politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open
By the way, if you’re a lurker, this is The Call from me urging to delurk, hopefully some of you lurkers will Get Down to posting, I’m expecting more The One lurker delurks.
'Here's the laughable Tobe forecasting great success for the head teacher with no qualifications'
No qualifications,just a graduate from London University whose completing her postgraduate PGCE,after yesterday's OECD report on Labour's car crash education and Tristram Twit's response,does anyone take Labour seriously?.
'Before joining Future Annaliese worked on education reform and the curriculum at CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Annaliese studied English at Queen Mary, University of London, and has experience of working in primary schools through the Wandsworth SCITT. Annaliese advised the current government on the review of the primary National Curriculum'
Chris A was possibly cut from his cushy public sector job and is possibly now trawling the net for another taxpayer funded non-job. Shame is most of them have now been cut. He possibly spends his time in his lonely bedsit waiting for the latest smear from his beloved to lighten his depressing days. Possibly.
Or perhaps he is a normal guy who has things happen in his life which beat posting on pb.com. Probably.
As pop stars are always referenced in Nighthawks, I feel I need to tell you that at the weekend, I saw Rick Astley, playing drums and singing "Highway to Hell". Whilst I was dressed as Sonny Crockett. In Skegness. With Mr T, Indiana Jones, Madonna, Bananaman, Axl Rose, Iceman from Top Gun and Jimmy Saville. Surreal.
As pop stars are always referenced in Nighthawks, I feel I need to tell you that at the weekend, I saw Rick Astley, playing drums and singing "Highway to Hell". Whilst I was dressed as Sonny Crockett. In Skegness. With Mr T, Indiana Jones, Madonna, Bananaman, Axl Rose, Iceman from Top Gun and Jimmy Saville. Surreal.
Ah you notice my subtle pop music references in Nighthawks?
I do wonder that they are too subtle for most people.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
The Cleggasm.
Yes indeed. So much effort and energy obsession over such a brief event, but hey, they did at least increase their vote (not where it counts) when the other leftist party was getting punished, depriving the Tories of their prize. As much fun as it can be to mock Tories for Cameron's failure to secure a majority, and indeed mock the brevity of the Cleggasm, the Tories not getting a majority was not wholly down to them.
The again, I was hoping for a Lib-Con Coalition with around 80 LD MPs or so, so my perspectives on things may be a little skewed.
Lol. A friend of mine, a primary teacher, had a drunken one night stand with a bloke and found herself sitting opposite him and his wife at a parents' evening a couple of weeks later.
It's unsurprising that the Tories appear to be winning the Welfare argument I think - I mean, many of the stated aims and even stated policies are definitely popular, even if there is still significant resistance to bits of it - but given they appear to be losing on many other issues like Education and Health (or so it seems at any rate - people may end up liking the changes if they are not disasters, but it feels like the dislike of change in of itself will still be in place by 2015, before positive effects are really bedded in or accepted as the case may be), so will losing on that issue impact Labour all that much?
Particularly if since the economy is picking up a bit, and despite the need for lots more austerity (a lot more than we are currently 'getting' perhaps), the public may feel we can afford to not be so immediately harsh in cutting things in Welfare?
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
The Cleggasm.
Yes indeed. So much effort and energy obsession over such a brief event, but hey, they did at least increase their vote (not where it counts) when the other leftist party was getting punished, depriving the Tories of their prize. As much fun as it can be to mock Tories for Cameron's failure to secure a majority, and indeed mock the brevity of the Cleggasm, the Tories not getting a majority was not wholly down to them.
The again, I was hoping for a Lib-Con Coalition with around 80 LD MPs or so, so my perspectives on things may be a little skewed.
I'm sure that's correct - I meant more that, irresepctive of the impact of the debates, the LDs actually held up pretty well (well, increased technically, just in the wrong places where it did them no good) when the Tories may have been banking on them declining a little bit more (tight margins for the LDs, a few percentage points one way or another could cost or gain them a fair few seats, or as they will hope in 2015, not nearly as much as it seems it should) given the LDs are, despite their occasional protests, firmly centre left and so the Tories would hope suffer more of a decline in the face of a centre right victory, and that some credit should go to the LDs for that, and not just all the criticism on Cameron and co for not getting over the line themselves.
Lol. A friend of mine, a primary teacher, had a drunken one night stand with a bloke and found herself sitting opposite him and his wife at a parents' evening a couple of weeks later.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
We all wanted a lot of things when Cameron said that. He may not have seen anything wrong with the Blair years then, but it is possible he does genuinely see the problem with them now (also possible he, and others,are just spinning his position, granted). That he said what he did does not discount that he, and others who agreed with him at the time, may have been illuminated as to an alternate position since then and discovered a new view on the negative impact of Labour in power.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.
That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
SeanT is clearly suffering from PMT tonight. (pre Miliband tension).
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.
That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
If Dave couldn't even win a majority against Gordon, he'll hardly have a chance of winning a majority against Super Ed!
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
If Dave couldn't even win a majority against Gordon, he'll hardly have a chance of winning a majority against Super Ed!
He'll have to hope the collapse/severe decline at least of the LD vote will be larger than the enhancement Super Ed will bring to the Labour vote. I don't think his chances are high. But then I was predicting a Labour majority in 2015 before it was cool.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.
That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
'It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.'
Or the daily whine about marginal tax rates?
It's you lot that keep bringing them up - as Carlotta did today. I am simply begrudgingly supplying a public service for those that don't grasp how the tax system works, which is most people on here. Apologies if you find it dull --- I sympathise. It is.
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.
I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
That BBC survey on services being perceived to be fine or improving despite cuts I'm surprised hasn't been seized on much yet. I do predict an article from the right somewhere talking about how the BBC have presented it as something like craziness though.
SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!
Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question
Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?
Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
Tim does have a point though.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
Meldrewites and masochists.
I think they like to think of themselves as the beating heart of the Conservative party. I'm sure Lord Tebbit recently made a distinction between conservatives and Tories, the former being the genuine, proper Conservatives, and the latter being believe nothing wimps who go wherever the wind blows, or words to that effect (there certainly seemed plenty of contempt for those 'Tories' who pretend at being Conservatives, but for some reason I cannot find which recent article it was, and contempt at significant portions of one's own party bodes poorly for the future)
SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!
It would be hilarious if the Conservatives were somehow the next party to suggest making a change to AV or some other system. I don't think they will oblige me on that, but it would be so entertaining.
I confess, I don't really know if my local Tories were really against it, as the NoToAV leaflet I received was essentially just a picture of Nick Clegg, but it'd be fun to see them try to argue in favour after that.
SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!
Or if their priority is hating Labour then 1.Con 2.LD This presumes they grasp AV better than they do FPTP
They did think the public was too stupid to figure out AV (supporter of it or not, that was a fun line to try), so even if the party did grasp it better, they would not think their own voters would understand it and how to vote effectively as a result.
We'd need something like Australia, where IIRC the partys send round instructions to voters on which order to vote for candidates to ensure they don't screw it up?
Never had a toaster, but as we have a city centre A&E in our patch, we have often been called to assist in "unusual" removals. There's one older gent who I've personally removed a coke bottle, a 17mm nut and a spring from his, ahem, "member" over the years. We get men experimenting with sticking things over their thang. Mind you, nowadays, I don't need to get as hands on with jobs like that!
Tim Centrist Tories could vote Tory 1 LD 2, rightwing Thatcherites UKIP 1 Tory 2 (both factions may hate Labour, but ideologically one is closer to the LDs, the other UKIP)
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.
That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
A better gamble than having five more years of Cameron/Osborne failure followed by Labour in 2020.
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
We all wanted a lot of things when Cameron said that. He may not have seen anything wrong with the Blair years then, but it is possible he does genuinely see the problem with them now (also possible he, and others,are just spinning his position, granted). That he said what he did does not discount that he, and others who agreed with him at the time, may have been illuminated as to an alternate position since then and discovered a new view on the negative impact of Labour in power.
Judge Cameron on his record:
Increasing nanny state Increasing 'political corectness' Increasing surveillance state Attempts to boost house prices Running a chumocracy Fake austerity Lying about 'paying down debt' Done nothing about immigration Done nothing about English democratic deficit Obsession with giving money to every foreigner he meets Cultural cringe to Obama Policy making dependent upon Notting Hill dinner party fashionable thought Pointless NHS reorganisation Increasing student debt Disasterous energy policy Complete waste of money of HS2 Continued waste of lives and money in Afghanistan Attempt to support Al Qaeda in Syria The under 25 benefit nastiness Tolerance of 'the subject we cannot name'
The list could be added to if I really thought about it.
Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.
That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.
I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.
Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.
Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
A better gamble than having five more years of Cameron/Osborne failure followed by Labour in 2020.
No. It's a terrible gamble with your country's future - and your family's future.
Wise up. Sober up. Like you, I revile Cameron's metrosexual Labour-lite ridiculousness, but Ed Miliband could do as much damage as Gordon Brown if he gets in. And there is NO guarantee of any rightwing party winning in 2020.
Imagine if prime minister Red Miliband *fixes* the rightwing press (as he openly and overtly hopes to do), and *boosts* immigration even more: he could easily win a second term.
Ten more years of Labour? We will be eating dirt.
Ten more years of Cameron/Osborne and we'll be eating dirt as well.
They have the same destination as Labour the only differences is how long and in what manner they get there.
Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.
I don't particularly fear a Labour government (though I think getting back in so easily after one term, after a stretch of 13 years in power, will do their attitude little good), and I no longer have much faith in this Cameron government which has proven disappointingly incompetent in many ways, but even at a glance I'd still put many of those as either not a problem as far as I'm concerned, something both parties support/are doing nothing about so it's not a Cameron problem but a mainstream party problem (eg surveillance state - and since only the top 2 parties will run a government of some stripe, it makes things no better or worse by not voting for either of them in protest on that sort of issue), minor twaddle (Chumocracy, Notting Hill, cultural cringe, lying about paying down debt - oh my, politician is intentionally misleading? Wouldn't ever see Clegg, Miliband or Farage do that I'm sure!), absurd generalisations (Al Qaeda/Syria - there's issues around that whole affair, but the very fact the situation is so complex makes equating Cameron's view as being so direct as you imply quite insulting), inevitable in one form or another/minor issue (student debt/ foreign aid respectively) or simply not that bad.
One thing Labour cannot attack is fake austerity, because they have yelled to the hills how damaging austerity has been, so while it is hard to make the 'cut hard in the wrong place, or too fast' argument, making the claim there's been no real austerity, truth or not, goes against their entire strategem to date and so has zero impact (the Tories are probably seeing a similar thing now, having pushed a narrative of 'Weak Miliband' but now trying to say he's 'dangerous Miliband'). The LDs are similarly prevented, and while UKIP or others can make that argument, since the only alternative governing parties support the same position or even less austerity, attacking Cameron for it is pointless as the others would be even worse from that arguing point.
Also, I don't even know what the 'subject we cannot name' is, so apparently you're right about them not naming it!
HS2, Energy policy, Afghanistan and Surveillance are all big failures for me too, but of the governing parties I see little positive difference that would give me confidence, so I find it hard to get angry at Cameron about them.
Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You could not be more wrong.
A failure to elect a Conservative majority government in 2015 will be just like going back to the start of the 1970s, a collective failure to address the three key issues of the day: the public finances, education and welfare. In fact it would be even worse, given that we have actually made huge progress on all three. To actually go backwards would be even worse than the 1970s, when all they were doing was putting off the reckoning, not running away from progress already made.
There was a very good comment on Sean's article today:
misterman, Today 09:21 AM
Mr Thomas
Good piece.
It's a measure of the effectiveness of the present Government that barely more than three years after taking over the socialists' mess many people appear simply to have forgotten how disastrous the previous thirteen years were.
Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You could not be more wrong.
A failure to elect a Conservative majority government in 2015 will be just like going back to the start of the 1970s, a collective failure to address the three key issues of the day: the public finances, education and welfare. In fact it would be even worse, given that we have actually made huge progress on all three. To actually go backwards would be even worse than the 1970s, when all they were doing was putting off the reckoning, not running away from progress already made.
There was a very good comment on Sean's article today:
misterman, Today 09:21 AM
Mr Thomas
Good piece.
It's a measure of the effectiveness of the present Government that barely more than three years after taking over the socialists' mess many people appear simply to have forgotten how disastrous the previous thirteen years were.
In 1974 you would have been eulogising Heath in a similar manner.
In fact I suspect you and Avery probably were.
But that's an interesting quote.
Why hasn't Cameron been constantly pointing out the failures of Labour ? Why didn't Cameron point out the failures of Labour while he was Opposition leader ?
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE FAILURES.
CAMERON WANTED TO BE 'HEIR TO BLAIR'.
And I'm sorry RN you can't accuse the past of 'putting off the reckoning' and then defend this government's economic and energy policies.
"My view on football - going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree"
He's picking more up on the bizarre fact that Manuel Almunia is eligible for England rather than Froome/Farah/Strauss who all have British ancestry or came here as kids.
"My view on football - going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree"
He's picking more up on the bizarre fact that Manuel Almunia is eligible for England rather than Froome/Farah/Strauss who all have British ancestry or came here as kids.
Yes exactly.
No one is saying Farah etc should not represent Britain or England, but to move to a country as a career move then swap nationalities is ridiculous.
Imagine if a load of journeymen English League 1 footballers went and lived in India and got picked for the national team ahead of indians, how would that go down?
Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)
Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)
Personally I think dual nationality means you can get two goes at it, it's the world we live in. but for Almunia to be considered for England when he is a Spaniard who just happens to work here is/was ludicrous. Not to mention, he has never been good enough. imagine being an English goalkeeper and having him play in front of you!
Wilshere is 100% right in my book.
the worst example I can think of is the crazy ODI between England and Ireland last month, when England's Boyd Rankin dismissed Ireland's Ed Joyce, having dismissed him years earlier when playing for Ireland against Joyce's England.
Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)
Personally I think dual nationality means you can get two goes at it, it's the world we live in. but for Almunia to be considered for England when he is a Spaniard who just happens to work here is/was ludicrous. Not to mention, he has never been good enough. imagine being an English goalkeeper and having him play in front of you!
Wilshere is 100% right in my book.
the worst example I can think of is the crazy ODI between England and Ireland last month, when England's Boyd Rankin dismissed Ireland's Ed Joyce, having dismissed him years earlier when playing for Ireland against Joyce's England.
how can that possibly be allowed to happen?
sounds daft. there should be one and only one chance to choose your nation, with no changing sides. that would seem to be common sense. But then, when have sporting governing bodies ever displayed common sense?
"However, HM Treasury told Holyrood that whatever additional money it put into the police pensions pot, a comparative sum would have to go to the Westminster department to cover its liability as lender of last resort."
"However, HM Treasury told Holyrood that whatever additional money it put into the police pensions pot, a comparative sum would have to go to the Westminster department to cover its liability as lender of last resort."
Do you want a lender of last resort or not?
It just means as usual we pay twice, robbery is the name not lender of last resort. Does Westminster put twice the amount of funds from English tax away for policeman in England, pray tell.
Comments
Though I'm worried that I may fail the hetero test in story 17
@Tim
'Here's the laughable Tobe forecasting great success for the head teacher with no qualifications'
No qualifications,just a graduate from London University whose completing her postgraduate PGCE,after yesterday's OECD report on Labour's car crash education and Tristram Twit's response,does anyone take Labour seriously?.
'Before joining Future Annaliese worked on education reform and the curriculum at CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Annaliese studied English at Queen Mary, University of London, and has experience of working in primary schools through the Wandsworth SCITT. Annaliese advised the current government on the review of the primary National Curriculum'
Or perhaps he is a normal guy who has things happen in his life which beat posting on pb.com. Probably.
There was no major rants against Brown.
It was so toned down.
The migrant slaveworkers exposed in last week's Sunday Times magazine is worth an inclusion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10367759/Alex-Salmond-spent-20000-keeping-secret-non-existent-EU-legal-advice.html
Old Labour was primary syphilis.
New Labour was seconary syphilis.
Now Ed M promises the tertiary and terminal phase of the pathology .
I do wonder that they are too subtle for most people.
Depeche Mode were once a boy band - they were still in their teens when they released Just Can't Get Enough in 1981.
It maybe something to do with the recent server upgrade.
TSEofPB @TSEofPB 4s
For all you teachers out there.
pic.twitter.com/bnXhBSdRtS
The again, I was hoping for a Lib-Con Coalition with around 80 LD MPs or so, so my perspectives on things may be a little skewed.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/oeep9dl
Particularly if since the economy is picking up a bit, and despite the need for lots more austerity (a lot more than we are currently 'getting' perhaps), the public may feel we can afford to not be so immediately harsh in cutting things in Welfare?
And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.
Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.
While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
The US is suspending a large part of the $1.3bn (£810m) in aid it gives to Egypt's military.
The delivery of large-scale military systems as well as cash assistance to the Egyptian government would be withheld, said the state department.
Any coincidence in the timing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24470121
'It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.'
Or the daily whine about marginal tax rates?
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/10/eric-pickles-eats-six-curries-in-one-session/
I confess, I don't really know if my local Tories were really against it, as the NoToAV leaflet I received was essentially just a picture of Nick Clegg, but it'd be fun to see them try to argue in favour after that.
We'd need something like Australia, where IIRC the partys send round instructions to voters on which order to vote for candidates to ensure they don't screw it up?
Increasing nanny state
Increasing 'political corectness'
Increasing surveillance state
Attempts to boost house prices
Running a chumocracy
Fake austerity
Lying about 'paying down debt'
Done nothing about immigration
Done nothing about English democratic deficit
Obsession with giving money to every foreigner he meets
Cultural cringe to Obama
Policy making dependent upon Notting Hill dinner party fashionable thought
Pointless NHS reorganisation
Increasing student debt
Disasterous energy policy
Complete waste of money of HS2
Continued waste of lives and money in Afghanistan
Attempt to support Al Qaeda in Syria
The under 25 benefit nastiness
Tolerance of 'the subject we cannot name'
The list could be added to if I really thought about it.
They have the same destination as Labour the only differences is how long and in what manner they get there.
Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.
I don't particularly fear a Labour government (though I think getting back in so easily after one term, after a stretch of 13 years in power, will do their attitude little good), and I no longer have much faith in this Cameron government which has proven disappointingly incompetent in many ways, but even at a glance I'd still put many of those as either not a problem as far as I'm concerned, something both parties support/are doing nothing about so it's not a Cameron problem but a mainstream party problem (eg surveillance state - and since only the top 2 parties will run a government of some stripe, it makes things no better or worse by not voting for either of them in protest on that sort of issue), minor twaddle (Chumocracy, Notting Hill, cultural cringe, lying about paying down debt - oh my, politician is intentionally misleading? Wouldn't ever see Clegg, Miliband or Farage do that I'm sure!), absurd generalisations (Al Qaeda/Syria - there's issues around that whole affair, but the very fact the situation is so complex makes equating Cameron's view as being so direct as you imply quite insulting), inevitable in one form or another/minor issue (student debt/ foreign aid respectively) or simply not that bad.
One thing Labour cannot attack is fake austerity, because they have yelled to the hills how damaging austerity has been, so while it is hard to make the 'cut hard in the wrong place, or too fast' argument, making the claim there's been no real austerity, truth or not, goes against their entire strategem to date and so has zero impact (the Tories are probably seeing a similar thing now, having pushed a narrative of 'Weak Miliband' but now trying to say he's 'dangerous Miliband'). The LDs are similarly prevented, and while UKIP or others can make that argument, since the only alternative governing parties support the same position or even less austerity, attacking Cameron for it is pointless as the others would be even worse from that arguing point.
Also, I don't even know what the 'subject we cannot name' is, so apparently you're right about them not naming it!
HS2, Energy policy, Afghanistan and Surveillance are all big failures for me too, but of the governing parties I see little positive difference that would give me confidence, so I find it hard to get angry at Cameron about them.
Night all.
A failure to elect a Conservative majority government in 2015 will be just like going back to the start of the 1970s, a collective failure to address the three key issues of the day: the public finances, education and welfare. In fact it would be even worse, given that we have actually made huge progress on all three. To actually go backwards would be even worse than the 1970s, when all they were doing was putting off the reckoning, not running away from progress already made.
There was a very good comment on Sean's article today:
misterman, Today 09:21 AM
Mr Thomas
Good piece.
It's a measure of the effectiveness of the present Government that barely more than three years after taking over the socialists' mess many people appear simply to have forgotten how disastrous the previous thirteen years were.
In fact I suspect you and Avery probably were.
But that's an interesting quote.
Why hasn't Cameron been constantly pointing out the failures of Labour ? Why didn't Cameron point out the failures of Labour while he was Opposition leader ?
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE FAILURES.
CAMERON WANTED TO BE 'HEIR TO BLAIR'.
And I'm sorry RN you can't accuse the past of 'putting off the reckoning' and then defend this government's economic and energy policies.
Hence most people thinking the debt is being paid off.
Which will make it so much harder for this country to adjust when we do have to start living within our means.
That Cameron is willing to lie for party gain at the cost of damage to the country is contemptible.
Does that make him any different to the other party leaders ? Probably not. But that only means that the others are equally contemptible.
"My view on football - going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree"
He's picking more up on the bizarre fact that Manuel Almunia is eligible for England rather than Froome/Farah/Strauss who all have British ancestry or came here as kids.
No one is saying Farah etc should not represent Britain or England, but to move to a country as a career move then swap nationalities is ridiculous.
Imagine if a load of journeymen English League 1 footballers went and lived in India and got picked for the national team ahead of indians, how would that go down?
Wilshere is 100% right in my book.
the worst example I can think of is the crazy ODI between England and Ireland last month, when England's Boyd Rankin dismissed Ireland's Ed Joyce, having dismissed him years earlier when playing for Ireland against Joyce's England.
how can that possibly be allowed to happen?
Well he can choose to play for either Serbia, Kosovo, Belgium or Albania but he DEFINITELY shouldn't be eligible for England.
Why should it be different if you are an adult @JackWilshere ? Shouldn't naturalized immigrants have the same employment rights? @KP24'
Seriously - Playing for a country is about EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ??!! No - That is about being eligible to play for a club or w/e.
Bonkers.
"I want to get into government as soon as possible to bring in that price freeze."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/lights-will-stay-on-says-miliband-29648339.html
Best PM:
DC: 37(+2)
EdM: 23(-3)
NC:6(+1)
DK: 35(+1)
best PM by Labour VI:
EdM: 66%
Labour 2010:
EdM: 55%
Westminster scuppers Scottish police pension deal
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/westminster-scuppers-scottish-police-pension-deal-1-3134246
http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/william-hague-s-800-christmas-card-bill-revealed-1-3133970
Lib Dem (2010 Lib Dem)
Cameron: 22 (23)
Miliband: 10 (21)
Cameron Best PM lead:
M: +11
F: +15
Do you want a lender of last resort or not?
Dunfermline – Labour's PFI/PPP legacy condemned by SNP
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8159-dunfermline-labours-pfippp-legacy-condemned-by-snp
Whatever else he believes in, it is not open government!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24465979