No problem. But, just for the future, I see no problem with betting on undesirable outcomes - I do it all the time. It's called insurance (cf McCain - lost my shirt on him!)
You are a Tory as you vote Tory. I am not saying you are a Tory member - there are very few of them. The economy was growing in 2010. It then went backwards.
I don't like defending Osborne, but really that's just plain stupid. The economy is bigger today than it was in 2010 and no doubt you've conveniently forgotten that the estimates of Labour's disastrous tenure were revised to say the economy fell by a further 2% than Ed Balls told us.
labour - shit with money.
Erm, the last Tory government presided over rocketing debt.
So the economy should be bigger - doesn't alter the fact that three years were wasted by the incompetent tool that is Ozzy.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
Yes in Tory cupcake land 3 years stagnation really is trumped by 2 quarters of mortgage debt fuelled growth.
From people who gave us 10 years of mortgage debt fuelled growth that really is quite funny. No more boom and bust - as if.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts there.
Once the recession hit and blew away the complacent conservative economics policymaking was built on, attitudes and analysis changed.
Balls warned Osborne's rush to cut would choke off recovery and keep the deficit high. What happened? The recovery was choked off and the deficit is remaining stubbornly high.
And it is Osborne who has had to completely ditch Plan A to get any semblence of growth in the economy. A massive market intervention in one of the riskiest parts of the British economy. A last ditch attempt to stoke a pre-election boom. Only its stalled at the boundary of the M25.
By all means point out failure, but try to retain some credibility by laughing at Osborne, not the man - Mr Balls - who actually got it right.
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
Well he's a Sheffield Lad, we're noted for our bluntness.
I remember Diane Abbott saying on This Week that there were very few MPs that were more rightwing than David Blunkett
Labour almost recorded their most spectacular result in Beverley in 1997, coming from third place to reduce the Tory majority to 1,211 votes and then to general amazement reducing it even further in 2001 to 781.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
Yes in Tory cupcake land 3 years stagnation really is trumped by 2 quarters of mortgage debt fuelled growth.
From people who gave us 10 years of mortgage debt fuelled growth that really is quite funny. No more boom and bust - as if.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts there.
Once the recession hit and blew away the complacent conservative economics policymaking was built on, attitudes and analysis changed.
Balls warned Osborne's rush to cut would choke off recovery and keep the deficit high. What happened? The recovery was choked off and the deficit is remaining stubbornly high.
And it is Osborne who has had to completely ditch Plan A to get any semblence of growth in the economy. A massive market intervention in one of the riskiest parts of the British economy. A last ditch attempt to stoke a pre-election boom. Only its stalled at the boundary of the M25.
By all means point out failure, but try to retain some credibility by laughing at Osborne, not the man - Mr Balls - who actually got it right.
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
Well he's a Sheffield Lad, we're noted for our bluntness.
I remember Diane Abbott saying on This Week that there were very few MPs that were more rightwing than David Blunkett
Labour really are the nasty party when it comes to immigration.
In other news, a successful campaign in Glasgow.... Twitter David Meikle @cllrdmeikle 16m Latest: Glasgow Council is withdrawing its plans to raise plinth at Duke of Wellington statue. Well done to everyone #savethecone #conegate
You are a Tory as you vote Tory. I am not saying you are a Tory member - there are very few of them. The economy was growing in 2010. It then went backwards.
I don't like defending Osborne, but really that's just plain stupid. The economy is bigger today than it was in 2010 and no doubt you've conveniently forgotten that the estimates of Labour's disastrous tenure were revised to say the economy fell by a further 2% than Ed Balls told us.
labour - shit with money.
Erm, the last Tory government presided over rocketing debt.
So the economy should be bigger - doesn't alter the fact that three years were wasted by the incompetent tool that is Ozzy.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
The cost of living debate isn't seperate from the economic debate. It IS the economic debate.
For what is the "economic debate" about if it's not about how to improve the living standards of people in Britain?
"Living standards" and "cost of living" are not synonymous.
The cost of living is only half the story. The other part is wage rises. How many of the five years from 2015 to 2020 are Labour going to give public sector pay rises which match the rise in the state pension?
No problem. But, just for the future, I see no problem with betting on undesirable outcomes - I do it all the time. It's called insurance (cf McCain - lost my shirt on him!)
Fair enough. However I would urge you to look into the issue a little more deeply, for instance by reading the OFGEM report. Last year RCS and I had a long (and hopefully friendly) debate about this on here. He disagreed with me about the likelihood, and he knows more about the market than me.
It's one of the cases where I really don't want to be right. Brownouts (and especially blackouts) will not be nice for anyone, especially if they are unscheduled.
...and the, er, "recovery" is a boon for the half a million victims of the coalition currently existing on handouts from foodbanks?
I think you'll find they are victims of 13 years of Labour.
And of the infrastructure improvements you speak of under Labour, why don't you tell us how much was funded by PFI, how much there is still to repay and how long those contracts run for.
It's never your fault with you rightwingers is it?! Even though foodbank use rockets under your tenure it has to be someone else's fault.
As for PFI - you Tories invented it. I wouldn't pay for infrastructure that way either given how much more expensive private finance is versus government debt. But that was the madness of pre 2008-9 policy landscape shaped by 25 years of conservative economic thinking. One would have thought the Tories had learned their lesson, but no, Osborne continues PFI.
Worth noting that most of the cost of PFI is for 30 years of servicing of the buildings (the capital cost paid off when the buildings came into use).
When the Tories first used PFI in a modest way Gordon Brown called it a cynical distortion of the public finances. When he got into government he abused the facility.
...and the, er, "recovery" is a boon for the half a million victims of the coalition currently existing on handouts from foodbanks?
I think you'll find they are victims of 13 years of Labour.
And of the infrastructure improvements you speak of under Labour, why don't you tell us how much was funded by PFI, how much there is still to repay and how long those contracts run for.
It's never your fault with you rightwingers is it?! Even though foodbank use rockets under your tenure it has to be someone else's fault.
As for PFI - you Tories invented it. I wouldn't pay for infrastructure that way either given how much more expensive private finance is versus government debt. But that was the madness of pre 2008-9 policy landscape shaped by 25 years of conservative economic thinking. One would have thought the Tories had learned their lesson, but no, Osborne continues PFI.
Worth noting that most of the cost of PFI is for 30 years of servicing of the buildings (the capital cost paid off when the buildings came into use).
When the Tories first used PFI in a modest way Gordon Brown called it a cynical distortion of the public finances. When he got into government he abused the facility.
Oh so when Tories use PFI it is *modest*. When Labour use it it's a *cynical distortion*!
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
Well he's a Sheffield Lad, we're noted for our bluntness.
I remember Diane Abbott saying on This Week that there were very few MPs that were more rightwing than David Blunkett
Labour really are the nasty party when it comes to immigration.
Another fucking unhelpful intervention from a northern MP in a WWC seat. It's hard to argue with you on this one TSE.
People are forever warning of all manner of stuff - remember strange people walking around in face masks thinking they would get bird flu? Happy to have a gentlemanly charity wager with you. Please take that offer in the spirit it is intended - I am equally happy not to bet.
Oh God, don't go offering small good-natured charity bets to PB Tories, it gets you in all sorts of trouble, see below!
Josias is a better class of Tory. He's a good guy.
Thanks. Genuinely.
It's just a shame that the last time I voted, it was Green. ;-)
Cameron lost a much bigger lead over the last 18 months of the last Parliament, so anything can happen. But that Labour vote has now been on or above 35% every month for over three years. And Ed's leadership credentials are now firming up among Labour supporters. The Tories need something to happen or the economic recovery to start feeding through. Even then, they may just find that the anti-Tory vote will be big enough to win Labour most seats. It's all very interesting, that's for sure.
That more style than substance finding is horrible for Cameron. What's the gender breakdown on that?
Hes a fake, and women have sussed him
Women just love a bloke like Ed.
You know, only marries because he is told it would look better politically.
And just somehow never had the time to put his name down as father on birth certificate.
And some voters think ReD has more "substance"......?
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
Well he's a Sheffield Lad, we're noted for our bluntness.
I remember Diane Abbott saying on This Week that there were very few MPs that were more rightwing than David Blunkett
Labour really are the nasty party when it comes to immigration.
Another fucking unhelpful intervention from a northern MP in a WWC seat. It's hard to argue with you on this one TSE.
As a non white person, I really do start to get worried when Labour start talking about immigration.
People are forever warning of all manner of stuff - remember strange people walking around in face masks thinking they would get bird flu? Happy to have a gentlemanly charity wager with you. Please take that offer in the spirit it is intended - I am equally happy not to bet.
Oh God, don't go offering small good-natured charity bets to PB Tories, it gets you in all sorts of trouble, see below!
Josias is a better class of Tory. He's a good guy.
Thanks. Genuinely.
It's just a shame that the last time I voted, it was Green. ;-)
So now you and Neil - Green PBTories
Technically, I'm a Green Independent LibDem PBTory. ;-)
That's what happens when you try to vote for a candidate rather than a party. Sadly, it's harder than you might think ...
You are a Tory as you vote Tory. I am not saying you are a Tory member - there are very few of them. The economy was growing in 2010. It then went backwards.
I don't like defending Osborne, but really that's just plain stupid. The economy is bigger today than it was in 2010 and no doubt you've conveniently forgotten that the estimates of Labour's disastrous tenure were revised to say the economy fell by a further 2% than Ed Balls told us.
labour - shit with money.
Erm, the last Tory government presided over rocketing debt.
So the economy should be bigger - doesn't alter the fact that three years were wasted by the incompetent tool that is Ozzy.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
The cost of living debate isn't seperate from the economic debate. It IS the economic debate.
For what is the "economic debate" about if it's not about how to improve the living standards of people in Britain?
Ah right, that must be why importing 4 million people to push down workers' wages was such a resounding success.
Benefits claimants push wages down? Or have you changed tack on that one
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
Well he's a Sheffield Lad, we're noted for our bluntness.
I remember Diane Abbott saying on This Week that there were very few MPs that were more rightwing than David Blunkett
Labour really are the nasty party when it comes to immigration.
Another fucking unhelpful intervention from a northern MP in a WWC seat. It's hard to argue with you on this one TSE.
As a non white person, I really do start to get worried when Labour start talking about immigration.
Thankfully this one is not in the shadow cabinet. But I fully take your point
People are forever warning of all manner of stuff - remember strange people walking around in face masks thinking they would get bird flu? Happy to have a gentlemanly charity wager with you. Please take that offer in the spirit it is intended - I am equally happy not to bet.
Oh God, don't go offering small good-natured charity bets to PB Tories, it gets you in all sorts of trouble, see below!
Josias is a better class of Tory. He's a good guy.
Thanks. Genuinely.
It's just a shame that the last time I voted, it was Green. ;-)
So now you and Neil - Green PBTories
Technically, I'm a Green Independent LibDem PBTory. ;-)
That's what happens when you try to vote for a candidate rather than a party. Sadly, it's harder than you might think ...
As you are not-so-secretly sympathetic to rail nationalisation you can add Marxist to your many hats ;-)
It may be that Blunketts interest is because there is a significant Roma population in Sheffield. There was an interesting Channel 4 news item on the community:
David Blunkett has always been a blunt speaker. I remember him saying that he felt like opening a bottle of champagne on hearing of the death of Harold Shipman.
On a less contentious note, spent the day in Beverley, Yorks... What a nice place - smashing architecture, interesting shops, really friendly people.
Don't let Labour ruin it...? ;-)
[nb: wicked Labour council considering torturing animals... fluffy Tory MP responsible for everything else...]
It's a Tory council that's considering the application. But I wouldn't prejudge their decision, or in the least claim that Labour has a better record on reducing animal experiments - I'm strictly non-partisan on this, and none of the main parties shine on this subject.
I do find it amusing that I spent most of 2011 on here pointing out - especially to Labour supporters (remember Henry G's cris de coeur? - that Ed Miliband wasn't as rubbish or as unelectable as everyone was saying, and now in 2013 I have to point out that he's not as smart as people think.
On a scale of Gordon Brown to Maggie Thatcher, he's above Michael Foot but below Neil Kinnock.
Of course that doesn't mean he won't, by default, end up as PM, given the difficulties politicians who try to govern well have getting re-elected in current circumstances all over Europe. The risk is certainly considerable. What we have discovered in 2013 is quite how bad a PM he would be; I was deeply shocked by the curious combination of weakness, ruthlessness, cynicism and irresponsibility of his Syria games, and the Falkirk/Unite response and above all the energy-policy snake-oil suggest that wasn't just a one-off. It's very striking that Labour morale has improved as further evidence of the disaster in store for them has appeared; it is indeed a funny old world.
I do find it amusing that I spent most of 2011 on here pointing out - especially to Labour supporters (remember Henry G's cris de coeur? - that Ed Miliband wasn't as rubbish or as unelectable as everyone was saying, and now in 2013 I have to point out that he's not as smart as people think.
On a scale of Gordon Brown to Maggie Thatcher, he's above Michael Foot but below Neil Kinnock.
Of course that doesn't mean he won't, by default, end up as PM, given the difficulties politicians who try to govern well have getting re-elected in current circumstances all over Europe. The risk is certainly considerable. What we have discovered in 2013 is quite how bad a PM he would be; I was deeply shocked by the curious combination of weakness, ruthlessness, cynicism and irresponsibility of his Syria games, and the Falkirk/Unite response and above all the energy-policy snake-oil suggest that wasn't just a one-off. It's very striking that Labour morale has improved as further evidence of the disaster in store for them has appeared; it is indeed a funny old world.
Blimey, you're really worried aren't you?
Think positively. A period in opposition, purge the Cameron lot and genuinely modernise, will be good for your party.
The Tory problem is they spent too long in opposition, stewing with ideological purity, think tanks and vested interests.
So when in power they simply couldn't do the job - all they had were exciting Rightwing ideological wheezes and pet projects that were a shambles in practice. The NHS chaos, IDS's welfare disaster, Gove's increasingly ridiculous education schemes, the list goes on. Cameron sits on top of it all, looking like he's just having a jolly old time. Only May looks competent.
Indeed so, but Labour supporters are the ones who should be most worried. In fact the sensible ones are (I believe they call them 'Blairites' in Labour circles).
It will certainly be tragic to see all the progress made by this government - the best, bar Maggie, for half a century - reversed, especially on the public finances, procurement, welfare, and perhaps most of all education.
It won't affect me personally much, but for the bulk of the population, I fear we may be back to something of a replay of the late 1960s and the 1970s - over a decade of national decline because voters won't accept reality.
Indeed so, but Labour supporters are the ones who should be most worried. In fact the sensible ones are (I believe they call them 'Blairites' in Labour circles).
It will certainly be tragic to see all the progress made by this government - the best, bar Maggie, for half a century - reversed, especially on the public finances, procurement, welfare, and perhaps most of all education.
It won't affect me personally much, but for the bulk of the population, I fear we may be back to something of a replay of the late 1960s and the 1970s - over a decade of national decline because voters won't accept reality.
Oh dear.
There'll be plague, pestilence and floods if Labour win too, don't forget the plague, pestilence and floods.
"And the Lord sayeth, freezeth Hilda from Nether Wallops's leccy bill and Ye shall bringeth fires and death from the skies upon the righteous Wealth Creators"
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
As NPexMP said at around the same time; "we're told it's getting better but it's not showing either in my pay-packet or my bills".
Can't see why the LD position has improved, though.
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
As NPexMP said at around the same time; "we're told it's getting better but it's not showing either in my pay-packet or my bills".
Can't see why the LD position has improved, though.
FWIW, the Standard is giving Clegg super coverage - I counted five favourable pieces in the same issue the other day. No idea why, except for Clegg's LBC slot, which the Standard covers enthusiastically every week.
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
As NPexMP said at around the same time; "we're told it's getting better but it's not showing either in my pay-packet or my bills".
Can't see why the LD position has improved, though.
FWIW, the Standard is giving Clegg super coverage - I counted five favourable pieces in the same issue the other day. No idea why, except for Clegg's LBC slot, which the Standard covers enthusiastically every week.
I suppose its that he DOES have an LBC slot. For good or ill! And people can and do have a go at him, and, presumably (I've never listened to it), are sometimes reasonably satisfied with the answers they get.
You are a Tory as you vote Tory. I am not saying you are a Tory member - there are very few of them. The economy was growing in 2010. It then went backwards.
I don't like defending Osborne, but really that's just plain stupid. The economy is bigger today than it was in 2010 and no doubt you've conveniently forgotten that the estimates of Labour's disastrous tenure were revised to say the economy fell by a further 2% than Ed Balls told us.
labour - shit with money.
Erm, the last Tory government presided over rocketing debt.
So the economy should be bigger - doesn't alter the fact that three years were wasted by the incompetent tool that is Ozzy.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
The cost of living debate isn't seperate from the economic debate. It IS the economic debate.
For what is the "economic debate" about if it's not about how to improve the living standards of people in Britain?
Ah right, that must be why importing 4 million people to push down workers' wages was such a resounding success.
Benefits claimants push wages down? Or have you changed tack on that one
Three possibilities
A) work (and push wages down) claim benefits C) both
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
The Cameroon economic policy is based on driving down wages and living standards. This creates a deflationary spiral. The idea was the lowered wages would boost manufacturing and exports but the industrial base is too small to take up the slack after 30 years of banksta-looting. If the bankstas hadn't looted and sold the industrial base then the lower wages might have boosted exports enough to compensate for the wage deflation - but they did, so now the industrial base is too small for the current population let alone the 70 million the political class are planning.
The case study in your link underlines why Labour are losing the battle on welfare reform
Ukip want to avoid getting on the wrong side of the bedroom tax argument. There's particular reasons why it will come to be seen as separate from the general argument on welfare reform.
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
The Cameroon economic policy is based on driving down wages and living standards. This creates a deflationary spiral. The idea was the lowered wages would boost manufacturing and exports but the industrial base is too small to take up the slack after 30 years of banksta-looting. If the bankstas hadn't looted and sold the industrial base then the lower wages might have boosted exports enough to compensate for the wage deflation - but they did, so now the industrial base is too small for the current population let alone the 70 million the political class are planning.
They need a new plan.
Oops, mustn't forget, as well as allowing the banksta-looting to carry on New Labour added economic death by green energy tax to the mix as well which the Cameroons have carried on with.
The age of austerity is not just a passing phase and Britain should get used to having a ‘permanently’ smaller state, David Cameron said last night.
The Prime Minister used one of his most significant speeches of the year to say that low public spending and a ‘leaner, more efficient state’ would have to be maintained permanently in order for the UK to succeed.
He said the country would have to rediscover its traditional ‘buccaneering’ spirit for private enterprise in order to generate wealth instead of relying on the state.
In his annual address to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at London’s Guildhall, Mr Cameron said only a smaller state and a ‘bigger and more prosperous private sector’ could heal the economy.
He called for a ‘fundamental culture change in our country’ to champion ‘that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit, and that rewards people with the ambition to make things, sell things and create jobs for others up and down the country’.
In an attempt to counter Labour’s pledge to freeze energy bills, Mr Cameron insisted the single biggest threat to the cost of living is the budget deficit and debts getting ‘out of control again’ under a government led by Ed Miliband.
‘There are some people who seem to think that the way you reduce the cost of living in this country is for the state to spend more and more taxpayers’ money,’ Mr Cameron said.
‘It’s as if somehow you measure the compassion of the government by the amount of other people’s money it can spend. At a time when family budgets are tight, it is really worth remembering that this spending comes out of the pockets of the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve.’
Even more remarkable, gorgeous Tristram Hunt did not break his duck until the 50th minute of his first-ever question time as Gove's shadow. When he did, it became immediately clear that silence had been the better strategy.
Mr Gove rose and gave Mr Hunt a pitying stare. “Tragically when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s College in Aberdeen I wasn’t able to take English GCSE,” he replied, “because I was in Scotland, and GCSEs weren’t on offer. As a historian it seems he could perhaps do with studying geography.”
Given this I will be signing up the Mrs, my parents, her parents, the butler, maid and gardener to Tory membership today although in Bercow land this may not actually help.
I claim a small canvassing prize for tentatively identifying the weakening Tory position here yesterday on the basis of the last couple of weeks' returns. The "don't let Labour ruin it" line isn't working at all, as (a) people don't feel well off, and are irritated by the Tories claiming that things are getting much better and (b) they don't think there's much difference in how parties handle the economy. I think they should, so do others here (though with different outcomes), but most people really don't.
On a less contentious note, spent the day in Beverley, Yorks, for my day job (the council is debating approval of a breeding facility for beagles to go into laboratories). What a nice place - smashing architecture, interesting shops, really friendly people.
NPx - Did you accept my open offer of betting the next monthly ICM shows a lead of 5% or less then?
No on else did so I believe - not exactly ringing support from the PBreds?
It's hard to imagine the informed PBreds believing these excuses for the last defeat isn't it... or maybe not...
Labour apparently see the debates as a chance for Miliband to talk to the nation without being mediated and distorted by the right-wing press. This in itself is quite telling. Research I conducted soon after the 2010 election found that swing voters thought Labour lost because Gordon Brown was not a good Prime Minister, the party did not have the right answers on important issues, and the government had run out of steam. Those involved in the Labour movement, by contrast, said people had failed to appreciate what Labour had achieved, that the policies were right but badly presented, and that voters were led astray by the media. Evidently this mindset still prevails.
"Shortage of 20,000 nurses in NHS, report warns Patients are being left to suffer because of a shortage of 20,000 nurses, with one in 20 positions now unfilled, a Royal College of Nursing report has claimed."
Why are they complaining, didn't David Cameron always promise to prioritise spending on reorganising the NHS and paying/re-recruiting managers?
Mr Cameron said there was growing evidence that public services could be maintained or improved as budgets are reduced. ‘There are 40 per cent fewer people working in the Department for Education - but over 3,000 more free schools and academies, with more children doing tougher subjects than ever before,’ he added.
‘There are 23,000 fewer administrative roles in the NHS – but 5,000 more doctors, with shorter waiting times.’
He claimed the reductions were proof that a leaner state could deliver better results.
SNP neck and neck with Labour in Scotland on yougov, ahead on Populus.
The confidence questions on you gov get most negative response from Scots. They will vote to stay in but return more Salmond led SNP MPs to Westminster.
The Falkirk Fiasco has eroded trust in the Westminster wet, English Ed.
It is a little strange that the polls have moved towards Labour as the economy has gone into an upswing. Early days in the recovery but not what I was expecting.
The Cameroon economic policy is based on driving down wages and living standards. This creates a deflationary spiral. The idea was the lowered wages would boost manufacturing and exports but the industrial base is too small to take up the slack after 30 years of banksta-looting. If the bankstas hadn't looted and sold the industrial base then the lower wages might have boosted exports enough to compensate for the wage deflation - but they did, so now the industrial base is too small for the current population let alone the 70 million the political class are planning.
They need a new plan.
Oops, mustn't forget, as well as allowing the banksta-looting to carry on New Labour added economic death by green energy tax to the mix as well which the Cameroons have carried on with.
And don't forget either the ever increasing and ever changing government regulations.
Much of which is a make-work scheme for the 'business services' sector which is so lauded but is effectively parasitical on genuine wealth creators.
We must give probation services to G4S, never mind this or the fraud enquiry
Did G4S not lose a packet on their incompetence over the Olympics? The story states that they had one off losses carried forward which would fit.
I know profits and business are an alien land for the Labour party but this really is pretty elementary stuff. You pay corporation tax on profits. If you don't make any you don't have to pay. Margaret Hodge has done some useful work on tax avoidance but unless she has evidence that profits are being bled off to some low tax based subsidiary in this case she is missing the point.
And whose fault: Coalition: 26 (-2) Labour: 35 (-)
Cuts that increase spending, like it looks as if the bedroom tax and closing NHS walk in centres will do?
There is not a NHS walk-in centre within 50 miles of me - so they might as well be closed.
Anecdote alert:
Our local drop-in centre in St Neots is excellent, and a much better alternative than our local GP practice, which is absolute rubbish on a number of levels. It says something that we're willing to drive nine miles and wait, just to get a better service.
Before the lefties on here get on their high horses, by all accounts our local practice's problems pre-dates the last election. Besides, Labour have always ignored the elephant in the GP room - that a postcode lottery exists, and has existed for decades.
Our previous GP practice down in Romsey was superb on a number of levels: including responsiveness and accuracy. Our local one here is, as I said above, rubbish. We're lucky in that we can get to St Neots for the drop-in centre. Many people can not, and they are subjected to the vagaries of whichever practice they can get to.
Therefore the closure of the walk-in centres worries me. But I hardly trust Labour on these matters, either. The GP contracts they negotiated have been a disaster for everyone but the GPs.
We must give probation services to G4S, never mind this or the fraud enquiry
Did G4S not lose a packet on their incompetence over the Olympics? The story states that they had one off losses carried forward which would fit.
I know profits and business are an alien land for the Labour party but this really is pretty elementary stuff. You pay corporation tax on profits. If you don't make any you don't have to pay. Margaret Hodge has done some useful work on tax avoidance but unless she has evidence that profits are being bled off to some low tax based subsidiary in this case she is missing the point.
The point is that if you can't deliver the services and make a profit when the government is doling out £2bn in contracts, then the suspicion is that you might not be the best people at getting the taxpayer value for money.
Reading the news piece Hodge seems perfectly entitled to ask and she points out that "we don't actually know how much profit they made" - a pretty rum situation when you're trying to judge their competency at delivering to a budget. So it's a case of trying to find out that from the corporation tax figure.
By asking she seems to have got Atos and G4S to admit that the reason they're not paying corporation tax is that they're inefficient and crap.
Comments
No problem. But, just for the future, I see no problem with betting on undesirable outcomes - I do it all the time. It's called insurance (cf McCain - lost my shirt on him!)
Once the recession hit and blew away the complacent conservative economics policymaking was built on, attitudes and analysis changed.
Balls warned Osborne's rush to cut would choke off recovery and keep the deficit high. What happened? The recovery was choked off and the deficit is remaining stubbornly high.
And it is Osborne who has had to completely ditch Plan A to get any semblence of growth in the economy. A massive market intervention in one of the riskiest parts of the British economy. A last ditch attempt to stoke a pre-election boom. Only its stalled at the boundary of the M25.
By all means point out failure, but try to retain some credibility by laughing at Osborne, not the man - Mr Balls - who actually got it right.
Well I'm not an Osborne fan, but compared to Brown and Balls he's a genius.
I note that, both Eds have lost the economic debate and called the economy wrong.Now they need to jump on to something else so they've chosen cost of living, and I'm predicting they'll lose that too since HMG can do something about it on the back of a recovering economy and the opposition can only moan.
Labour- still shit with money.
Yes in Tory cupcake land 3 years stagnation really is trumped by 2 quarters of mortgage debt fuelled growth.
From people who gave us 10 years of mortgage debt fuelled growth that really is quite funny.
No more boom and bust - as if.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts there.
Once the recession hit and blew away the complacent conservative economics policymaking was built on, attitudes and analysis changed.
Balls warned Osborne's rush to cut would choke off recovery and keep the deficit high. What happened? The recovery was choked off and the deficit is remaining stubbornly high.
And it is Osborne who has had to completely ditch Plan A to get any semblence of growth in the economy. A massive market intervention in one of the riskiest parts of the British economy. A last ditch attempt to stoke a pre-election boom. Only its stalled at the boundary of the M25.
By all means point out failure, but try to retain some credibility by laughing at Osborne, not the man - Mr Balls - who actually got it right.
OMG, they really are that stupid.
Twitter
David Meikle @cllrdmeikle 16m
Latest: Glasgow Council is withdrawing its plans to raise plinth at Duke of Wellington statue. Well done to everyone #savethecone #conegate
The cost of living is only half the story. The other part is wage rises.
How many of the five years from 2015 to 2020 are Labour going to give public sector pay rises which match the rise in the state pension?
It's one of the cases where I really don't want to be right. Brownouts (and especially blackouts) will not be nice for anyone, especially if they are unscheduled.
Join as a Supporter for only £1 today: *link to membershp of Tories snipped* pic.twitter.com/OdmFEyvOTT via @Conservatives
Echoes of 1997 there.
Oh dear.
If you are under 27, you can speak out today – by joining the Labour Party for one pence.
https://www.labour.org.uk/join/speakout
So now you and Neil - Green PBTories
And some voters think ReD has more "substance"......?
That's what happens when you try to vote for a candidate rather than a party. Sadly, it's harder than you might think ...
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/11/from-harryph-harriet-harmans-dodgy-dossier.html
The case study in your link underlines why Labour are losing the battle on welfare reform
Good night all.
[nb: wicked Labour council considering torturing animals... fluffy Tory MP responsible for everything else...]
http://www.channel4.com/news/immigration-roma-migrants-bulgaria-romania-slovakia-uk
On a scale of Gordon Brown to Maggie Thatcher, he's above Michael Foot but below Neil Kinnock.
Of course that doesn't mean he won't, by default, end up as PM, given the difficulties politicians who try to govern well have getting re-elected in current circumstances all over Europe. The risk is certainly considerable. What we have discovered in 2013 is quite how bad a PM he would be; I was deeply shocked by the curious combination of weakness, ruthlessness, cynicism and irresponsibility of his Syria games, and the Falkirk/Unite response and above all the energy-policy snake-oil suggest that wasn't just a one-off. It's very striking that Labour morale has improved as further evidence of the disaster in store for them has appeared; it is indeed a funny old world.
Think positively. A period in opposition, purge the Cameron lot and genuinely modernise, will be good for your party.
The Tory problem is they spent too long in opposition, stewing with ideological purity, think tanks and vested interests.
So when in power they simply couldn't do the job - all they had were exciting Rightwing ideological wheezes and pet projects that were a shambles in practice. The NHS chaos, IDS's welfare disaster, Gove's increasingly ridiculous education schemes, the list goes on. Cameron sits on top of it all, looking like he's just having a jolly old time. Only May looks competent.
It will certainly be tragic to see all the progress made by this government - the best, bar Maggie, for half a century - reversed, especially on the public finances, procurement, welfare, and perhaps most of all education.
It won't affect me personally much, but for the bulk of the population, I fear we may be back to something of a replay of the late 1960s and the 1970s - over a decade of national decline because voters won't accept reality.
Found it really heartwarming. A touching story of friendship, with no need for sex, violence etc.
There'll be plague, pestilence and floods if Labour win too, don't forget the plague, pestilence and floods.
"And the Lord sayeth, freezeth Hilda from Nether Wallops's leccy bill and Ye shall bringeth fires and death from the skies upon the righteous Wealth Creators"
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_intouchables/
"I am not a Tory, I have never voted Tory and I never will vote Tory"
Like rats on a sinking ship tonight
Can't see why the LD position has improved, though.
80% of Chinese tourists to London visit the Bicester retail outlet shopping village, many of them spending thousands of pounds there:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/chinese-pack-their-suitcases-at-bicester-8209793.html
A) work (and push wages down)
C) both
They need a new plan.
Net stay:
Referendum today: 0 (+5)
Referendum after Cameron renegotiation: +26 (+2)
First time the "today" vote has been a draw, IIRC.
The Prime Minister used one of his most significant speeches of the year to say that low public spending and a ‘leaner, more efficient state’ would have to be maintained permanently in order for the UK to succeed.
He said the country would have to rediscover its traditional ‘buccaneering’ spirit for private enterprise in order to generate wealth instead of relying on the state.
In his annual address to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at London’s Guildhall, Mr Cameron said only a smaller state and a ‘bigger and more prosperous private sector’ could heal the economy.
He called for a ‘fundamental culture change in our country’ to champion ‘that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit, and that rewards people with the ambition to make things, sell things and create jobs for others up and down the country’.
In an attempt to counter Labour’s pledge to freeze energy bills, Mr Cameron insisted the single biggest threat to the cost of living is the budget deficit and debts getting ‘out of control again’ under a government led by Ed Miliband.
‘There are some people who seem to think that the way you reduce the cost of living in this country is for the state to spend more and more taxpayers’ money,’ Mr Cameron said.
‘It’s as if somehow you measure the compassion of the government by the amount of other people’s money it can spend. At a time when family budgets are tight, it is really worth remembering that this spending comes out of the pockets of the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2501697/Cameron-Austerity-Britain-used-leaner-efficient-state.html#ixzz2kPY8nq7F
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/michael-gove-the-thinking-mans-russell-brand
Mr Gove rose and gave Mr Hunt a pitying stare. “Tragically when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s College in Aberdeen I wasn’t able to take English GCSE,” he replied, “because I was in Scotland, and GCSEs weren’t on offer. As a historian it seems he could perhaps do with studying geography.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10442025/Sketch-Michael-Gove-Austen-maestro.html
Cuts (net)
Too far: +32 (+7)
Too fast: +32 (+2)
And whose fault:
Coalition: 26 (-2)
Labour: 35 (-)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/can-the-tories-become-a-mass-membership-party-again/
Given this I will be signing up the Mrs, my parents, her parents, the butler, maid and gardener to Tory membership today although in Bercow land this may not actually help.
The spirit of Falkirk lives on.
Blinkin' eck you are in fine spamming form today. That ICM got your quattro fired up?
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers13m
IDS's no-show for Labour's #bedroomtax vote suggests Govt supremely confident they've picked wrong target. Lab needs broader welfare story
No on else did so I believe - not exactly ringing support from the PBreds?
Labour apparently see the debates as a chance for Miliband to talk to the nation without being mediated and distorted by the right-wing press. This in itself is quite telling. Research I conducted soon after the 2010 election found that swing voters thought Labour lost because Gordon Brown was not a good Prime Minister, the party did not have the right answers on important issues, and the government had run out of steam. Those involved in the Labour movement, by contrast, said people had failed to appreciate what Labour had achieved, that the policies were right but badly presented, and that voters were led astray by the media. Evidently this mindset still prevails.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/11/from-lordashcroft-2.html
Enough of my spam variety. Pension work awaits!
‘There are 23,000 fewer administrative roles in the NHS – but 5,000 more doctors, with shorter waiting times.’
He claimed the reductions were proof that a leaner state could deliver better results.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2501697/Cameron-Austerity-Britain-used-leaner-efficient-state.html#ixzz2kPlyEuoF
The confidence questions on you gov get most negative response from Scots. They will vote to stay in but return more Salmond led SNP MPs to Westminster.
The Falkirk Fiasco has eroded trust in the Westminster wet, English Ed.
Much of which is a make-work scheme for the 'business services' sector which is so lauded but is effectively parasitical on genuine wealth creators.
I know profits and business are an alien land for the Labour party but this really is pretty elementary stuff. You pay corporation tax on profits. If you don't make any you don't have to pay. Margaret Hodge has done some useful work on tax avoidance but unless she has evidence that profits are being bled off to some low tax based subsidiary in this case she is missing the point.
Our local drop-in centre in St Neots is excellent, and a much better alternative than our local GP practice, which is absolute rubbish on a number of levels. It says something that we're willing to drive nine miles and wait, just to get a better service.
Before the lefties on here get on their high horses, by all accounts our local practice's problems pre-dates the last election. Besides, Labour have always ignored the elephant in the GP room - that a postcode lottery exists, and has existed for decades.
Our previous GP practice down in Romsey was superb on a number of levels: including responsiveness and accuracy. Our local one here is, as I said above, rubbish. We're lucky in that we can get to St Neots for the drop-in centre. Many people can not, and they are subjected to the vagaries of whichever practice they can get to.
Therefore the closure of the walk-in centres worries me. But I hardly trust Labour on these matters, either. The GP contracts they negotiated have been a disaster for everyone but the GPs.
Reading the news piece Hodge seems perfectly entitled to ask and she points out that "we don't actually know how much profit they made" - a pretty rum situation when you're trying to judge their competency at delivering to a budget. So it's a case of trying to find out that from the corporation tax figure.
By asking she seems to have got Atos and G4S to admit that the reason they're not paying corporation tax is that they're inefficient and crap.