VAT = 25% Income tax = 25% (no 40% or any of that nonsense) Interest rates = 25%
A bold move Ave_It.
Rejecting the fresh (and welcome) outbreak of Romneyism among the PB tories, you sideline that dead end and favour the Herman Caine route to glory. His 9-9-9 plan was as simple yet as appealing as your 25-25-25 plan is. The proof is all too clear.
"Five of the world's ten best selling artists, last year, were Chinese."
I'm not at all surprised. I saw two stunning and quite separate exhibitions of Chinese art last year and they were as innovative and creative as any contemporary work I've seen.
And there we agree. I saw some modern Chinese art at Frieze last year. it was brilliant and unnerving.
China is the coming country in so many ways: 1300 million smart people have been immured in feudalism or communism for 2000 years: now they are, slowly, hesitantly, reluctantly, being set free.
I sense they aren't just going to rise, they are going to explode onto the world.
Only if the Chinese political system allows them. And that is a big conditional.
When ITV beats fleet streets finest paps then what on earth is the world coming to? The sad decline is there for all to see. They should hang their heads in shame. If Dacre was sporting a revealingly low cut dress would they have been so tardy? Of course not.
How many parents do you know who would put their kids out the door and wash their hands of them after leaving school or Uni saying 'sorry kids, but your the States problem now not ours'?! Would you? And by the way, I am not out of touch because I like most people think that being a parent is a job for life, and with the extended benefits of hopefully being a position to be an equally involved grandparent in the future.
Yes, I think that many parents will be up in arms that the Tories expect them to support their adult children financially and to put them up at home if they cannot find jobs. I think that they may conclude that the Tories do not live in the real world if they expect this and that talk of aspiration will sound very hollow when a 21 year old is forced to go home to kip on the sofa because he/she has not found a job immediately on leaving university or has been made redundant or has just left the armed services after doing a couple of tours in Afghanistan, and so on.
Having to apply for housing benefit because your job does not pay enough, or having to apply for JSA because you have been made redundant, is not about rejecting aspiration. That Tories such as yourself think it is shows just how out of touch you are.
Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
How many parents do you know who would put their kids out the door and wash their hands of them after leaving school or Uni saying 'sorry kids, but your the States problem now not ours'?! Would you? And by the way, I am not out of touch because I like most people think that being a parent is a job for life, and with the extended benefits of hopefully being a position to be an equally involved grandparent in the future.
If more under 25s are at home with their parents it will also free up all the housing they would otherwise have occupied - which will put downward pressure on rents (and in turn prices).
So it is:
1) Morally right 2) Reduces benefits bill 3) Helps the economy - more housing supply, lower rents and prices
Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
Evening, Comrade MikeL!
But aren't the Tories ideologically opposed to doing anything about fuel prices?
@NickPalmer If the policy were to operate as you describe, the consequence would be that no one will apply for planning permissions until they're sure they want to use the land in that timeframe. Properties sat with old planning permission would be boobytrapped. That seems actively counterproductive if the intent is to get land used more.
How many parents do you know who would put their kids out the door and wash their hands of them after leaving school or Uni saying 'sorry kids, but your the States problem now not ours'?! Would you? And by the way, I am not out of touch because I like most people think that being a parent is a job for life, and with the extended benefits of hopefully being a position to be an equally involved grandparent in the future.
If more under 25s are at home with their parents it will also free up all the housing they would otherwise have occupied - which will put downward pressure on rents (and in turn prices).
So it is:
1) Morally right 2) Reduces benefits bill 3) Helps the economy - more housing supply, lower rents and prices
4) Posturing barely thought through bollocks that won't happen.
Watch the speech. It wasn't even close to being a firm costed policy, it was a suggestion more than anything else.
"Rent a mob will be gathering for a a midnight vigil after Sugar's latest exhortation"
As long as Dacre doesn't come out and accuse anyone (who turns out to be Jewish) of behaving like a concentration camp guard or the Mail might have to demand his resignation.
Lab (and Miliband in particular) emerge the winners, though all three main parties emerge in credit for one reason or another and UKIP emerge diminished.
The LDs could have experienced a bitter and self-loathing conference, but despite the Cable mini-drama delivered a dull but worthy conference that reflected well on their upper ranks and their position as a party of Govt.
UKIP were a shambles, and gave succour to those of us who feel that whatever the (multiple and serious) failings of the main parties UKIP will not sustain their present level of support at the GE.
Lab's conference was undermined by the McBride revelations, which are of no long term consequence (provided Labour heed the lessons, and the Miliband/Draper emails come to nothing) but was saved by a solid speech from Miliband, that, in the dreaded phrase, "changed the narrative". Whist he was in no danger of being sacked before, his speech secured his position within his party and forced hardened hack and casusal observer alike to consider him afresh. Many of us dislike what we see, but there is no denying that his populist approach is superficially attractive and contrasts well with the unending austerity message the Tories are intent on delivering. His hand has been strengthened by the over-reaction of his opponants; you won't persuade joe average that freezing his electricty bill for a couple of years is massively dangerous, let alone Stalinist. A speech that could have been dismissed as lightweight and immature became a substantial contribution to political debate.
The Con conference was surprisingly lacklustre, overshadowed by the Mail/Miliband spat. One senses that Team Cam believe they have the measure of Miliband and time on their side to launch their attack. There is some logic to that; give him enough rope and he might hang himself, or at least alienate enough of the media that the weather will be set fair. The recovering economy will aid the Cons more tomorrow than today. But the Tories need to be careful not to seem to be revelling in the gloom. It is right that they campaign on the basis that governing is a serious business that Miliband's Lab are not up to conducting; but too many of their recently unveiled policies please a small group a little and displease a larger group more. That's not sound politics.
Conclusion: an uptick for Lab in the polls. Strengthening ratings for Miliband as Lab voters re-rate him.
A patchy speech to a bombed out Party with bankrupt ideas.
Roll on 2015.
Stab me - hold the front page.
BTW is Polly channelling Ed or is Ed channelling Polly - pieces of 8, pieces of 8, pretty polly, pretty polly.
Polly Toynbee@pollytoynbee34m Cameron lurches right, beckons to UKIP.Strong on the weak, weak on the strong. Tough on unemployed,weak on boardrooms http://gu.com/p/3j8h2/tw
Yesterday I criticised the mail for the attack on milibands father.
Did anyone see Alan sugar on ch 4 news,going on about dacre and something about dog and flea's,then alastair Campbell giving Dacres address with suger agreeing with him doing it,the left are showing a nasty side to they dealings.
How many parents do you know who would put their kids out the door and wash their hands of them after leaving school or Uni saying 'sorry kids, but your the States problem now not ours'?! Would you? And by the way, I am not out of touch because I like most people think that being a parent is a job for life, and with the extended benefits of hopefully being a position to be an equally involved grandparent in the future.
Yes, I think that many parents will be up in arms that the Tories expect them to support their adult children financially and to put them up at home if they cannot find jobs. I think that they may conclude that the Tories do not live in the real world if they expect this and that talk of aspiration will sound very hollow when a 21 year old is forced to go home to kip on the sofa because he/she has not found a job immediately on leaving university or has been made redundant or has just left the armed services after doing a couple of tours in Afghanistan, and so on.
Having to apply for housing benefit because your job does not pay enough, or having to apply for JSA because you have been made redundant, is not about rejecting aspiration. That Tories such as yourself think it is shows just how out of touch you are.
I agree fitalass , I certainly would not .
My daughter was 27 before she finished her PHD.
Being a parent is a job for life.
However not every child is that lucky to have their parents support.
Why not get 35 year olds to live at home with their parents too, there's no end to the economic benefits.
And of course it would be "morally right" Lord help us
Because most 35 year olds have worked and paid substantial taxes.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere - there is no reason that people should get housing paid for by the taxpayer when they haven't contributed very much themselves.
Especially when many other young people are living with parents.
Of course there will be sob stories galore but that is no justification. If you want I would allow one exemption:
Under 25s can get HB if BOTH parents are dead / in prison / out of the country.
Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
The weakness comes from being cornered, within his own party, in the polls and in the media.
The pressure on Ed to deliver policies rather a blank sheet of paper got to him and he panicked.
He has a reasonable feel for public opinion and can identify planes of attack on the opposition but the policies he finally chose to air first were either illegal (British apprentices) or had negative consequences which outweighed their intended benefits (energy price freeze).
They existed in isolation from any coherent plan for managing the economy. Populist decoys to distract from the absence of solid thinking.
Desperate promises extracted under threat of public torture. Ed is a leader who flails rather than fights.
I hesitate to actually read this thread, other than Ave it - WELCOME!!
Tell me this individual isn't equating the decision a govt takes when deciding what level of taxation it will be setting on a product (kind of a 'core' role for a Govt really) with then telling 6 private sector firms what price they can and cannot charge....
No I thought not, that would be infantile if that was the case. Sorry, for my paranoia.
How many parents do you know who would put their kids out the door and wash their hands of them after leaving school or Uni saying 'sorry kids, but your the States problem now not ours'?! Would you? And by the way, I am not out of touch because I like most people think that being a parent is a job for life, and with the extended benefits of hopefully being a position to be an equally involved grandparent in the future.
If more under 25s are at home with their parents it will also free up all the housing they would otherwise have occupied - which will put downward pressure on rents (and in turn prices).
So it is:
1) Morally right 2) Reduces benefits bill 3) Helps the economy - more housing supply, lower rents and prices
4) Posturing barely thought through bollocks that won't happen.
Watch the speech. It wasn't even close to being a firm costed policy, it was a suggestion more than anything else.
Good thanks!! Business booming in Dave's sunshine economy.... luckily I missed tim's tip at 6/4 with Ladbrokes on Cammo's speech having 'hard working families' in it.
Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
The weakness comes from being cornered, within his own party, in the polls and in the media.
The pressure on Ed to deliver policies rather a blank sheet of paper got to him and he panicked.
He has a reasonable feel for public opinion and can identify planes of attack on the opposition but the policies he finally chose to air first were either illegal (British apprentices) or had negative consequences which outweighed their intended benefits (energy price freeze).
They existed in isolation from any coherent plan for managing the economy. Populist decoys to distract from the absence of solid thinking.
Desperate promises extracted under threat of public torture. Ed is a leader who flails rather than fights.
Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
The weakness comes from being cornered, within his own party, in the polls and in the media.
The pressure on Ed to deliver policies rather a blank sheet of paper got to him and he panicked.
He has a reasonable feel for public opinion and can identify planes of attack on the opposition but the policies he finally chose to air first were either illegal (British apprentices) or had negative consequences which outweighed their intended benefits (energy price freeze).
They existed in isolation from any coherent plan for managing the economy. Populist decoys to distract from the absence of solid thinking.
Desperate promises extracted under threat of public torture. Ed is a leader who flails rather than fights.
bizarrely that's 2 nights in a row we find ourselves in agreement Mr Pole.
Ed's conference was about survival and he has succeeded, but he has given several hostages to fortune along the way.
The most signficant as pointed out by Jonathan is that he has moved his tanks off the lawn marked centre ground Nick and Dave probably can't believe their luck. His bet is people follow him leftward, but that's a big call, people tend to prefer to stay put. He's gone for populism but now has to keep coming up with more promises to stay relevant and all the while he still hasn't got a clue as to how he can fund it. He's set some mood music but still remians light on details.
Cameron's speech was dull as dishwater, but there was something more certain in his keep calm and carry on approach than Ed's desperate attempts to make himself look hard.
Yesterday I criticised the mail for the attack on milibands father.
Did anyone see Alan sugar on ch 4 news,going on about dacre and something about dog and flea's,then alastair Campbell giving Dacres address with suger agreeing with him doing it,the left are showing a nasty side to they dealings.
and to think that Labour were standing up for political decency on Twitter this morning. looks like a crass attempt to intimidate.
Good thanks!! Business booming in Dave's sunshine economy.... luckily I missed tim's tip at 6/4 with Ladbrokes on Cammo's speech having 'hard working families' in it.
Might have cost me a yacht! Well one of them.....
Can't think why no bookmaker priced up "Land of Hope is Tory" Imagine if some Ladbrokes compiler had suggested Dave was going to say that, they'd have been laughed off the premises.
Did he mention bread, 33-1 you said i think? Shadsy's profit warning may have been too soon.
Recently I wrote a provocative piece about how I believed Nick Clegg to be an agent of the Conservative Party. Recruited to Brussels by Leon Britton, the alarming status of the Tory Party in the mid-90s meant they needed allies elsewhere. A pro-Tory sleeper was installed who would later work with a Conservative that would struggle to win elections outright again.
However I may have misjudged Clegg. The coalition may have won the battle after 2010, but will Labour win the war? What if Clegg was a Labour sleeper? In a way this seems a far more plausible scenario. Ever since the separation of the left in the 1980s Labour would surely have wanted to install their own leader inside the Lib Dems. So we find ourselves in the aftermath of the 2010 election. Naturally the obvious thing for agent Clegg would be to go into coalition with Labour. However it is worth noting the words of the then Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King who suggested that whoever won the General Election 2010 would find themselves out of power for a generation. Some Conservative backbenchers were keen to get the Lib Dems into the fold so that they would be equally to blame for the coming government spending cuts. Appreciating the long term war rather than the immediate battles, Clegg's minders thought it better to go into government with the Tories thus helping to destroy Labour's two main rival parties. A deal with Labour would have threatened Labour's dominance of the political left and led to more political pluralism. Clegg had spotted how the young had become disillusioned by Labour, the only government they had ever known. In a brilliant political move he would raise tuition fees to £9000p/a thus driving a whole generation of young people into the Labour Party's arms. Another thing spotted by the Cleggers was how the Conservative Party really seemed rather discontent, unhappy with a leader unable to win a general election and with a potential revolt simmering. By pursuing the correct policies in coalition (Europe, gay marriage, maintaining the advantageous constituency boundaries for Labour) it was possible the Tories would fracture and their grassroots would go elsewhere, fatally splitting the right of centre vote. The result of all this, the Tories and Lib Dems on the slide with a rising UKIP vote not big enough to make a major breakthrough was perfect for Labour.
A new era of Labour dominance could begin in spite of the fact that 5 years previously they had received their 2nd worst election result for 80 years and had presided over the worst banking collapse in British history.
So what would Labour do with agent Clegg post-2015. Such people can be a problem once they have overstayed their usefulness. A seat in the House of Lords would be the very least they could offer. What about an hereditary baronetcy? Perhaps when the permanent President of Europe Herman Van Rumpoy were to retire, a Labour government could propose Clegg as his replacement. The only concern would be whether such surprise generosity would expose agent Clegg's cover!
Leaving aside the glorious speech stuff for a second, has anyone seen any polling on what people make of the government shutdown in the US? Realclearpolitics doesn't seem to have any - lots of media people frothing at the mouth, but only approval polls (Obama roughly breaking even, Congress minus a zillion), and I'm too lazy to look up previous polls to compare.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Written for PB Tories.
You can't see beyond a headline.
Miliband has run out of road on his economic arguments, he and Balls just got it totally wrong. So now he's shifted the fight to cost of living. This is about as clever as Custer's deployment on the Little Bighorn.
With 18 months to go, a rising economy, falling unemployment and a chancellor more desperate to bribe voters than Miliband, Ed has chosen to fight on HMG's killing field. As they throw money to gain popularity and the economy strengthens what can Ed do to convince people he'd do it better ? He can only carp from the sidelines like a politcal handjob while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Actually this live at home until you're 25 thing could have some other benefits.
A fair few of my friends had kids very late. This is a trend I think.
So they'll be around the 65 mark when their kids are 25.
Let's say the 'live at home' age rises along with the pension age if things don't pick up for a while. To 35. Maybe 40.
We could have kids caring for their elderly parents at home in exchange for benefits.
That would save a lot of cash. Aging population and all that.
Dave's a genius.
In the last two years, three of my 50-ish year old male friends have just have their FIRST kids. And I thought I was a slow learner.
I've tried to tell them about What Kids Do To Your Knees but they don't quite understand. Yet.
I know two couples with three kids, their first at 40-ish. They're now 50-ish. Three kids under the age of 10. They're completely knackered.
It's actually quite a serious point. Everyone says Oh it's fine to have kids when you're older (and this applies to men and women) but it's bollocks. Kids are massively exhausting. And if they are gonna get the tactile, hands-on, running-around, rompingly-rough-house upbringing they need -and kids do need this, I reckon - then it is quite difficult for most 45 year olds to give them that, and certainly impossible for 55 year olds.
I've got two daughters but I'd like another kid - or two - (finances permitting) - but if I'm honest I'd be an even more rubbish dad with them, cause I no longer have the knees to do it. So it sadly won't happen (unless I get so rich I can get scientists to make 300 younger clones of me ready and willing to play hide and seek for 6 hours)
I'm not sure 300 people hiding one minute and seeking the next would work.
Actually this live at home until you're 25 thing could have some other benefits.
A fair few of my friends had kids very late. This is a trend I think.
So they'll be around the 65 mark when their kids are 25.
Let's say the 'live at home' age rises along with the pension age if things don't pick up for a while. To 35. Maybe 40.
We could have kids caring for their elderly parents at home in exchange for benefits.
That would save a lot of cash. Aging population and all that.
Dave's a genius.
In the last two years, three of my 50-ish year old male friends have just have their FIRST kids. And I thought I was a slow learner.
I've tried to tell them about What Kids Do To Your Knees but they don't quite understand. Yet.
I know two couples with three kids, their first at 40-ish. They're now 50-ish. Three kids under the age of 10. They're completely knackered.
It's actually quite a serious point. Everyone says Oh it's fine to have kids when you're older (and this applies to men and women) but it's bollocks. Kids are massively exhausting. And if they are gonna get the tactile, hands-on, running-around, rompingly-rough-house upbringing they need -and kids do need this, I reckon - then it is quite difficult for most 45 year olds to give them that, and certainly impossible for 55 year olds.
I've got two daughters but I'd like another kid - or two - (finances permitting) - but if I'm honest I'd be an even more rubbish dad with them, cause I no longer have the knees to do it. So it sadly won't happen (unless I get so rich I can get scientists to make 300 younger clones of me ready and willing to play hide and seek for 6 hours)
Certainly neither set of friends 'planned' to have children late. It wasn't a career delay thing - as you so often read in the press, particularly re women - for any of them... more a having fun/not thinking about it/plenty of time yet/not met the right 'settly-downy' person thing.
The other situation common in my circle is children young, kids flown the nest (via uni before the big debts came in), 'freedom' from your 40s... for the women anyway. In most of those cases the blokes went off with younger women and are now doing the 'older dad' thing. And are knackered.
@Fitalass - of course parents will not throw their kids out, but that is not the same as thanking the Tories for forcing them to support their adult children if they are unable to find work that pays enough to allow them to move out. For parents on low incomes and those with no space - perhaps, for example, those forced to downsize because of the bedroom tax - it will be a major problem. That does not make them wicked or imply they hate their children, it means they are not in a position to assume responsibility for supporting a fully grown adult. If you can't understand that, fair enough; but it's going to happen and frequently.
while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Surely you don't believe this guff. The only G spot Nick Clegg has left is to say G-oodbye. For the first time today Cameron looked out of ideas.
He hasn't got the width to play with at the moment - Osborne can only really say that the wheels are in motion.
I rate it a tactical victory for Miliband particularly in reminding people he exists (which must surely have been why a 5-6 point lead started falling erratically before the conference). I'm thinking a little uptick of a couple of points in that for a couple of months. Miliband could have done with a decisive victory and he hasn't got one at the moment. Cameron is playing for time and the big question is whether the situation will really change by next year.
while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Surely you don't believe this guff. The only G spot Nick Clegg has left is to say G-oodbye. For the first time today Cameron looked out of ideas.
Well if you believe Piers Morgan (don't snigger) Clegg does have a fair bit of experience in such matters. Whether he hit the target is open to debate. On a serious level neither of them will be hitting any political G-spots. The best they could probably aim for is giving the electorate a warm bath, probably lukewarm at that, what with the need for austerity etc..
while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Surely you don't believe this guff. The only G spot Nick Clegg has left is to say G-oodbye. For the first time today Cameron looked out of ideas.
chortle
the party with no policies says everyone else is out of ideas. I don't think Cameron actually had to say anything much today. If anything his weakness over the last 3 years - as many PB lefties have pointed out - has been headline chasing with dumb ass initiatives. Saying steady as she goes and leaving Miliband to run about like a headless chicken is fine by me. All the onus is on Ed to do the work.
As for Cleggy well I'm a signed up member of the cockroach club and the LDs had a good conference. Since the most likely outcome is still a HP in 2015 laugh at Cleggy at your peril especially since Ed's just left him a bit more centre ground to fill.
while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Surely you don't believe this guff. The only G spot Nick Clegg has left is to say G-oodbye. For the first time today Cameron looked out of ideas.
chortle
the party with no policies says everyone else is out of ideas. I don't think Cameron actually had to say anything much today. If anything his weakness over the last 3 years - as many PB lefties have pointed out - has been headline chasing with dumb ass initiatives. Saying steady as she goes and leaving Miliband to run about like a headless chicken is fine by me. All the onus is on Ed to do the work.
As for Cleggy well I'm a signed up member of the cockroach club and the LDs had a good conference. Since the most likely outcome is still a HP in 2015 laugh at Cleggy at your peril especially since Ed's just left him a bit more centre ground to fill.
Clegg may well stick around for years, if not decades propping up this govt or that. But his G spot days are a distant memory.
Thinking about it, the two other parties could just agree upfront to keep him as Deputy PM regardless. Would save a lot of fuss and make very little difference overall.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Written for PB Tories.
You can't see beyond a headline.
Miliband has run out of road on his economic arguments, he and Balls just got it totally wrong. So now he's shifted the fight to cost of living. This is about as clever as Custer's deployment on the Little Bighorn.
With 18 months to go, a rising economy, falling unemployment and a chancellor more desperate to bribe voters than Miliband, Ed has chosen to fight on HMG's killing field. As they throw money to gain popularity and the economy strengthens what can Ed do to convince people he'd do it better ? He can only carp from the sidelines like a politcal handjob while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Any reading of the data shorn of the desperate Tory bullshine shows that Balls is more than vindicated.
Osborne's cumulative deficit reduction is no better than Darling's, and the way he's done it has much worse consequences for the long term health of the economy.
Moreover the electorate doesn't seem to buy the Tory spin. Osborne is a massive hostage to fortune because I'm not the only one to have serious doubts over the strength of this "recovery" - leave aside the balance and shape of it.
A reversion to stagnation - not impossible - will blow Osborne away out of politics to the justified jeers and cat-calls he clearly deserves.
My 7 year old British daughter asked me to play Catch the other day - and she scampered off in the park.
I realised, mortifyingly, as I wheezed along behind - that she can now actually run faster than her Dad - for real. I used to pretend to let her win. Now she just wins. It's a bit of a *moment*.
And she's 7! Eeesh.
You need to start running. Download the Couch to 5k app and when you have completed it, find your local parkrun.
while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Surely you don't believe this guff. The only G spot Nick Clegg has left is to say G-oodbye. For the first time today Cameron looked out of ideas.
chortle
the party with no policies says everyone else is out of ideas. I don't think Cameron actually had to say anything much today. If anything his weakness over the last 3 years - as many PB lefties have pointed out - has been headline chasing with dumb ass initiatives. Saying steady as she goes and leaving Miliband to run about like a headless chicken is fine by me. All the onus is on Ed to do the work.
As for Cleggy well I'm a signed up member of the cockroach club and the LDs had a good conference. Since the most likely outcome is still a HP in 2015 laugh at Cleggy at your peril especially since Ed's just left him a bit more centre ground to fill.
Clegg may well stick around for years, if not decades propping up this govt or that. But his G spot days are a distant memory.
Thinking about it, the two other parties could just agree upfront to keep him as Deputy PM regardless. Would save a lot of fuss and make very little difference overall.
The LDs still came up with the best policy of the bunch in lifting the low paid out of taxation. Now everybody's claiming it as their idea. They've largely been quietly effective in government, the weak point has been Cable. Huhne in BIS would have been more effective while leaving Cable bumbling along in energy would have hurt no-one.
Actually this live at home until you're 25 thing could have some other benefits.
A fair few of my friends had kids very late. This is a trend I think.
So they'll be around the 65 mark when their kids are 25.
Let's say the 'live at home' age rises along with the pension age if things don't pick up for a while. To 35. Maybe 40.
We could have kids caring for their elderly parents at home in exchange for benefits.
That would save a lot of cash. Aging population and all that.
Dave's a genius.
In the last two years, three of my 50-ish year old male friends have just have their FIRST kids. And I thought I was a slow learner.
I've tried to tell them about What Kids Do To Your Knees but they don't quite understand. Yet.
I know two couples with three kids, their first at 40-ish. They're now 50-ish. Three kids under the age of 10. They're completely knackered.
I've got two daughters but I'd like another kid - or two - (finances permitting) - but if I'm honest I'd be an even more rubbish dad with them, cause I no longer have the knees to do it. So it sadly won't happen (unless I get so rich I can get scientists to make 300 younger clones of me ready and willing to play hide and seek for 6 hours)
Did becoming a dad motivate you to earn more money?
Went to see Blue Jasmine tonight and Cate Blanchett kept reminding me of something, which I've just worked out is Gena Rowlands' similar performance in A Woman Under The Influence.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Written for PB Tories.
You can't see beyond a headline.
Miliband has run out of road on his economic arguments, he and Balls just got it totally wrong. So now he's shifted the fight to cost of living. This is about as clever as Custer's deployment on the Little Bighorn.
With 18 months to go, a rising economy, falling unemployment and a chancellor more desperate to bribe voters than Miliband, Ed has chosen to fight on HMG's killing field. As they throw money to gain popularity and the economy strengthens what can Ed do to convince people he'd do it better ? He can only carp from the sidelines like a politcal handjob while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
Any reading of the data shorn of the desperate Tory bullshine shows that Balls is more than vindicated.
Osborne's cumulative deficit reduction is no better than Darling's, and the way he's done it has much worse consequences for the long term health of the economy.
Moreover the electorate doesn't seem to buy the Tory spin. Osborne is a massive hostage to fortune because I'm not the only one to have serious doubts over the strength of this "recovery" - leave aside the balance and shape of it.
A reversion to stagnation - not impossible - will blow Osborne away out of politics to the justified jeers and cat-calls he clearly deserves.
Yeah Ben whatever.
I'm always surprised how lefties develop a sense of fiscal responsibility when out of office but never when they're in it.
I'd be the first to agree Osborne is a mediocre Chancellor, however Balls is just plain shit. He has even less ideas then Osborne and frankly would do a worse job. That's just how bad he is.
And since my post was on the idiocy of choosing a battleground where HMG can deliver improvements pre 2015 and Labour can't, we'll just have to see how much bigger George and Danny make that deficit prior to 2015. Sensibly anyone in govt will be saying better spend it now than leave it for Labour to piss up the wall.
"Osborne's cumulative deficit reduction is no better than Darling's, and the way he's done it has much worse consequences for the long term health of the economy."
Presumably you mean Darling's proposed figures, which flutter like a leaf in the wind, for Darling's actual figures meant that the last year of the Labour government borrowed substantially more than any year before it.
@Alanbrooke . bizarrely that's 2 nights in a row we find ourselves in agreement Mr Pole.
Ed's conference was about survival and he has succeeded, but he has given several hostages to fortune along the way.
The most signficant as pointed out by Jonathan is that he has moved his tanks off the lawn marked centre ground Nick and Dave probably can't believe their luck. His bet is people follow him leftward, but that's a big call, people tend to prefer to stay put. He's gone for populism but now has to keep coming up with more promises to stay relevant and all the while he still hasn't got a clue as to how he can fund it. He's set some mood music but still remians light on details.
Cameron's speech was dull as dishwater, but there was something more certain in his keep calm and carry on approach than Ed's desperate attempts to make himself look hard
Cameron's speech was like a Sunday lunch of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding followed by treacle tart and ginger ice cream: solid, familiar, reassuringly British comfort food with the mildest of twists.
As for Miliband, he is undoubtedly intelligent and his background, education and career all suggest that he should be in his element developing a coherent platform of political policy.
So why, when he has already served as Minister for State for Energy, does he come up with his price freeze proposals. He, more than anyone, will know the cost drivers which make up the final price charged to households. He will know that a government of a country which is dependent on gas imports cannot control input commodity prices set in a global market. He will know too that pressures on borrowing have forced governments to transfer investment burdens onto private sector suppliers, significantly pushing up consumer prices. He will know too, as he was the agent of change, that international environmental agreements and domestic green policies have added further significant pressures on prices. He will also know the impact of government taxes on end-user prices.
And yet, knowing all this, he has decided to scapegoat the energy supply industry in the minds of the public as the evil agent of price inflation. And he has decided too to portray himself as the protector of the consumer interest by promising to punish his scapegoat. And yet he knows that the energy industry is only one of many drivers of consumer cost.
If Miliband seriously believes the energy supply industry is uncompetitive and overcharging its customers then he would be demanding that Cameron refer it to the Competition Commission and threatening to do it himself after 2015 if Cameron didn't comply. He would be harrying OfGen by the day.
But he is doing none of this. He is taking the short term electoral benefit of pandering to consumer concerns over the long term risk to the country's energy supply and investment requirements. As with Syria, immediate party political gains trump the country's long term interest. This is not just strategically wrong but politically dishonest.
He may not be caught out today as the public has scant understanding of the household energy supply value chain, but it is as inevitable as night following day that the price freeze policy will exposed as a deception.
"It may be a year and a half before the general election, but the Conservatives have won the poll of mentions on Twitter.
The social networking site has complied some statistics to highlight how the three main parties conferences compared.
From Twitter reaction alone, the Conservatives appear to have come up tops, producing the most mentions.
David Cameron also come top of the leaders on mentions with his speech generating the most tweets:
David Cameron’s speech: 23,000 tweets Ed Miliband’s speech: 20,200 tweets Nick Clegg’s speech: 9,300 tweets
There were more than 1.1 million mentions of the party conferences on Twitter, with the Conservative Party conference generating the most buzz overall:
Conservatives (@Conservatives): 29 September-2 October: 623,000 tweets Labour (@UKLabour): 22-25 September: 315,000 tweets Liberal Democrats (@LibDems): 14-18 September: 192,000 tweets"
'Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?'
Panic. Lost the argument on the economy,lost the argument on cuts,lost the argument on benefits cap,lost the argument on unemployment,lost the argument on immigration,self inflicted row with the unions and a blank piece of paper?
'Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?'
Panic. Lost the argument on the economy,lost the argument on cuts,lost the argument on benefits cap,lost the argument on unemployment,lost the argument on immigration,self inflicted row with the unions and a blank piece of paper?
Worked out very well for a panic measure, didnt it?
It's good to see HMG for once sitting back and not interrupting him when he's making mistakes. Go Lynton.
Ed can make promises but can't deliver them before an election HMG can. The front of tomorrow's Times is Cameron saying it's time to tackle cost of living. The Coalition can deliver on this in the next 18 months Labour can't; Ed chose the battle ground the other side have the artillery. All Ed can do until 2015 is fuel envy of "predator" companies and each group he picks on becomes the next set of people who won't vote for him.
Jerrycan Maude floundering hilariously with the barely thought through nonsense about under 25's. He must love Osbrowne for trying to firm up this twaddle after he panicked when he saw how badly Cammie's speech was going down.
'while Osborne spends £20 Billion more than Labour did in housing benefit over the parliament.'
After 13 years of the lowest social house building since the second world war,the population increasing by 4 million and the economy completely trashed by Labour,I'm surprised it isn't higher.
'while Osborne spends £20 Billion more than Labour did in housing benefit over the parliament.'
After 13 years of the lowest social house building since the second world war,the population increasing by 4 million and the economy completely trashed by Labour,I'm surprised it isn't higher.
Comments
Roll on 2015.
It shows that I haven't been posting much recently!
Rejecting the fresh (and welcome) outbreak of Romneyism among the PB tories, you sideline that dead end and favour the Herman Caine route to glory. His 9-9-9 plan was as simple yet as appealing as your 25-25-25 plan is. The proof is all too clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJFkxPsJe4
It would surely have more impact closer to a GE and it would also have given the Coalition much less time to respond. Announcing it now means the Coalition can actually do something re fuel prices before the GE.
Of course it might be Ed has another bigger announcement for next year. But what might that be? If he announces a freeze on some other prices (eg rail?) then it's all a bit old hat.
So was it actually a sign of weakness that he felt he needed to play that card now?
So it is:
1) Morally right
2) Reduces benefits bill
3) Helps the economy - more housing supply, lower rents and prices
But aren't the Tories ideologically opposed to doing anything about fuel prices?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/02/david-cameron-bugle-call-ukip
Not waving, but drowning.
And with half his side backing the Daily Mail, the country looks on appalled.
Or No.
There you go. I've just gave you a mini one for free.
To sum up then.
Conservative price freezes good.
Labour price freezes bad.
Labour = purveyor of all inflation
Con = price savers!
Watch the speech. It wasn't even close to being a firm costed policy, it was a suggestion more than anything else.
Waste 8 squillion quid on worthless crap and achieve sweet f.a.
Arsenal for the quadruple.....
They wouldn't be ideologically opposed to reducing tax on energy - after all they are freezing petrol duty.
So why not switch it so that the green levies are funded out of general taxation?
"Rent a mob will be gathering for a a midnight vigil after Sugar's latest exhortation"
As long as Dacre doesn't come out and accuse anyone (who turns out to be Jewish) of behaving like a concentration camp guard or the Mail might have to demand his resignation.
Lab (and Miliband in particular) emerge the winners, though all three main parties emerge in credit for one reason or another and UKIP emerge diminished.
The LDs could have experienced a bitter and self-loathing conference, but despite the Cable mini-drama delivered a dull but worthy conference that reflected well on their upper ranks and their position as a party of Govt.
UKIP were a shambles, and gave succour to those of us who feel that whatever the (multiple and serious) failings of the main parties UKIP will not sustain their present level of support at the GE.
Lab's conference was undermined by the McBride revelations, which are of no long term consequence (provided Labour heed the lessons, and the Miliband/Draper emails come to nothing) but was saved by a solid speech from Miliband, that, in the dreaded phrase, "changed the narrative". Whist he was in no danger of being sacked before, his speech secured his position within his party and forced hardened hack and casusal observer alike to consider him afresh. Many of us dislike what we see, but there is no denying that his populist approach is superficially attractive and contrasts well with the unending austerity message the Tories are intent on delivering. His hand has been strengthened by the over-reaction of his opponants; you won't persuade joe average that freezing his electricty bill for a couple of years is massively dangerous, let alone Stalinist. A speech that could have been dismissed as lightweight and immature became a substantial contribution to political debate.
The Con conference was surprisingly lacklustre, overshadowed by the Mail/Miliband spat. One senses that Team Cam believe they have the measure of Miliband and time on their side to launch their attack. There is some logic to that; give him enough rope and he might hang himself, or at least alienate enough of the media that the weather will be set fair. The recovering economy will aid the Cons more tomorrow than today. But the Tories need to be careful not to seem to be revelling in the gloom. It is right that they campaign on the basis that governing is a serious business that Miliband's Lab are not up to conducting; but too many of their recently unveiled policies please a small group a little and displease a larger group more. That's not sound politics.
Conclusion: an uptick for Lab in the polls. Strengthening ratings for Miliband as Lab voters re-rate him.
Stab me - hold the front page.
BTW is Polly channelling Ed or is Ed channelling Polly - pieces of 8, pieces of 8, pretty polly, pretty polly.
Polly Toynbee@pollytoynbee34m
Cameron lurches right, beckons to UKIP.Strong on the weak, weak on the strong. Tough on unemployed,weak on boardrooms http://gu.com/p/3j8h2/tw
Did anyone see Alan sugar on ch 4 news,going on about dacre and something about dog and flea's,then alastair Campbell giving Dacres address with suger agreeing with him doing it,the left are showing a nasty side to they dealings.
My daughter was 27 before she finished her PHD.
Being a parent is a job for life.
However not every child is that lucky to have their parents support.
A fair few of my friends had kids very late. This is a trend I think.
So they'll be around the 65 mark when their kids are 25.
Let's say the 'live at home' age rises along with the pension age if things don't pick up for a while. To 35. Maybe 40.
We could have kids caring for their elderly parents at home in exchange for benefits.
That would save a lot of cash. Aging population and all that.
Dave's a genius.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere - there is no reason that people should get housing paid for by the taxpayer when they haven't contributed very much themselves.
Especially when many other young people are living with parents.
Of course there will be sob stories galore but that is no justification. If you want I would allow one exemption:
Under 25s can get HB if BOTH parents are dead / in prison / out of the country.
It will be a popular policy -as you know.
For my mum's sake, no comment
The pressure on Ed to deliver policies rather a blank sheet of paper got to him and he panicked.
He has a reasonable feel for public opinion and can identify planes of attack on the opposition but the policies he finally chose to air first were either illegal (British apprentices) or had negative consequences which outweighed their intended benefits (energy price freeze).
They existed in isolation from any coherent plan for managing the economy. Populist decoys to distract from the absence of solid thinking.
Desperate promises extracted under threat of public torture. Ed is a leader who flails rather than fights.
The electorate isn't gong to indulge this Tory nonsense much longer.
I hesitate to actually read this thread, other than Ave it - WELCOME!!
Tell me this individual isn't equating the decision a govt takes when deciding what level of taxation it will be setting on a product (kind of a 'core' role for a Govt really) with then telling 6 private sector firms what price they can and cannot charge....
No I thought not, that would be infantile if that was the case. Sorry, for my paranoia.
Might have cost me a yacht! Well one of them.....
If they can play football they should get a game with United
Ed's conference was about survival and he has succeeded, but he has given several hostages to fortune along the way.
The most signficant as pointed out by Jonathan is that he has moved his tanks off the lawn marked centre ground Nick and Dave probably can't believe their luck. His bet is people follow him leftward, but that's a big call, people tend to prefer to stay put. He's gone for populism but now has to keep coming up with more promises to stay relevant and all the while he still hasn't got a clue as to how he can fund it. He's set some mood music but still remians light on details.
Cameron's speech was dull as dishwater, but there was something more certain in his keep calm and carry on approach than Ed's desperate attempts to make himself look hard.
Cons creating the wealth as usual!
Labour = small northern teams
Good to see AVE IT once again.
Was he saying that in a 'that's a good thing' or a 'bad thing'? Now that would be interesting...
To quote General Melchett:
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Written for PB Tories.
Scrapheap Inc Corporation Tax bill paid last month, so expect massive UK deficit reduction news next week or whenever it is.....
However I may have misjudged Clegg. The coalition may have won the battle after 2010, but will Labour win the war? What if Clegg was a Labour sleeper? In a way this seems a far more plausible scenario. Ever since the separation of the left in the 1980s Labour would surely have wanted to install their own leader inside the Lib Dems. So we find ourselves in the aftermath of the 2010 election. Naturally the obvious thing for agent Clegg would be to go into coalition with Labour. However it is worth noting the words of the then Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King who suggested that whoever won the General Election 2010 would find themselves out of power for a generation. Some Conservative backbenchers were keen to get the Lib Dems into the fold so that they would be equally to blame for the coming government spending cuts. Appreciating the long term war rather than the immediate battles, Clegg's minders thought it better to go into government with the Tories thus helping to destroy Labour's two main rival parties. A deal with Labour would have threatened Labour's dominance of the political left and led to more political pluralism. Clegg had spotted how the young had become disillusioned by Labour, the only government they had ever known. In a brilliant political move he would raise tuition fees to £9000p/a thus driving a whole generation of young people into the Labour Party's arms. Another thing spotted by the Cleggers was how the Conservative Party really seemed rather discontent, unhappy with a leader unable to win a general election and with a potential revolt simmering. By pursuing the correct policies in coalition (Europe, gay marriage, maintaining the advantageous constituency boundaries for Labour) it was possible the Tories would fracture and their grassroots would go elsewhere, fatally splitting the right of centre vote. The result of all this, the Tories and Lib Dems on the slide with a rising UKIP vote not big enough to make a major breakthrough was perfect for Labour.
A new era of Labour dominance could begin in spite of the fact that 5 years previously they had received their 2nd worst election result for 80 years and had presided over the worst banking collapse in British history.
So what would Labour do with agent Clegg post-2015. Such people can be a problem once they have overstayed their usefulness. A seat in the House of Lords would be the very least they could offer. What about an hereditary baronetcy? Perhaps when the permanent President of Europe Herman Van Rumpoy were to retire, a Labour government could propose Clegg as his replacement. The only concern would be whether such surprise generosity would expose agent Clegg's cover!
Leaving aside the glorious speech stuff for a second, has anyone seen any polling on what people make of the government shutdown in the US? Realclearpolitics doesn't seem to have any - lots of media people frothing at the mouth, but only approval polls (Obama roughly breaking even, Congress minus a zillion), and I'm too lazy to look up previous polls to compare.
Tykejohnno - all about sharing out the players to the small clubs! See you in championship next season!
I know you like to keep up to date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daa8ZnxC-0Y
Plot, lost.
Happened before in US, 21 days I think it was last time. World didn't end..
Perhaps it did - and was replaced by something even more bizarre than before.
Would explain a thing or two...
Miliband has run out of road on his economic arguments, he and Balls just got it totally wrong. So now he's shifted the fight to cost of living. This is about as clever as Custer's deployment on the Little Bighorn.
With 18 months to go, a rising economy, falling unemployment and a chancellor more desperate to bribe voters than Miliband, Ed has chosen to fight on HMG's killing field. As they throw money to gain popularity and the economy strengthens what can Ed do to convince people he'd do it better ? He can only carp from the sidelines like a politcal handjob while Nick and Dave explore the electoral G spots.
The other situation common in my circle is children young, kids flown the nest (via uni before the big debts came in), 'freedom' from your 40s... for the women anyway. In most of those cases the blokes went off with younger women and are now doing the 'older dad' thing. And are knackered.
Benedict Brogan @benedictbrogan 37m
All under-25s must earn or learn. Tonight's @Telegraph front page
pic.twitter.com/8glpZG5w22
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24185342
I rate it a tactical victory for Miliband particularly in reminding people he exists (which must surely have been why a 5-6 point lead started falling erratically before the conference). I'm thinking a little uptick of a couple of points in that for a couple of months. Miliband could have done with a decisive victory and he hasn't got one at the moment. Cameron is playing for time and the big question is whether the situation will really change by next year.
the party with no policies says everyone else is out of ideas. I don't think Cameron actually had to say anything much today. If anything his weakness over the last 3 years - as many PB lefties have pointed out - has been headline chasing with dumb ass initiatives. Saying steady as she goes and leaving Miliband to run about like a headless chicken is fine by me. All the onus is on Ed to do the work.
As for Cleggy well I'm a signed up member of the cockroach club and the LDs had a good conference. Since the most likely outcome is still a HP in 2015 laugh at Cleggy at your peril especially since Ed's just left him a bit more centre ground to fill.
Watford=Tories
Labour=?
clue...they are above Man Utd in prem.
lol
Thinking about it, the two other parties could just agree upfront to keep him as Deputy PM regardless. Would save a lot of fuss and make very little difference overall.
Osborne's cumulative deficit reduction is no better than Darling's, and the way he's done it has much worse consequences for the long term health of the economy.
Moreover the electorate doesn't seem to buy the Tory spin. Osborne is a massive hostage to fortune because I'm not the only one to have serious doubts over the strength of this "recovery" - leave aside the balance and shape of it.
A reversion to stagnation - not impossible - will blow Osborne away out of politics to the justified jeers and cat-calls he clearly deserves.
'I know it won't be a popular policy, I've seen the polling'
One set of polling is suddenly decisive,remember you saying how unpopular the benefits cap was going to be.
I'm always surprised how lefties develop a sense of fiscal responsibility when out of office but never when they're in it.
I'd be the first to agree Osborne is a mediocre Chancellor, however Balls is just plain shit. He has even less ideas then Osborne and frankly would do a worse job. That's just how bad he is.
And since my post was on the idiocy of choosing a battleground where HMG can deliver improvements pre 2015 and Labour can't, we'll just have to see how much bigger George and Danny make that deficit prior to 2015. Sensibly anyone in govt will be saying better spend it now than leave it for Labour to piss up the wall.
Presumably you mean Darling's proposed figures, which flutter like a leaf in the wind, for Darling's actual figures meant that the last year of the Labour government borrowed substantially more than any year before it.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/85866/the_times_thursday_3rd_october_2013.html
Go Cardiff!
Boo to palace!
.
bizarrely that's 2 nights in a row we find ourselves in agreement Mr Pole.
Ed's conference was about survival and he has succeeded, but he has given several hostages to fortune along the way.
The most signficant as pointed out by Jonathan is that he has moved his tanks off the lawn marked centre ground Nick and Dave probably can't believe their luck. His bet is people follow him leftward, but that's a big call, people tend to prefer to stay put. He's gone for populism but now has to keep coming up with more promises to stay relevant and all the while he still hasn't got a clue as to how he can fund it. He's set some mood music but still remians light on details.
Cameron's speech was dull as dishwater, but there was something more certain in his keep calm and carry on approach than Ed's desperate attempts to make himself look hard
Cameron's speech was like a Sunday lunch of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding followed by treacle tart and ginger ice cream: solid, familiar, reassuringly British comfort food with the mildest of twists.
As for Miliband, he is undoubtedly intelligent and his background, education and career all suggest that he should be in his element developing a coherent platform of political policy.
[to be continued ...]
[... continued]
So why, when he has already served as Minister for State for Energy, does he come up with his price freeze proposals. He, more than anyone, will know the cost drivers which make up the final price charged to households. He will know that a government of a country which is dependent on gas imports cannot control input commodity prices set in a global market. He will know too that pressures on borrowing have forced governments to transfer investment burdens onto private sector suppliers, significantly pushing up consumer prices. He will know too, as he was the agent of change, that international environmental agreements and domestic green policies have added further significant pressures on prices. He will also know the impact of government taxes on end-user prices.
And yet, knowing all this, he has decided to scapegoat the energy supply industry in the minds of the public as the evil agent of price inflation. And he has decided too to portray himself as the protector of the consumer interest by promising to punish his scapegoat. And yet he knows that the energy industry is only one of many drivers of consumer cost.
If Miliband seriously believes the energy supply industry is uncompetitive and overcharging its customers then he would be demanding that Cameron refer it to the Competition Commission and threatening to do it himself after 2015 if Cameron didn't comply. He would be harrying OfGen by the day.
But he is doing none of this. He is taking the short term electoral benefit of pandering to consumer concerns over the long term risk to the country's energy supply and investment requirements. As with Syria, immediate party political gains trump the country's long term interest. This is not just strategically wrong but politically dishonest.
He may not be caught out today as the public has scant understanding of the household energy supply value chain, but it is as inevitable as night following day that the price freeze policy will exposed as a deception.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/85870/daily_express_thursday_3rd_october_2013.html
Tim Gatt @TimGattITV 10m
V interesting RT @itvnews: Conservatives top the political party conference season on Twitter http://bit.ly/16ijog7
"It may be a year and a half before the general election, but the Conservatives have won the poll of mentions on Twitter.
The social networking site has complied some statistics to highlight how the three main parties conferences compared.
From Twitter reaction alone, the Conservatives appear to have come up tops, producing the most mentions.
David Cameron also come top of the leaders on mentions with his speech generating the most tweets:
David Cameron’s speech: 23,000 tweets
Ed Miliband’s speech: 20,200 tweets
Nick Clegg’s speech: 9,300 tweets
There were more than 1.1 million mentions of the party conferences on Twitter, with the Conservative Party conference generating the most buzz overall:
Conservatives (@Conservatives): 29 September-2 October: 623,000 tweets
Labour (@UKLabour): 22-25 September: 315,000 tweets
Liberal Democrats (@LibDems): 14-18 September: 192,000 tweets"
'Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?'
Panic.
Lost the argument on the economy,lost the argument on cuts,lost the argument on benefits cap,lost the argument on unemployment,lost the argument on immigration,self inflicted row with the unions and a blank piece of paper?
Ed's simply needing the media attention.
It's good to see HMG for once sitting back and not interrupting him when he's making mistakes. Go Lynton.
Ed can make promises but can't deliver them before an election HMG can. The front of tomorrow's Times is Cameron saying it's time to tackle cost of living. The Coalition can deliver on this in the next 18 months Labour can't; Ed chose the battle ground the other side have the artillery. All Ed can do until 2015 is fuel envy of "predator" companies and each group he picks on becomes the next set of people who won't vote for him.
Pure comedy.
'while Osborne spends £20 Billion more than Labour did in housing benefit over the parliament.'
After 13 years of the lowest social house building since the second world war,the population increasing by 4 million and the economy completely trashed by Labour,I'm surprised it isn't higher.