @ChrisLeslieMP is just wrong. Labour's black-hole of £27.9 bn of EXTRA borrowing in 2015/16 is costed by HMT officials. #lab13
Fantastic.
The silence from the PB Hodges is deafening.
Not quite silent, but funny
TGOHF
If Labour want the OBR to review their manifesto can't they pay to cover the costs ??
Charles
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue
The OBR , expensive HMT officials, free The PB Tories,priceless
You don't think the Treasury cost up lots of alternatives in the run up to budgets ? Probably took about 5 mins to dig out the old "silly ideas" spreadsheet from 2012..
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 1h Ed B is right. I can't think of a good reason why the coalition shouldn't agree to a change allowing OBR to vet Labour's plans.
How about spending taxpayers money on something that solely benefits a political party?
Charles - Still waiting for you to let us know how much the Conservative Party paid the Treasury to research Labours spending plans....any chance of letting us know the figure? I hope it was "full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in".
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
The Treasury will of course routinely cost many hundreds of policy proposals.
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
So it is ok for the tax payer funded Treasury to do it for the Tories but not the tax payer funded OBR for Labour....Oh, I see, that figures.
I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.
When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.
I have some sympathy with that.
I would imagine doing live interviews is unbelievably stressful and if he found swearing an effective way to release stress then I for one wouldn't blame him for it.
Charles, don’t be a nincompoop. – bellowing out a tirade of vitriol is neither healthy or acceptable behaviour from anyone, let alone an MP.
I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.
When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.
I have some sympathy with that.
I would imagine doing live interviews is unbelievably stressful and if he found swearing an effective way to release stress then I for one wouldn't blame him for it.
I used to be a spokesbod for a blue-chip and got a load of grief for taking the company line [and it was mostly my own since I wrote the lines to take].
If you can't just hold your nerve and laugh about it afterwards/have a beer - you're in the wrong job. If you're PM and can't take any criticism when you're holding the highest elected office - you're definitely in the wrong job.
@Charles The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
I know K&C is the centre of the universe, but isn't that pushing it a little far...
To be honest - Balls has a point - wouldn't take long for the OBR to take a look at his fag packet - would they charge Labour for "laughing time" though ?
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
The Treasury will of course routinely cost many hundreds of policy proposals.
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
If the OBR costs Labour policies would this not set a precedent for the policies of any party - ukip, greens, snp, monster raving loony party,, ?
So it is ok for the tax payer funded Treasury to do it for the Tories but not the tax payer funded OBR for Labour....Oh, I see, that figures.
When did I ever say the OBR shouldn't look over Labour's manifesto? In fact it was my suggestion, back in May or June 2010 (to much derision from Labour supporters, who at the time were engaged in trying to rubbish Sir Alan Budd and pretend the OBR had no credibility).
I expect it will happen. After all, anything which lays bare the massive contradiction between Ed Miliband's approach of theoretically supporting fiscal sanity, but in practice opposing virtually every single measure required to achieve it, can only be good for the country, and of course for demoralising the Labour core vote.
How many drugs do you have to take to come up with that conclusion?
I will tell you why Cameron deserves to be so high on that list. It probably merits him being much, much higher.
The Election That Never Was.
The Leader of the Opposition has one massive disadvantage - he cannot have any bearing on when an election is called. And yet - one adroit move on CGT and a barn-storming no-notes Conference speech, and Brown had to cancel the election that he would probably have still come out of as Prime Minister, albeit with a much reduced majority. Then the world economy collapsed and Brown could do nothing other than hold the election at the end of the five year term.
THAT is the mark of an excellent Leader of the Opposition.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
Given how obvious it is, perhaps the marginal cost of one employee for one hour?
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
The Treasury will of course routinely cost many hundreds of policy proposals.
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
If the OBR costs Labour policies would this not set a precedent for the policies of any party - ukip, greens, snp, monster raving loony party,, ?
In theory you could draw a line at Her Majesty's Opposition, but I don't think costing everyone's policies would be a bad thing. The CBO scores all kinds of hypothetical legislation that members of Congress ask them to score.
Conscious of criticism that last year’s conference was a policy-free zone, this year policy after policy is being pitched overboard as ballast
The purpose of ballast is you keep it on board.
And I don't think that they are 'pitching policies overboard' anyway - they are coming up with lots of new ones, even if they are daft
Ballast is excess weight that you can get rid of when required, more so in ballooning than with ships, but a Captain would order ballast overboard if there were a dire need to lighten the vessel, when stuck on a reef, perhaps.
You are right that the metaphor only works if Labour were abandoning policies that were weighing them down, rather than announcing a blizzard of new policies.
So it is ok for the tax payer funded Treasury to do it for the Tories but not the tax payer funded OBR for Labour....Oh, I see, that figures.
When did I ever say the OBR shouldn't look over Labour's manifesto? In fact it was my suggestion, back in May or June 2010 (to much derision from Labour supporters, who at the time were engaged in trying to rubbish Sir Alan Budd and pretend the OBR had no credibility).
I expect it will happen. After all, anything which lays bare the massive contradiction between Ed Miliband's approach of theoretically supporting fiscal sanity, but in practice opposing virtually every single measure required to achieve it, can only be good for the country, and of course for demoralising the Labour core vote.
Good to see you are on board, or have been on board for quite a while. Charles, where do you stand on this. Treasury doing research for the Tories for free Good....OBR doing research for Labour for free Bad? I can just about see you peering down your black hole. If it wasn't for the sound of the digging I wouldn't have realise you were actually there.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
Charles "It's very simple. Ed Balls is seeking a political advantage for the Labour party, paid for by the taxpayer.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue "
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
No. But there is a difference between the OBR (presumably) doing a proper review and a Treasury official spending an hour to tweak some assumption in a model and press F4. I'm certain that the HMT official's work is not a proper analysis but just political knock-about.
Even though this is offset by the Short money anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'll reduce my gift aid rebate claim by £50 to cover the marginal cost of a couple of hours work.
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
The Treasury will of course routinely cost many hundreds of policy proposals.
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
The politics is quite simple for Labour - they want the OBR to be able to give their policies a clean bill of health, so that Osborne can not accuse them of being spendthrifts who will bankrupt the nation during the election campaign.
Leaving the politics aside for a moment, it seems reasonable and sensible for an impartial and learned arbiter to pronounce on whether competing economic plans are financially sustainable and internally consistent. However, from a practical point of view it is hard to envisage the timid OBR making a plain-speaking judgement that was negative, because they wouldn't want to be seen to be intervening politically.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
Charles "It's very simple. Ed Balls is seeking a political advantage for the Labour party, paid for by the taxpayer.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue "
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
No. But there is a difference between the OBR (presumably) doing a proper review and a Treasury official spending an hour to tweak some assumption in a model and press F4. I'm certain that the HMT official's work is not a proper analysis but just political knock-about.
Even though this is offset by the Short money anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'll reduce my gift aid rebate claim by £50 to cover the marginal cost of a couple of hours work.
Oh I see. The Tory research only took an hour and was only "political knock about", so everything is dandy. Can anyone smell the rank hypocricy? Also, are the Tory cabinet ministers so inept that they cannot tweak and press F4? It only takes an hour, apparently.
Bit of a clarification here needed from the PB Hodges. If as you say Labour should pay for the OBR to cast it's guiding eye over it's the spending plans. Can they please advise me how much the Tories paid the Treasury to find the Labour black hole.
Charles "It's very simple. Ed Balls is seeking a political advantage for the Labour party, paid for by the taxpayer.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue "
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
No. But there is a difference between the OBR (presumably) doing a proper review and a Treasury official spending an hour to tweak some assumption in a model and press F4. I'm certain that the HMT official's work is not a proper analysis but just political knock-about.
Even though this is offset by the Short money anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'll reduce my gift aid rebate claim by £50 to cover the marginal cost of a couple of hours work.
Oh I see. The Tory research only took an hour and was only "political knock about", so everything is dandy. Can anyone smell the rank hypocricy?
It's not hypocrisy. The Tory "research" barely justifies the name and is pretty worthless for anything other than political point scoring.
So it is ok for the tax payer funded Treasury to do it for the Tories but not the tax payer funded OBR for Labour....Oh, I see, that figures.
When did I ever say the OBR shouldn't look over Labour's manifesto? In fact it was my suggestion, back in May or June 2010 (to much derision from Labour supporters, who at the time were engaged in trying to rubbish Sir Alan Budd and pretend the OBR had no credibility).
I expect it will happen. After all, anything which lays bare the massive contradiction between Ed Miliband's approach of theoretically supporting fiscal sanity, but in practice opposing virtually every single measure required to achieve it, can only be good for the country, and of course for demoralising the Labour core vote.
Good to see you are on board, or have been on board for quite a while. Charles, where do you stand on this. Treasury doing research for the Tories for free Good....OBR doing research for Labour for free Bad? I can just about see you peering down your black hole. If it wasn't for the sound of the digging I wouldn't have realise you were actually there.
Isn't this exactly what Short Money is supposed to be for?
I'm not very keen on Iain Martin, but this is brutal.
As a result of the colourful revelations, Labour’s conference in Brighton this week is getting off to a highly entertaining and potentially disastrous start. For Ed Miliband, this book could not have come at a worse time, as he endeavours to relaunch his leadership against a backdrop of a recovering economy and an evaporating opinion poll lead. Just when the party’s high command should be devoted to trying to explain to the country what Mr Miliband would do if he makes it to Downing Street, they are instead dealing with the fallout from the Mr McBride revelations.
Frantic efforts are being made to distance the leadership from the row. Some of the main characters in Gordon Brown’s inner circle now claim bafflingly to have had only the most passing of acquaintances with the former special adviser.
Indeed, Ed Balls has professed himself astonished by what his erstwhile comrade and close collaborator was up to. Damian McBride was “a law unto himself”, the shadow chancellor said yesterday. He describes the smears perpetrated against Mr Brown’s enemies as “despicable” and says he did not know about the worst examples. But it is very difficult for Labour to present Mr McBride as a “lone wolf” operating without the consent and approval of his bosses and close colleagues. At the time, many of them revelled in the supposed power and ruthless efficiency of the Brownite media machine.
However, from a practical point of view it is hard to envisage the timid OBR making a plain-speaking judgement that was negative, because they wouldn't want to be seen to be intervening politically.
At the same time if you were an opposition making your plans you'd presumably be very scared that they might say the sums didn't add up. I'd have thought it would make them a lot less bold with their assumptions than they'd like to be.
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? If Labour make over-optimistic assumptions the government can say, "OK, if you insist, we can score it". But if they're conservative with their assumptions, they can keep on saying no. The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
Charles - "Tory "research" barely justifies the name and is pretty worthless" .....well at least we agree on something.
Any sensible person realises this is just politics. The OBR would be a proper thoughtful piece of work, I assume.
As for your point on Cabinet Ministers, it is entirely proper that there is an "owner" of the financial forecasting model and few people are allowed to change assumptions
So it is ok for the tax payer funded Treasury to do it for the Tories but not the tax payer funded OBR for Labour....Oh, I see, that figures.
When did I ever say the OBR shouldn't look over Labour's manifesto? In fact it was my suggestion, back in May or June 2010 (to much derision from Labour supporters, who at the time were engaged in trying to rubbish Sir Alan Budd and pretend the OBR had no credibility).
I expect it will happen. After all, anything which lays bare the massive contradiction between Ed Miliband's approach of theoretically supporting fiscal sanity, but in practice opposing virtually every single measure required to achieve it, can only be good for the country, and of course for demoralising the Labour core vote.
Good to see you are on board, or have been on board for quite a while. Charles, where do you stand on this. Treasury doing research for the Tories for free Good....OBR doing research for Labour for free Bad? I can just about see you peering down your black hole. If it wasn't for the sound of the digging I wouldn't have realise you were actually there.
Isn't this exactly what Short Money is supposed to be for?
Exactly.- I have no problem with parties costing their policies, in fact I heartily endorse it – However, at present with the limitations placed upon it, the OBR is not available to the opposition or any other party I believe..
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? ... The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
That LotO analysis should really have included a penalty deduction of 500 points from the score of any leader who stages a Sheffield rally in which he helicopters in like he thinks he's in a Leni Riefenstahl movie, punches the air, and shouts "we're aaaaaaaaawriiiiiiiiiight".
This would force them to the bottom of the pile, correctly.
In fact, anyone who does all that has told you everything you need to know about his judgement and maturity, even before you consider his views on CND, strikers or the economy.
been busy..has the Fun Conference got under way yet? Any more Policies being debated. McBride seems to have caused a little diversion. Can only get better when Drapers E-mails are unleashed..they must be worth a fortune.
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? ... The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
And that is a problem how, exactly?
I'm talking about the problem with the strategy of asking for an OBR score for Labour, since it's their strategy. You can see how it's a problem for Labour, no?
It would appear that the agreed strategy of the current leaders of the Labour Party, the same ones whe were in Browns Government,are trying to claim that McBrides revelations are just history, don't count anymore.. The week just got funnier..
That LotO analysis should really have included a penalty deduction of 500 points from the score of any leader who stages a Sheffield rally in which he helicopters in like he thinks he's in a Leni Riefenstahl movie, punches the air, and shouts "we're aaaaaaaaawriiiiiiiiiight".
This would force them to the bottom of the pile, correctly.
In fact, anyone who does all that has told you everything you need to know about his judgement and maturity, even before you consider his views on CND, strikers or the economy.
And he still managed to increase the Labour percentage by the same as Cameron did the Tory score. Shows you how crappy Dave is doesn't it.
Kinnock - like Smith and Brown never became PM after a GE.
That LotO analysis should really have included a penalty deduction of 500 points from the score of any leader who stages a Sheffield rally in which he helicopters in like he thinks he's in a Leni Riefenstahl movie, punches the air, and shouts "we're aaaaaaaaawriiiiiiiiiight".
This would force them to the bottom of the pile, correctly.
In fact, anyone who does all that has told you everything you need to know about his judgement and maturity, even before you consider his views on CND, strikers or the economy.
And he still managed to increase the Labour percentage by the same as Cameron did the Tory score. Shows you how crappy Dave is doesn't it.
Kinnock - like Smith and Brown never became PM after a GE.
Losers all round.
I don't think anyone doubts Smith would have had he lived. His corpse would have put on a bigger vote percentage in 1997 than Cameron managed in 2010.
There may be a significant newspaper realignment taking place at present. The FT seems to be decisively shifting from Labour for the first time since 1992. Its current articles include a derisive account of Labour's conference:
"The shift in Labour’s fortunes has exposed weaknesses in Mr Miliband’s leadership. More than three years of opposition have not brought the party closer to making substantive challenges to conventional thinking. It has retreated into what Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, called its “comfort zones”. Senior figures bemoan the glacial pace of a policy review that should have been the engine for government-ready ideas. While it may be sound tactics to hold back on publishing detailed policy ideas until nearer the election, Mr Miliband can only make the case for a Labour government if the groundwork has been done.
One striking area of vacuity is in education. Where the coalition has pushed through a programme of reforms to create free schools and academies, and establish serious examination standards, Labour offers only the policy equivalent of a black hole. Another is foreign policy. In the recent Commons vote over Syria, Mr Miliband revealed a preference for short-term tactics over statesmanship.
Mr Miliband has left it very late to define himself and his party. His personal ratings are in decline. At Brighton next week, he must take the chance to unveil a prospectus."
Now you might have expected the FT to be naturally Conservative in any case, but for many years it has represented Labour's success at making inroads with professionals. If this is changing, this is important.
An observation: Unless there's something really, really fatal to Ed M in the McBride revelations to come, then the effect of his book will be to make it even harder to ditch Ed, because McBride has stirred up all the old feuds. I have always thought that a pre-requisite for ditching Ed before the GE was that everyone should agree on a replacement so that the transition could be smooth and quick. That always looked unlikely to me, which is why I've always maintained Ed is safe, but now it looks completely impossible.
Mr McBride is discussing the Election That Never Was (aka Gordon Craps Out). He describes how the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) calls his close advisors, including Mr McBride and Mr Ed Miliband, to Chequers:
For most of us, it was our first time there, which is why Gordon started the day with a tour of the house and gardens. Ed Miliband was on fine form, mimicking a Jewish patriarch being shown around his grandson's house: "Nice place you've got here, Gordon, nice bit of real estate."
It's very disappointing that Mr Archer has been relegated to impossible to win urban seats by CCHQ - he'd be a great MP IMO. He also won the Orwell Prize as an unknown blogger.
I can't think why CCHQ have made this selection decision. Madness.
Mr McBride is discussing the Election That Never Was (aka Gordon Craps Out). He describes how the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) calls his close advisors, including Mr McBride and Mr Ed Miliband, to Chequers:
For most of us, it was our first time there, which is why Gordon started the day with a tour of the house and gardens. Ed Miliband was on fine form, mimicking a Jewish patriarch being shown around his grandson's house: "Nice place you've got here, Gordon, nice bit of real estate."
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? ... The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
And that is a problem how, exactly?
I'm talking about the problem with the strategy of asking for an OBR score for Labour, since it's their strategy. You can see how it's a problem for Labour, no?
I know. I was just pointing out that a fiscally responsible opposition might not be a problem for the country... ;-)
As I am currently in the US I can't make the call from personal observation (lack of coverage here, strangely), but from reading various comments on recent PB threads it seems like the current Labour conference is perhaps the politically most disastrous event to have occurred anywhere in the world since the, errr, last Labour conference. Given that, I would expect to see a major drop in Labour support in polls over the coming days and weeks.
That LotO analysis should really have included a penalty deduction of 500 points from the score of any leader who stages a Sheffield rally in which he helicopters in like he thinks he's in a Leni Riefenstahl movie, punches the air, and shouts "we're aaaaaaaaawriiiiiiiiiight".
This would force them to the bottom of the pile, correctly.
In fact, anyone who does all that has told you everything you need to know about his judgement and maturity, even before you consider his views on CND, strikers or the economy.
And he still managed to increase the Labour percentage by the same as Cameron did the Tory score. Shows you how crappy Dave is doesn't it.
In retrospect, Brownites vs Blairites appears to have been in part a class war between non-metropolitan Labourites and the metropolitan Labourites. Curry nights vs dinner parties, beer vs wine, football vs pilates.
Whether there was any deeper ideological divide is much harder to determine.
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? ... The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
And that is a problem how, exactly?
I'm talking about the problem with the strategy of asking for an OBR score for Labour, since it's their strategy. You can see how it's a problem for Labour, no?
I know. I was just pointing out that a fiscally responsible opposition might not be a problem for the country... ;-)
Well, sure. But looking at this from a good-government point of view not a political strategy point of view, it would obviously make sense to agree to let the OBR score the plans of the current opposition to bind in future oppositions, too.
Oh dear. Those horny handed toilers aren't - I'm shocked!
"Not a day goes by without some second-tier shadow minister squawking about the ‘cabinet of millionaires’. Under the new politics that Ed Miliband heralded when he won the Labour leadership, the backgrounds of David Cameron and his posho chums are fair game.
Some on the red side are a little quieter on the topic of dosh and background, though. Thanks to a complex web of companies, foundations and trusts, no one knows exactly how much money Tony Blair has made since he left office, but it’s safe to say it’s a bucketload. The earning capacity of other architects of New Labour — Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, for instance — is well documented. And things aren’t exactly grim for the colleagues they left behind at the coalface. In the Miliband ranks there are some spectacularly rich individuals: gold-plated MPs, millionaire spin doctors and property-tycoon donors. Milibandism is awash with money.
Politicians’ wealth and background is an obvious line of attack for any Labour team, especially one as left of centre as Miliband’s, yet you might think Ed would have a look around his own back yard first. Perhaps he could start in his actual back garden; he has acknowledged that his house, valued at £2.3 million, would be subject to the sort of mansion tax he wants to introduce. It’s in Dartmouth Park, a leafy corner of north London that’s a favourite with Labour’s current ruling class — nice schools, a low crime rate and not too many poor people.
Miliband played the market well, selling flats and a house in Hampstead as well as employing some rather nifty accounting with his brother and mother in what appears to be a very efficient reaction to their inheritance from his late father. Add to that a house in Doncaster, his £139,000 salary and his wife’s reported income of £200,000 at the Bar, and life is pretty rosy for the Labour leader. He is in good -company, too... >> http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/
As I am currently in the US I can't make the call from personal observation (lack of coverage here, strangely), but from reading various comments on recent PB threads it seems like the current Labour conference is perhaps the politically most disastrous event to have occurred anywhere in the world since the, errr, last Labour conference. Given that, I would expect to see a major drop in Labour support in polls over the coming days and weeks.
I wouldn't be too concerned. I was away from the internet for most of the weekend and the McBride problems and the various economic announcements have been almost completely drowned out by what's happened in Kenya. I watched the first twenty minutes of the news last night after being out all day and it was all Kenya.
Maybe, given the McBride revelations, that's a good thing for Labour.
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman Another enigmatic point at #lab13, from Chuka. "Are we just going to let the future happen?" I didn't realise Labour was so ambitious...
In retrospect, Brownites vs Blairites appears to have been in part a class war between non-metropolitan Labourites and the metropolitan Labourites. Curry nights vs dinner parties, beer vs wine, football vs pilates.
Whether there was any deeper ideological divide is much harder to determine.
There was no significant ideological divide. And they were all pretty much of a muchness in terms of background - hence one Miliband in the Brown camp, the other in the Blair one.
Comments
Will we get an answer to this one? Perhaps "He's Labour, and Labour always do the correct thing.
The people on the receiving end were probably Tories, and deserved it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3432997.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/25/measles-mmr-the-essential-guide
In addition, in some cases one or more components of the jab doesn't take. So a child may have been vaccinated, but it is not effective.
Basically, it's a societal thing. Getting your kid immunised is not just good for your kid, but everyone else's as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/sep/22/uk-growth-london-north-south-divide
Kelvin MacKenzie, Larry Elliott and me - it's a broad church.
Labour Policy
We're going to give u more for doing less, paid for by people like ur boss so they then struggle to afford to employ u #lab13
I find it hard to argue with this pithy summary.
Sounds populist, but not credible, at least to me.
"So now we know what he wants to do with the country. It’s “socialism”, folks! For years now, Ed Miliband has been studiously blank about his intentions. To a degree that has maddened supporters and opponents alike, he has refused to say much about how Labour would govern the country. He has curled himself into an ideological foetal position – so as to present as small a target as possible – and hoped that Coalition unpopularity would allow him to stand up at the last minute and slither unobtrusively into power.
And now, in an incautious admission, he has reminded us of his core beliefs – as the proud son of a Marxist academic. He wants to restore socialism to Britain. In spite of everything, the mission of Labour under Ed Miliband is to revive a political belief system that brought Britain to its knees, that blighted the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, that was responsible for untold murders and abuses of human rights, and that in the past 30 years has been decisively rejected across the planet in favour of liberty, free enterprise and market economics – a rival system that has lifted and is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and servitude. Someone needs to tell Ed Miliband that socialism failed, and I have just the man to do it... Damian McBride.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10327126/At-last-we-see-Ed-in-his-true-colours-waving-the-red-flag.html
He is absolutely someone who should be in Parliament. Even if you don't agree with his political outlook, he's experienced, thoughtful and value added/
But he's a terrible local MP. I've seen him once since he was elected - he turns out for the bare minimum of local events and spends much of his time living in Edinburgh.
" And that is the problem with socialism. It has always involved the use of revolting means to pursue an unattainable end. It has seen the rights and liberties of individuals trampled in the name of a collective good. Damian McBride is a small but interesting example of the mental contortions of socialists over the last century, when there is no abuse or tyranny – large or trivial – that has not been justified in the name of the people.
When the Securitate persuaded children to inform against their parents in Ceausescu’s Romania, they knew – at one level – that what they were doing was creepy. But they believed it was in the wider interests of the state, and therefore of the people themselves. When thousands of Soviet dissidents and bourgeois reactionaries were hauled off to perish in Siberian gulags, the authorities knew – with one side of their brains – that this was morally no better than Nazism; but they persuaded themselves that it was for the greater good, and that you could not make an omelette without breaking eggs.
When the North Koreans shoot anyone who falls foul of their deranged and psychotic regime, they don’t blame their evil dictator; they think – or at least they assert – that they are protecting a system of government that is morally superior to that of South Korea and the rest of the capitalist world.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d629008-23a7-11e3-98a1-00144feab7de.html
(For those without paywall access, the heading "Labour conference: Brighton gossip upstages weary slogans" sums it up nicely)
an account of the apprentices policy headed "Labour's apprentice scheme condemned as 'bureaucratic nightmare' ":
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf9edac6-2383-11e3-b506-00144feab7de.html
and an editorial from Friday entitled "What are Miliband and Labour for?":
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1da703a6-21f9-11e3-bb64-00144feab7de.html
which concludes with the following passage:
"The shift in Labour’s fortunes has exposed weaknesses in Mr Miliband’s leadership. More than three years of opposition have not brought the party closer to making substantive challenges to conventional thinking. It has retreated into what Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, called its “comfort zones”. Senior figures bemoan the glacial pace of a policy review that should have been the engine for government-ready ideas. While it may be sound tactics to hold back on publishing detailed policy ideas until nearer the election, Mr Miliband can only make the case for a Labour government if the groundwork has been done.
One striking area of vacuity is in education. Where the coalition has pushed through a programme of reforms to create free schools and academies, and establish serious examination standards, Labour offers only the policy equivalent of a black hole. Another is foreign policy. In the recent Commons vote over Syria, Mr Miliband revealed a preference for short-term tactics over statesmanship.
Mr Miliband has left it very late to define himself and his party. His personal ratings are in decline. At Brighton next week, he must take the chance to unveil a prospectus."
Now you might have expected the FT to be naturally Conservative in any case, but for many years it has represented Labour's success at making inroads with professionals. If this is changing, this is important.
The purpose of ballast is you keep it on board.
And I don't think that they are 'pitching policies overboard' anyway - they are coming up with lots of new ones, even if they are daft
Admit I'm curious about tonight's YouGov, though. Will it show UKIP rising, falling or drifting as people react (or not) to Bloom etc.?
Nick, what do you predict for this week?
Must be difficult for tim, reading how inept his hero Darling was. You can also see why Campbell is livid - the assumption that he was Malcolm Tucker takes a serious knock whe you read this piece from McBride in the Mail:
"A friend there also tipped me off that when I saw the photos accompanying the piece I would flip.
Alistair had posed on a beach with black storm clouds behind him, and dangled out of a small fishing boat in a fluorescent life-jacket as it washed up on to the rocks.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the proof this was a total amateur-night shambles was that no one had made a tape recording of the interview.
That was when I exploded.
‘What the !!!! are you guys doing? This is the Chancellor. The Chancellor! His words matter. Even if he’s making papier-mache hats on !!!!ing Blue Peter, you have someone there with a tape recorder. This is bloody basic!’"
Papier-mache hats. Pure Malcolm Tucker....
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhdMnJC9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue
His son Hugo is an excellent columnist and good egg if his Twitter personality is anything to go by - he even intervened when I was having subscription issues and asked the IT Dept to pull their finger out.
I'm looking forward to Ed Miliband's speech with some anticipation.
When I put it to @edballsmp that he didn't brief because @DPMcBride did it for him he replies "Really not. Really not. Really not." @5_News
The Tory party made a huge mistake when it chose Dave over Malcolm Rifkind in 2005 just like it made a massive error in 2001 when it didn't choose the then K&C MP, Michael Portillo.
Zombie fans across the country have been left disappointed after the annual Beach Of The Dead event was cancelled because of fears over health and safety.
The walking dead impersonators will not be descending on Brighton this year because the budget isn’t enough to handle the thousands of visitors that would have potentially showed up.
‘It just costs too much and takes up too much time. Last year it all went way over the £2,000 budget,’ Event organiser Kate Amer told the Argus newspaper. http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/20/annual-beach-of-the-dead-zombie-march-in-brighton-cancelled-due-to-safety-fears-4060849/
It certainly is so far, bl**dy hilarious.
Yet another Bank Levy.
No Jabs..No benefits..ECHR are gonna love that one.
And Mc Bride is wiping the floor with the main players causing lots of chickens to run around trying to find their heads
Browns ex Cabinet are all now in complete denial and slowly turning on each other
And..its only Monday AM
Blair best post-war Opposition Leader, say experts
Monday, 23rd September 2013
Tony Blair was the most successful Leader of the Opposition since 1945, according to a survey of leading political academics carried out by the Centre for Opposition Studies.
Current Labour Leader Ed Miliband misses out on the top ten, ranking at number 11, just behind Clement Attlee, but ahead of former Tory leaders Michael Howard and William Hague. Harold Wilson, who served two terms as Opposition Leader, comes in at second place, narrowly beating Margaret Thatcher into third.
David Cameron ranks at number four, whilst Iain Duncan Smith was considered to be the worst Opposition leader of the post-war period. Other data collected in the survey showed the experts considered the most agenda-setting opposition leader was Margaret Thatcher; the most effective media operator was Tony Blair, and the most effective Parliamentary performer was Harold Wilson, who was also considered the best at party management.
The survey was compiled by Dr Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster and Nigel Fletcher of the Centre for Opposition Studies, with advice from Professor Kevin Theakston of Leeds University, who has conducted similar surveys ranking Prime Ministers. >> http://oppositionstudies.weebly.com/leaders-of-the-opposition-survey.html
Ranking Leader (Points Score)
1 Blair 353
2 Wilson 303
3 Thatcher 298
4 Cameron 268
5 Smith 255
6 Kinnock 223
7 Gaitskell 221
8 Heath 200
9 Churchill 191
10 Attlee 176
11 Miliband 152
12 Callaghan 137
13 Howard 135
14 Hague 131
15 Douglas-Home 115
16 Major 96
17 Foot 77
18 Duncan Smith 71
How Labour apologists can come on here and say they want a return to a Labour Govt. - without the humility of say hiding in an Orcadian cave for a quarter of a century by way of apology - is beyond me. Precisely what part of trashing the UK economy did Labour not complete in its previous thirteen years that requires finishing, I wonder?
The world would be a better place if they acknowledged they had done enough damage and so decided instead to dedicate their life to, oh I dunno, maybe animal welfare....
"Those who make it to the rostrum usually turn out to be union organisers and/or aspirant or prospective parliamentary candidates practising their campaign rhetoric. The notional subject is almost irrelevant.
“Hard-working people . . . hard-pressed families . . . really struggling . . . Tory cuts . . . not seen since the 1930s . . . raw deal of austerity . . . replace despair with hope . . . many not just the few . . . forgotten 50 per cent . . . total complacency . . .
There should be rich pickings for Labour in attacking the combination of privatisation, nationalisation and personal ministerial self-aggrandisement that is the essence of government schools policy. But in a feeble speech, Mr Twigg concentrated largely on childcare, content to let Michael Gove ride on with the narrative that education did not exist in Britain until he invented it...
Later came Yvette Cooper in her capacity as equality spokesman. More weary slogans. One’s memory of Labour government is that some are always more equal than others.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d629008-23a7-11e3-98a1-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2fhUuoiZe
'Conference season is always fun.'
When is Arnie 'don't tread in the dog $hit' making his speech?
PS - where is Gordon ? - Did he not even make the top 18 ?
I would imagine doing live interviews is unbelievably stressful and if he found swearing an effective way to release stress then I for one wouldn't blame him for it.
Perhaps Brown scored negative.
If he was prepared to pay the OBR full market rate for their time, with a suitable profit margin built in, I'd have less of an issue "
Charles - Do we know what the Conservative Party paid the Treasury for their research yet?
Still, I have to say Labour's idea of repeatedly asking this stupid question, and thus drawing attention to and implicitly accepting the Treasury figure, has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of politics for months.
If you can't just hold your nerve and laugh about it afterwards/have a beer - you're in the wrong job. If you're PM and can't take any criticism when you're holding the highest elected office - you're definitely in the wrong job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Scott
If the OBR costs Labour policies would this not set a precedent for the policies of any party - ukip, greens, snp, monster raving loony party,, ?
I expect it will happen. After all, anything which lays bare the massive contradiction between Ed Miliband's approach of theoretically supporting fiscal sanity, but in practice opposing virtually every single measure required to achieve it, can only be good for the country, and of course for demoralising the Labour core vote.
The Election That Never Was.
The Leader of the Opposition has one massive disadvantage - he cannot have any bearing on when an election is called. And yet - one adroit move on CGT and a barn-storming no-notes Conference speech, and Brown had to cancel the election that he would probably have still come out of as Prime Minister, albeit with a much reduced majority. Then the world economy collapsed and Brown could do nothing other than hold the election at the end of the five year term.
THAT is the mark of an excellent Leader of the Opposition.
"Gulags if no jabs" ?
You are right that the metaphor only works if Labour were abandoning policies that were weighing them down, rather than announcing a blizzard of new policies.
Even though this is offset by the Short money anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'll reduce my gift aid rebate claim by £50 to cover the marginal cost of a couple of hours work.
Leaving the politics aside for a moment, it seems reasonable and sensible for an impartial and learned arbiter to pronounce on whether competing economic plans are financially sustainable and internally consistent. However, from a practical point of view it is hard to envisage the timid OBR making a plain-speaking judgement that was negative, because they wouldn't want to be seen to be intervening politically.
It was of course GO's idea.
As a result of the colourful revelations, Labour’s conference in Brighton this week is getting off to a highly entertaining and potentially disastrous start. For Ed Miliband, this book could not have come at a worse time, as he endeavours to relaunch his leadership against a backdrop of a recovering economy and an evaporating opinion poll lead. Just when the party’s high command should be devoted to trying to explain to the country what Mr Miliband would do if he makes it to Downing Street, they are instead dealing with the fallout from the Mr McBride revelations.
Frantic efforts are being made to distance the leadership from the row. Some of the main characters in Gordon Brown’s inner circle now claim bafflingly to have had only the most passing of acquaintances with the former special adviser.
Indeed, Ed Balls has professed himself astonished by what his erstwhile comrade and close collaborator was up to. Damian McBride was “a law unto himself”, the shadow chancellor said yesterday. He describes the smears perpetrated against Mr Brown’s enemies as “despicable” and says he did not know about the worst examples. But it is very difficult for Labour to present Mr McBride as a “lone wolf” operating without the consent and approval of his bosses and close colleagues. At the time, many of them revelled in the supposed power and ruthless efficiency of the Brownite media machine.
Damian McBride may have been a notably inventive spin doctor — he is highly intelligent — but he was also Gordon Brown’s creation and a classic product of New Labour’s fixation with media manipulation. He behaved appallingly, concocting documents and lying to colleagues, but he was hardly alone in resorting to dirty tricks. He just got caught, in the end... > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100237207/labour-cant-shake-the-toxic-legacy-of-gordon-browns-poisonous-campaign-to-usurp-tony-blair/
On the current politics of this, isn't the problem that whether the plans get scored or not now seems to be in the hands of the government? If Labour make over-optimistic assumptions the government can say, "OK, if you insist, we can score it". But if they're conservative with their assumptions, they can keep on saying no. The result is that Labour will have to be conservative in their assumptions, but won't be able to get the benefit from it.
As for your point on Cabinet Ministers, it is entirely proper that there is an "owner" of the financial forecasting model and few people are allowed to change assumptions
This would force them to the bottom of the pile, correctly.
In fact, anyone who does all that has told you everything you need to know about his judgement and maturity, even before you consider his views on CND, strikers or the economy.
Any more Policies being debated.
McBride seems to have caused a little diversion.
Can only get better when Drapers E-mails are unleashed..they must be worth a fortune.
Alan Hawkes 2 hours ago
Chuka Umunna tries a remarkable piece of spin: in effect he claims that yesterday's dirty washing shows that Mr Miliband has bought a washing machine. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/conference/article3876268.ece
The week just got funnier..
Losers all round.
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman
"Today I can announce we are mobilising global political change from opposition," says Ivan Lewis, enigmatically. #lab13
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10327694/Ed-Milibands-left-turn-will-lead-to-election-defeat-warns-Mandelson.html
"Ed Miliband faces election defeat because his party has turned leftwards and abandoned the electoral centre-ground, Lord Mandelson has said."
Meanwhile the party is tearing itself apart.
I haven't read a single one so far in the press - its making the PastyTax budget look like a minor PR blip.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100237335/new-labour-new-mouthwash/
Mr McBride is discussing the Election That Never Was (aka Gordon Craps Out). He describes how the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) calls his close advisors, including Mr McBride and Mr Ed Miliband, to Chequers:
For most of us, it was our first time there, which is why Gordon started the day with a tour of the house and gardens. Ed Miliband was on fine form, mimicking a Jewish patriarch being shown around his grandson's house: "Nice place you've got here, Gordon, nice bit of real estate."
I can't think why CCHQ have made this selection decision. Madness.
You are sh1t at statistics
Whether there was any deeper ideological divide is much harder to determine.
"Not a day goes by without some second-tier shadow minister squawking about the ‘cabinet of millionaires’. Under the new politics that Ed Miliband heralded when he won the Labour leadership, the backgrounds of David Cameron and his posho chums are fair game.
Some on the red side are a little quieter on the topic of dosh and background, though. Thanks to a complex web of companies, foundations and trusts, no one knows exactly how much money Tony Blair has made since he left office, but it’s safe to say it’s a bucketload. The earning capacity of other architects of New Labour — Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, for instance — is well documented. And things aren’t exactly grim for the colleagues they left behind at the coalface. In the Miliband ranks there are some spectacularly rich individuals: gold-plated MPs, millionaire spin doctors and property-tycoon donors. Milibandism is awash with money.
Politicians’ wealth and background is an obvious line of attack for any Labour team, especially one as left of centre as Miliband’s, yet you might think Ed would have a look around his own back yard first. Perhaps he could start in his actual back garden; he has acknowledged that his house, valued at £2.3 million, would be subject to the sort of mansion tax he wants to introduce. It’s in Dartmouth Park, a leafy corner of north London that’s a favourite with Labour’s current ruling class — nice schools, a low crime rate and not too many poor people.
Miliband played the market well, selling flats and a house in Hampstead as well as employing some rather nifty accounting with his brother and mother in what appears to be a very efficient reaction to their inheritance from his late father. Add to that a house in Doncaster, his £139,000 salary and his wife’s reported income of £200,000 at the Bar, and life is pretty rosy for the Labour leader. He is in good -company, too... >> http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/
Maybe, given the McBride revelations, that's a good thing for Labour.
Another enigmatic point at #lab13, from Chuka. "Are we just going to let the future happen?" I didn't realise Labour was so ambitious...
Actually Nuala would never forgive someone failing to refer to her hero as Sir Malcolm.