1) Labour attack Tories over food banks 2) Tories attack the public.
Good strategy.
If most Tory politicians weren't totally out of touch with 70% of reality they'd know the use of food banks has been going up since 2001-ish as it's connected to homelessness and why would homelessness have been going up since around 2001-ish?
It's like "beds in sheds" (aka the slums coming back).
Many of the people have EBT cards (debit cards which get recharged with money - less stigmatic than the old 'food stamps').
Unfortunately also less reliable. Last week somebody at Xerox screwed up a system test and left people in 15 states unable to buy food. This seems like a case where the government should stop getting clever and just give people money.
Yes, I saw that too. People were commenting that apparently walmart was quite a bit emptier than usual. More to the point was that people could not survive for a day without their EBT cards working. The same is true with all forms of electronic payment; our modern day society is extremely complex and does not have sufficient resilience.
The casual brutality of Ed Miliband's comments in government about the necessity of higher energy bills to reduce demand, reduce carbon emissions and to save the planet were fairly typical of our political class and I have little doubt similar quotes could be found from the leadership of other parties.
What is perhaps peculiarly Labour is the level of hypocrisy that can combine such a viewpoint with a policy like a price freeze to win votes. On the basis of his own quotes this is contrary to his longer term objectives.
The cost of green energy is complicated. Presumably the insane money we have invested in onshore wind does produce some energy, albeit at a ridiculous cost. This must reduce our demand for other carbon based fuels. Although these are usually traded internationally we are not the only ones engaged in this insanity and so overall demand for oil, for example, must be reduced. So if we were not blowing our money on wind we might be paying even more for oil.
"The casual brutality of Ed Miliband's comments in government about the necessity of higher energy bills to reduce demand, reduce carbon emissions and to save the planet"
There'll be loads of past quotes like that floating around. You'd think the profit from looting Royal Mail would pay a researcher or two to go look for them.
"presumably the insane money we have invested in onshore wind does produce some energy, albeit at a ridiculous cost. This must reduce our demand for other carbon based fuels."
You need a backup system for when the wind isn't blowing so i guess any net reduction would depend on whether the constant starting up and shutting down of the least non-sensible backup system uses up a lot? Although as this country's backup plan is 1000s of diesel generators that's a moot question.
The casual brutality of Ed Miliband's comments in government about the necessity of higher energy bills to reduce demand, reduce carbon emissions and to save the planet were fairly typical of our political class and I have little doubt similar quotes could be found from the leadership of other parties.
What is perhaps peculiarly Labour is the level of hypocrisy that can combine such a viewpoint with a policy like a price freeze to win votes. On the basis of his own quotes this is contrary to his longer term objectives.
The cost of green energy is complicated. Presumably the insane money we have invested in onshore wind does produce some energy, albeit at a ridiculous cost. This must reduce our demand for other carbon based fuels. Although these are usually traded internationally we are not the only ones engaged in this insanity and so overall demand for oil, for example, must be reduced. So if we were not blowing our money on wind we might be paying even more for oil.
you may like to hold that thought while Osborne signs a 35 year transfer of resources from the British consumer to the Chinese Communist Party this week, I'm sure you'll be rigorous in your criticism
We need base load. We have needed to make decisions about this for over a decade. We are not in a buyers market. That opportunity disappeared during the lost decade of the last government. Osborne is ensuring supply for our houses and our economy.
Clearly where we have got to is not ideal. This security of supply is not going to come cheaply. How expensive is very hard to judge as we don't know how much the alternatives will cost over that period. But the alternatives are limited and Osborne is willing to make a decison.
Having delivered an economy that gives the tories a chance of winning the election he is sorting out the other areas where the Coalition has failed. No wonder you attack him so much.
I see our £4.2B share of HS2 is going to bring us more union benefits. Line does not ever reach Scotland so good way to spend our £4.2B and then it costs Aberdeen and Dundee an estimated £330M a year loss of business. Can we have some more union benefits please Mr Cameron.
Wonder how much that London crossrail donation is benefitting us, don't hear much on it.
Public expenditure on infrastructure in England would I believe result in spending for Crossrail producing extra money for Scotland under the Barnet Formula.
Many of the people have EBT cards (debit cards which get recharged with money - less stigmatic than the old 'food stamps').
Unfortunately also less reliable. Last week somebody at Xerox screwed up a system test and left people in 15 states unable to buy food. This seems like a case where the government should stop getting clever and just give people money.
Yes, I saw that too. People were commenting that apparently walmart was quite a bit emptier than usual. More to the point was that people could not survive for a day without their EBT cards working. The same is true with all forms of electronic payment; our modern day society is extremely complex and does not have sufficient resilience.
Great post apart from your snide remark about the left, I am pretty sure that some of those volunteers will be as you put it "sneering lefties". The fact that we are like the USA is perhaps down to us copying their model of trying to get as much of the money and assests of the country into the hands of as few people as possible and then trying to demonise those left at the bottom to keep those slightly higher up the chain blaming the poor and not focusing on the elite group of troughers at the top.
Well I'm sorry you see it that way; it was not a comment on the left in general but particularly the sneering ones who childishly see anyone who votes tory as evil scum. You only have to search through these pages or the comment pages of the guardian to find them. There are many people who have deeply held beliefs in socialism found in churches and other walks of life. Many of these also volunteer wholeheartedly - but they just don't carp on the sidelines, they sacrificially give help, and while I don't agree with them, I have the highest respect for them and their opinions.
The casual brutality of Ed Miliband's comments in government about the necessity of higher energy bills to reduce demand, reduce carbon emissions and to save the planet were fairly typical of our political class and I have little doubt similar quotes could be found from the leadership of other parties.
What is perhaps peculiarly Labour is the level of hypocrisy that can combine such a viewpoint with a policy like a price freeze to win votes. On the basis of his own quotes this is contrary to his longer term objectives.
The cost of green energy is complicated. Presumably the insane money we have invested in onshore wind does produce some energy, albeit at a ridiculous cost. This must reduce our demand for other carbon based fuels. Although these are usually traded internationally we are not the only ones engaged in this insanity and so overall demand for oil, for example, must be reduced. So if we were not blowing our money on wind we might be paying even more for oil.
you may like to hold that thought while Osborne signs a 35 year transfer of resources from the British consumer to the Chinese Communist Party this week, I'm sure you'll be rigorous in your criticism
Are these Chinese Communists homophobic? We need to know.
I see our £4.2B share of HS2 is going to bring us more union benefits. Line does not ever reach Scotland so good way to spend our £4.2B and then it costs Aberdeen and Dundee an estimated £330M a year loss of business. Can we have some more union benefits please Mr Cameron.
Wonder how much that London crossrail donation is benefitting us, don't hear much on it.
Public expenditure on infrastructure in England would I believe result in spending for Crossrail producing extra money for Scotland under the Barnet Formula.
FYI London businesses are paying through the nose for crossrail. We pay 2000 a year extra in business rates purely as a crossrail levy (about 5% of our business rates bill)
Well certainly I'm sure there are plenty in what's left of the party hierarchy that want Christie to win the nomination.
But Christie is a Governor of a high tax state. Plus there is the small matter of Hurricane Sandy. His embrace of Obama and the Federal government played well with democrats and independents but it left plenty of Republican pundits spitting blood about his treachery in the run up to the last election. His praise of Obama will hurt him badly in the primaries.
I'm not sure the Republicans have lost enough for them to tear themselves away from the rightwards drift. September 2001 is till reverberating through the body politic. from clinging to the President in time of crises to the resultant economic collapse, may all feed a narrative that these are not normal times.
Obama only won because of Bush and the great collapse etc. If Bush had been a true conservative etc etc. I don't think the party is ready to move back to the centre yet. The last defeat did prompt some rapid shifting over immigration reform, but only a few lone voices were heard about the problem of the culture wars over abortion and gay rights.
Also someone needs to find a way for the middle to get a bigger share of the pie rather than just the top 10%. (a problem for all parties).
If they lost Congress and the Senate and the Presidency and did not recover Congress in the mid terms then they may rethink/ But the American system is not designed for one side to be crushed so easily.
In Presidential primaries, Republican voters tend to be quite pragmatic. They go for whichever candidate is likeliest to win, or to mitigate the scale of defeat.
The interesting things about the diesel generators as energy policy thing is it shows they don't really care about carbon. It was always about self-flagellation over those dark satanic mills hence why they're quite happy to burn a zillion tons of diesel fuel if it means they don't have to admit they were wrong about windmills.
The other feelgood factor is future prospects. So if an employee is on the same wage, but the company is expanding and they see the prospect of promotion they may feelgood while actually being no better off.
Politics is about hope vs fear, and all parties play off both of these. Hope is a powerful motivator, though often illusory.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
Hey, I thought Sean T deserved rather more vocal acclamation for his generosity last night in effectively paying for the next pb do. Well done, that man!
The more you think about the diesel generator plan the funnier it gets (in a totally ****ed-up way). The nominal government obeying the EU's orders to close down those coal power stations early is going to be compensated for by burning a zillion tons of diesel.
I see our £4.2B share of HS2 is going to bring us more union benefits. Line does not ever reach Scotland so good way to spend our £4.2B and then it costs Aberdeen and Dundee an estimated £330M a year loss of business. Can we have some more union benefits please Mr Cameron.
Wonder how much that London crossrail donation is benefitting us, don't hear much on it.
Public expenditure on infrastructure in England would I believe result in spending for Crossrail producing extra money for Scotland under the Barnet Formula.
Not when they shift it special expenditure to make sure that did not happen, which is very common with the big projects alas.
Great post apart from your snide remark about the left, I am pretty sure that some of those volunteers will be as you put it "sneering lefties". The fact that we are like the USA is perhaps down to us copying their model of trying to get as much of the money and assests of the country into the hands of as few people as possible and then trying to demonise those left at the bottom to keep those slightly higher up the chain blaming the poor and not focusing on the elite group of troughers at the top.
Well I'm sorry you see it that way; it was not a comment on the left in general but particularly the sneering ones who childishly see anyone who votes tory as evil scum. You only have to search through these pages or the comment pages of the guardian to find them. There are many people who have deeply held beliefs in socialism found in churches and other walks of life. Many of these also volunteer wholeheartedly - but they just don't carp on the sidelines, they sacrificially give help, and while I don't agree with them, I have the highest respect for them and their opinions.
Unfortunately there is a lot of sneering on both sides , and like you I also fall into the trap of joining it at times. Sad fact is that both left and right are milking the people , both only in it for themselves at the top of the pile and happy to bask in glory of the ordinary ones who really do try to help.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
I don't really know anyone who has lost their job (not counting friends of friends, spouses of my/the Mrs' colleagues and suchlike). My family and social circle have been pretty lucky in that. The public sector workers in that circle have suffered with no payrises for a few years, and then 1%, which doesn't really make much difference, along with pension contribution increases, and some council workers I know had to take a haircut on their wages. On the whole, we've managed, and low mortgage interest has masked the drop in disposable income, so I guess most of my gang feel relatively good.
Things need to pick up, though. As many observe on here, there's starting to feel a real divide amongst the majority against the really well off, and the well off include bosses, bankers, politicians, in fact, senior management in any walk of life.. How that resentment manifests itself is the question that no one wants to ask
The more you think about the diesel generator plan the funnier it gets (in a totally ****ed-up way). The nominal government obeying the EU's orders to close down those coal power stations early is going to be compensated for by burning a zillion tons of diesel.
You have to laugh really.
Even funnier, to make sure there's enough of these diesel generator farms to take up the slack when the wind drops they'll probably have to subsidize them as well so not only will our green energy policy involve burning a zillion tons of diesel fuel it'll be subsidized burning of a zillion tons of diesel fuel.
The other feelgood factor is future prospects. So if an employee is on the same wage, but the company is expanding and they see the prospect of promotion they may feelgood while actually being no better off.
Politics is about hope vs fear, and all parties play off both of these. Hope is a powerful motivator, though often illusory.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
Politics is the art of making people believe that tomorrow will be a better day than today.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
The proportion of the working age population in work is up 1.2% since June 2010, which doesn't sound like much, but is equivalent to about 400,000 people. Without doubt, the employment situation is generally better than it was then.
The other issue is expectations. People did not have high expectations of this government when it came to power. Few people were expecting a sudden transformation of our economic prospects.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
The proportion of the working age population in work is up 1.2% since June 2010, which doesn't sound like much, but is equivalent to about 400,000 people. Without doubt, the employment situation is generally better than it was then.
The other issue is expectations. People did not have high expectations of this government when it came to power. Few people were expecting a sudden transformation of our economic prospects.
One point (which might already have been made, I've been sleeping off a hangover) people can "feel good" in a recovering economy in different ways.
Of course the most important is how much money they take home, as against how much they have to spend, and how much less it is worth thanks to inflation.
But they can also "feel good" if say, a daughter or a brother or a friend gets a job, in an economy with expanding employment.
They can also "feel good" if a new factory opens on the outskirts of town, or shops reopen in the street, thanks to economic growth overall.
They can also "feel good" if the currency strengthens, and when they go abroad they can buy nicer dinners.
Finally they can "feel good" just because it Feels Good, because the papers and the TV news are full of optimistic economic stories, rather than recessiony doom and gloom.
These last four Feelgoods should not be ignored. They could be enough to blunt Miliband's attack.
The proportion of the working age population in work is up 1.2% since June 2010, which doesn't sound like much, but is equivalent to about 400,000 people. Without doubt, the employment situation is generally better than it was then.
The other issue is expectations. People did not have high expectations of this government when it came to power. Few people were expecting a sudden transformation of our economic prospects.
mainly part time and zero hour contracts no doubt
Plenty of full time jobs being created (undermined by population growth):
Well I must say the Tories are working terribly hard to convince themselves that they can win the next election but I suspect it's all in vain.
The bottom line is, is any of this sufficient to overcome the Tories disadvantage in the electoral system and sufficient to encourage the vast majority of those Libdems who defected to Labour out of a sense of betrayal that their party had got into bed with the Toxic Tories. The answer is no in my view. Labour is still on target for Downing Street.
Cameron needed a totemic policy in 2010 to win a majority . He fluffed it. This time thanks to his inept political positioning (making him toxic to left and right) he's got no chance at all.
If anything the realisation that neither Labour or Tories are prepared to do anything substantive about the cost of living will only further reduce the two 'governing parties' standing in the country. In 1951 80% of the total electorate voted Labour or Conservative. In the first decade of the 21st Century that figure had slumped to little more than 40%. Its quite possible that that figure will fall below 40% in 2015.
Comments
2) Tories attack the public.
Good strategy.
If most Tory politicians weren't totally out of touch with 70% of reality they'd know the use of food banks has been going up since 2001-ish as it's connected to homelessness and why would homelessness have been going up since around 2001-ish?
It's like "beds in sheds" (aka the slums coming back).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21574772
It started around 2001-ish. The BBC didn't report it till 2013.
There'll be loads of past quotes like that floating around. You'd think the profit from looting Royal Mail would pay a researcher or two to go look for them.
"presumably the insane money we have invested in onshore wind does produce some energy, albeit at a ridiculous cost. This must reduce our demand for other carbon based fuels."
You need a backup system for when the wind isn't blowing so i guess any net reduction would depend on whether the constant starting up and shutting down of the least non-sensible backup system uses up a lot? Although as this country's backup plan is 1000s of diesel generators that's a moot question.
Clearly where we have got to is not ideal. This security of supply is not going to come cheaply. How expensive is very hard to judge as we don't know how much the alternatives will cost over that period. But the alternatives are limited and Osborne is willing to make a decison.
His next decision will be about the RBS where Vince has been faffing about for 3 years to little effect: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24592397
Having delivered an economy that gives the tories a chance of winning the election he is sorting out the other areas where the Coalition has failed. No wonder you attack him so much.
Google went to IPO on Aug 19, 2004 at $85 per share.
By Sep 1st 2004, that share price was $130.
Today Google shares are at around $1000.
So, was Google sold too cheaply?
http://www.leydenacademy.nl/index.cfm?p=96E960C1-94D7-19E8-B668F7049CB32DFE&nora=news&showyear=2013
Reality is rarely as simple as political spinners make it out to be!
"The widow of a mathematician has been told to remove a Sudoku puzzle from his gravestone by the council.
Angela Robinson, from Chester, has been ordered to take off the inscriptions from her husband Allan's grave.
Farndon Parish Council said the grave breached the standards for St Chad's church graveyard." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24580742
Politics is about hope vs fear, and all parties play off both of these. Hope is a powerful motivator, though often illusory.
You have to laugh really.
My family and social circle have been pretty lucky in that. The public sector workers in that circle have suffered with no payrises for a few years, and then 1%, which doesn't really make much difference, along with pension contribution increases, and some council workers I know had to take a haircut on their wages. On the whole, we've managed, and low mortgage interest has masked the drop in disposable income, so I guess most of my gang feel relatively good.
Things need to pick up, though. As many observe on here, there's starting to feel a real divide amongst the majority against the really well off, and the well off include bosses, bankers, politicians, in fact, senior management in any walk of life.. How that resentment manifests itself is the question that no one wants to ask
Who needs Kyle Pilkington.
The other issue is expectations. People did not have high expectations of this government when it came to power. Few people were expecting a sudden transformation of our economic prospects.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2013/sty-uk-employment-increases-by-154-000.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/october-2013/sty-employment.html (for half the gap)
The bottom line is, is any of this sufficient to overcome the Tories disadvantage in the electoral system and sufficient to encourage the vast majority of those Libdems who defected to Labour out of a sense of betrayal that their party had got into bed with the Toxic Tories. The answer is no in my view. Labour is still on target for Downing Street.
Cameron needed a totemic policy in 2010 to win a majority . He fluffed it. This time thanks to his inept political positioning (making him toxic to left and right) he's got no chance at all.
If anything the realisation that neither Labour or Tories are prepared to do anything substantive about the cost of living will only further reduce the two 'governing parties' standing in the country. In 1951 80% of the total electorate voted Labour or Conservative. In the first decade of the 21st Century that figure had slumped to little more than 40%. Its quite possible that that figure will fall below 40% in 2015.
RT @chrisdeerin: After this Last Supper, Jesus would climb onto the cross himself MT @helenlewis: Staggers meeting pic.twitter.com/pvNGBo1llI