politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour continues to lose the “blame game” but it doesn’t se

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour continues to lose the “blame game” but it doesn’t seem to impact on its voting intention lead

For three and a half years I have highlighted the YouGov “most to blame for the cuts” tracker as, perhaps, a good non-voting intention tracker. On the face of it you’d think that if the red team was continuing to get the blame with less than a year and a half to go then it would start to appear in the voting numbers.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

The funny thing about this is, is that there are no cuts, but the two Eds moaned like whores and wailing Berserkers about the evil cuts for two years.

So Labour get blamed for cuts that aren't happening.

You can't beat geniuses like that, especially as the economy is the top issue for the voters.

richardDodd

We are going to need more Rabbits for this thread..the last lot have died from exhaustion..

hucks67

Always a silly polling stat. Tories mostly blame Labour, as they will on pretty much anything you ask about. Labour voters are far more fair minded and will accept part of the blame. Lib Dem voters are as always, split into three. LD's on the right will blame Labour, whereas those in the middle or left, will be far more objective.

Financier

There will need to be significant cuts after 2015, especially in the public sector. For example my local council wants to increase Council Tax by 5%, yet refuses to follow the example of Ireland and Portugal where salaries and pensions have been cut.

We really have to get our public sector more efficient and back to reality in terms of salaries, pensions and holidays.

AveryLP

FPT @SouthamObserver

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

tim said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

Patrick said:

Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.

This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!

The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.

And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.

Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.

Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?

Did we get any in swimming?

You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.

I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.

A public schoolboy won the the first Gold medal for Team GB at London 2012. Peter Wilson, a clay pigeon shooter, was an Old Millfeldian and farmer's son.

You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.

Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.

hucks67

TheScreamingEagles said:

The funny thing about this is, is that there are no cuts, but the two Eds moaned like whores and wailing Berserkers about the evil cuts for two years.

So Labour get blamed for cuts that aren't happening.

You can't beat geniuses like that, especially as the economy is the top issue for the voters.

No actual cuts as such when you look at overall department budgets. But of course within budgets there have been cuts in spending. Local authority spending has been impacted, by a reduction in the grant they receive and they have been told to not increase council taxes.

There is as always a longer debate about the spending decisions made and whether growth could have been maintained at a higher level, with the help of government policies.

david_herdson

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

AveryLP

tim said:

There haven't been any cuts, Osborne was too incompetent for that, and anyway the "cuts" that increased spending were always dwarfed by the Omnishambles when it came to VI and still are.

Spending has been cut in real terms in every year of this Parliament.

Fixed central government spending in non-exempt departments has been cut significantly in both nominal and real terms.

The UK under Osborne is currently leading the G7 nations in post-recessionary growth.

Some "omnishambles" eh, tim?

TheScreamingEagles

hucks67 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The funny thing about this is, is that there are no cuts, but the two Eds moaned like whores and wailing Berserkers about the evil cuts for two years.

So Labour get blamed for cuts that aren't happening.

You can't beat geniuses like that, especially as the economy is the top issue for the voters.

No actual cuts as such when you look at overall department budgets. But of course within budgets there have been cuts in spending. Local authority spending has been impacted, by a reduction in the grant they receive and they have been told to not increase council taxes.

There is as always a longer debate about the spending decisions made and whether growth could have been maintained at a higher level, with the help of government policies.

Hasn't Ed's bestie, François tested that theory to destruction?

MonikerDiCanio

The Boy Wirtschaftswunder ;

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/29/housing-boom-german-builders-london-uk-carpenters-plumbers-electricians

Alanbrooke

AveryLP said:

FPT @SouthamObserver

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

tim said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

Patrick said:

Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.

This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!

The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.

And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.

Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.

Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?

Did we get any in swimming?

You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.

I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.

A public schoolboy won the the first Gold medal for Team GB at London 2012. Peter Wilson, a clay pigeon shooter, was an Old Millfeldian and farmer's son.

You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.

Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.

LOL

I wonder if we could persuade the IOC to make drive bys as a category ? Tough competition though.

dr_spyn

@Alanbrooke There should have been a 4x4 drive by free pistol shooting event at London 2012.

TheWatcher

tim said:

Surprised to see Tory voters don't blame immigrants, or has Lynton got all the ones that do voting UKIP these days?

From the poster who's always playing the immigration and race card.

You'd be lost without it.

state_go_away

The survey question of the thread header seems to assume that spending cuts are bad .Hence the word ' to blame' for them. I for one think its a good thing that public spending should be cut. Why does the survey take a position that government should spend as much as it can ?
A better question woudl be 'who do you think is responsible for spending cuts?

david_herdson

hucks67 said:

Always a silly polling stat. Tories mostly blame Labour, as they will on pretty much anything you ask about. Labour voters are far more fair minded and will accept part of the blame. Lib Dem voters are as always, split into three. LD's on the right will blame Labour, whereas those in the middle or left, will be far more objective.

No, what it shows is that whereas the Tory share is pretty solid (and some way above core-vote level, which is c25%, so there are a few swing voters in there), Labour's share is pumped up by a minority but far from negligible proportion who apportion blame roughly equally; in fact, if you take off the shares from Con and Lab who blame either their own party's government or both equally, the VI shares would be pretty much neck-and-neck.

TheScreamingEagles

tim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

hucks67 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The funny thing about this is, is that there are no cuts, but the two Eds moaned like whores and wailing Berserkers about the evil cuts for two years.

So Labour get blamed for cuts that aren't happening.

You can't beat geniuses like that, especially as the economy is the top issue for the voters.

No actual cuts as such when you look at overall department budgets. But of course within budgets there have been cuts in spending. Local authority spending has been impacted, by a reduction in the grant they receive and they have been told to not increase council taxes.

There is as always a longer debate about the spending decisions made and whether growth could have been maintained at a higher level, with the help of government policies.

Hasn't Ed's bestie, François tested that theory to destruction?

Hasnt Osborne chosen to increase benefit spending, particularly on pensioners?

Dunno, whatever he did, it must be working.

'UK Is The Best', Says OECD

The UK will grow far faster than its European neighbours, reckons the think tank.

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1221509/

R0berts

Tories blame Labour. No surprise at all that it isn't impacting VI.

anothernick

david_herdson said:

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

IMHO most people's voting intention is less solid than it used to be. Perhaps the solidest voting intention that can be found when door-knocking is from those who are voting UKIP. It's not just the Labour vote that is not "solid" - the same can be said of the Tory and Lib Dem vote in many cases.

state_go_away

In fact it really irritates me this automatic assumption in the media and seemingly pollsters that its an absolute good that the government spends as much as possible and the only debate is how can the govenment be able to do this

MikeSmithson

david_herdson said:

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

You've got to be careful not to sound like Stuart Truth. We haven't heard from him since Obama got re-elected.

AveryLP

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

FPT @SouthamObserver

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

tim said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

Patrick said:

Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.

This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!

The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.

And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.

Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.

Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?

Did we get any in swimming?

You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.

I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.

A public schoolboy won the the first Gold medal for Team GB at London 2012. Peter Wilson, a clay pigeon shooter, was an Old Millfeldian and farmer's son.

You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.

Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.

LOL

I wonder if we could persuade the IOC to make drive bys as a category ? Tough competition though.

Would definitely work as a demonstration sport in Rio 2016, Mr Brooke!

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Gary Anderson's written a piece on next year's regulations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25158104

I think that Red Bull may well (as suggested) do well in efficiency terms of fuel/aerodynamics, but it's worth recalling that too-tight packaging has led to a number of electrical failures (KERS, or the alternater just failing). Reliability could be their Achilles' Heel next year. Also, it sounds like losing the ERS will cost maybe as much as 200bhp, or a shade more. So if you lose it that's a lot of lap time.

The emphasis on efficiency may also benefit Rosberg over Hamilton, as the former is a bit steadier.

TheScreamingEagles

Who should run Britain: Tin Man Cameron (all head, no heart) or Scarecrow Miliband (all heart, no brains), asks Wizard of Oz poll

41% prefer to be lead by a Tin Man over 32% who said Scarecrow

But women prefer 'all heart, no brains' while men favour 'brains, no heart'

David Cameron has focused on hard-headed economic competence

Ed Miliband making more emotional pitch on cost of living

Question used by US pollster John Zogby to predict White House race


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517422/Should-Tin-Man-Cameron-Scarecrow-Miliband-rule-Britain-asks-Wizard-Oz-poll.html

TheScreamingEagles

Before anyone else says it, with my shoes, I'm clearly Dorothy

state_go_away

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who should run Britain: Tin Man Cameron (all head, no heart) or Scarecrow Miliband (all heart, no brains), asks Wizard of Oz poll

41% prefer to be lead by a Tin Man over 32% who said Scarecrow

But women prefer 'all heart, no brains' while men favour 'brains, no heart'

David Cameron has focused on hard-headed economic competence

Ed Miliband making more emotional pitch on cost of living

Question used by US pollster John Zogby to predict White House race


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517422/Should-Tin-Man-Cameron-Scarecrow-Miliband-rule-Britain-asks-Wizard-Oz-poll.html

With the lib dems below 10% nobody is following the yellow brick road thats for certain

TGOHF

Stunning graph FPT.

twitter.com/RobinWigg/status/407815271907606528/photo/1

Shows that in terms of % of GDP, Uk 12 month rolling borrowing has dipped not just below the March 13 figure but the March 12 figures and is approaching the March 11 figure.

2010 = 1980
2013 = 1983

Thatcherite boom times are back.

Lennon

TheScreamingEagles said:

Before anyone else says it, with my shoes, I'm clearly Dorothy

Does that make OGH the Cowardly Lion?

TheScreamingEagles

Lennon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Before anyone else says it, with my shoes, I'm clearly Dorothy

Does that make OGH the Cowardly Lion?

The Wizard!

Roger

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

Tykejohnno

UKIP Political Rap ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYzjD6OHFM&feature=youtu.be

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, are you suggesting Mr. Smithson is a shyster?

Neil

tim said:

Hasnt Osborne chosen to increase benefit spending, particularly on pensioners?

No, the major policy change affecting current pensioners has been to switch the index for increasing their pensions from RPI to CPI - this has cost pensioners billions of pounds since the Coalition took power.

TheWatcher

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, are you suggesting Mr. Smithson is a shyster?

Absolutely not.

I've been rewatching Oz The Great and Powerful

john_zims

@Roger

'There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged. '

Surprising that Labour missed that during their 13 years in government.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

A great idea. I hope he makes a fortune. Although I did find the story a little icky...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25137800

JonathanD

Neil said:

tim said:

Hasnt Osborne chosen to increase benefit spending, particularly on pensioners?

No, the major policy change affecting current pensioners has been to switch the index for increasing their pensions from RPI to CPI - this has cost pensioners billions of pounds since the Coalition took power.

Don't forget the Granny Tax, aka freezing the personal allowance for the over 65s. The coalition have clobbered those oldies.

AveryLP

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

Roger

Bojo addressed this issue well in his Maggie Memorial speech:

Last week I tried to calm people down, by pointing out that the rich paid a much greater share of income tax than they used to.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 they faced a top marginal tax rate of 98 per cent, and the top one per cent of earners contributed 11 per cent of the government’s total revenues from income tax.

Today, when taxes have been cut substantially, the top one per cent contributes almost 30 per cent of income tax; and indeed the top 0.1 per cent – just 29,000 people – contribute fully 14 per cent of all taxation.

That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals that are being paid for by the super-rich. So why, I asked innocently, are they so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people

Top rate tax cuts are still a hard sell whatever the economic arguments and statistical proof.

But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful in order to find solace in relative poverty? It is an ugly national trait.

SouthamObserver

AveryLP said:

FPT @SouthamObserver

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

tim said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

Patrick said:

Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.

This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!

The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.

And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.

Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.

Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?

Did we get any in swimming?

You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.

I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.

A public schoolboy won the the first Gold medal for Team GB at London 2012. Peter Wilson, a clay pigeon shooter, was an Old Millfeldian and farmer's son.

You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.

Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.

As ever Avery, I am no match for your untamed wit.

Scrapheap_as_was

TGOHF said:

Stunning graph FPT.

twitter.com/RobinWigg/status/407815271907606528/photo/1

Shows that in terms of % of GDP, Uk 12 month rolling borrowing has dipped not just below the March 13 figure but the March 12 figures and is approaching the March 11 figure.

2010 = 1980
2013 = 1983

Thatcherite boom times are back.

Love that chart although assume it's the PSBR excl dodgy Bk of England QE interventions etc not the headline figure each month.

david_herdson

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

You've got to be careful not to sound like Stuart Truth. We haven't heard from him since Obama got re-elected.



There's a lot of evidence that the Coalition parties are unpopular; there's no great evidence that labour *is* popular. Indeed, if they were, UKIP wouldn't be polling well into double figures. The figures in the leader clearly indicate that around a third of Labour's current notional support blames them at least as much as the coalition for the cuts which isn't a wonderful augery for their chances in 2015 considering who their top two are.

None of which is to suggest that Labour won't win. I would, however, very much suggest that the game is absolutely still in play.

SouthamObserver

@Josias - when do I expect improved primary numeracy and literacy rates to feed through to improved PISA results? First off, maybe they are already feeding through. We don't know how the UK would have fared without the improvements. However, less flippantly, in 2015 every 15 year old would have had his/her early years and primary education within a system that I believe was improved by Labour (specifically early years and primary education). If by then we are not seeing that reflected, then it would be fair to say it failed. You'll notice, however, that Gove is spending a lot more time on secondaries than primaries. The transition from one to another remains a real problem. I'd say that's a strong argument for middle schools, but maybe that's a shake-up too far.

anothernick

AveryLP said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful in order to find solace in relative poverty? It is an ugly national trait.

I don't think the British hate the rich and successful, it's the much larger number of rich failures that really wind people up - the bankers who walk away with massive pensions having ruined the banking system and made massive demands on the taxpayers, the people at the top of G4S who had to be bailed out by the army and walked away with large payoffs, the health service managers given six-figure redundancy payments one week and reemployed at higher salaries the next week; the BBC executives helping themselves to outrageous amounts of licence payer's money etc etc etc.

Quincel

I wonder if this shows part of the Coalition's problem for 2015. With natural Tories blaming Labour more than vice versa, the Tories could be hoping to win by differential turnout. But it is much more difficult to get your supporters excited and voting in government than in opposition.

Of course, Cameron's problem is that he failed to do even that in 2010, otherwise he'd be leading a Conservative government right now.

[Deleted User]

Here's a question for PB'ers: Alot of what's in the news right should be bad for Labour and good for Dave - will this at some point translate into shifting polls or is there something keeping the polls the way they are irrespective of the news?

DavidL

state_go_away said:

In fact it really irritates me this automatic assumption in the media and seemingly pollsters that its an absolute good that the government spends as much as possible and the only debate is how can the govenment be able to do this

Absolutely agree. Labour don't need blamed for the cuts, they need to be blamed for wasting £1trn of our money on unnecessary expenditure during their period in office. The education debate this morning was simply one example of that.

The Coalition does not need blamed for the cuts but credit for being able to cut expenditure in real terms during a recession with an ever increasing interest rate bill in ways that have caused remarkably little pain. If they are to be "blamed" it is for not cutting expenditure fast enough although it is hard to argue with Osborne's stunning successes this year.

The premise behind this question is therefore entirely false and the answer, unfortunately, is meaningless. This might be why it has had so little impact on VI.

TGOHF

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

It wouldn't as compensated for at 40% rates.

They probably haven't asked the servants....

TGOHF

Patrick said:

Here's a question for PB'ers: Alot of what's in the news right should be bad for Labour and good for Dave - will this at some point translate into shifting polls or is there something keeping the polls the way they are irrespective of the news?

Good news has a higher intertia than bad. Bad news can shift the polls in a hurry - good takes a long long long time.

TGOHF

tim said:

After having the charlatan Dan Hodges taken away from them at least the PB Tories can rely on Benedict Brogan

@TelegraphNews: David Cameron admits he could be powerless to deliver on his promise to reduce net migration http://t.co/AlerVYtlOX


Whoops, looks like Osborne and Crosby are already blaming each other

When the little hand is on the squirrel, and the big hand is on the class war it must be because it's talk about the economy o'clock...

surbiton

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

Roger

@Avery

"But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful......."

I don't particularly see a British characteristic being resentment of success or even wealth but what is a British characteristic is a belief in fair play. You and I know that we don't live in a meritocracy in any way shape or form and parental wealth is a far bigger determinant to future riches than any personal endeavour.

So when the public see IDS Cameron Osborne and co beating up on those living in council houses for having an extra bedroom while enjoying their inherited privileges it offends. It's as simple as that

TheWatcher

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

Tax thresholds?

Ask tim. After his recent, hopeless floundering on the topic, he needs some practice.

david_herdson

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TGOHF said:

Stunning graph FPT.

twitter.com/RobinWigg/status/407815271907606528/photo/1

Shows that in terms of % of GDP, Uk 12 month rolling borrowing has dipped not just below the March 13 figure but the March 12 figures and is approaching the March 11 figure.

2010 = 1980
2013 = 1983

Thatcherite boom times are back.

Love that chart although assume it's the PSBR excl dodgy Bk of England QE interventions etc not the headline figure each month.

Just for fun, i'd be interesting to see the March 07 and March 08 projected borrowing lines too.

Slackbladder

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

Don't ask tim...he'll have nooooo idea...

TGOHF

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

You think it was wrong to prioritise the low paid ?

JackW

It's a interesting question.

VI mid-term or who's to blame ?

Certainly we know punters like to give governments a decent kicking during this part of the cycle but does the blame game more accurately foretell the punters real feelings ?

My ARSE clearly indicates the latter whilst the intuitive rubbings from OGH's bonce favour the former. The choice is yours !!

taffys

''So when the public see IDS Cameron Osborne and co beating up on those living in council houses for having an extra bedroom while enjoying their inherited privileges it offends. It's as simple as that''

Would it be any better if it were a self-made grocer's daughter beating up on those living in council houses?

AveryLP

anothernick said:

AveryLP said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful in order to find solace in relative poverty? It is an ugly national trait.

I don't think the British hate the rich and successful, it's the much larger number of rich failures that really wind people up - the bankers who walk away with massive pensions having ruined the banking system and made massive demands on the taxpayers, the people at the top of G4S who had to be bailed out by the army and walked away with large payoffs, the health service managers given six-figure redundancy payments one week and reemployed at higher salaries the next week; the BBC executives helping themselves to outrageous amounts of licence payer's money etc etc etc.

You are right about the hatred of rewarding failure.

But we do make an odd distinction between governments or state sponsored corporates wasting "our money" and wholly detached private enterprises doing the same with "their money".

Who, for example, complains about the enormous pay-offs made to unsuccessful Premier League football club managers?

Yet, the fans and Sky Sports subscribers are ultimately paying as much, if not more, for the compensation paid as taxpayers do for, say, dismissed BBC executives.

We seem to want those in power over us to live by more puritanical rules than we allow for ourselves. Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatories to the No 10 petition to disallow MPs an (albeit overgenerous and untimely) pay increase.

Perhaps we don't have a nasty party, just a nasty electorate!

TGOHF

tim said:

TGOHF said:

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

You think it was wrong to prioritise the low paid ?

If you wanted to prioritise the low paid you'd move NI.


And of course the tax threshold is a Lib Dem policy anyway, Cameron said Pre election it couldn't be afforded.

People on £10k aren't low paid ?

Anorak

AveryLP said:

We seem to want those in power over us to live by more puritanical rules than we allow for ourselves. Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatories to the No 10 petition to disallow MPs an (albeit overgenerous and untimely) pay increase.

When cold logic and public opinion collide...

surbiton

TGOHF said:

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

You think it was wrong to prioritise the low paid ?

No, I don't.

The Liberal Democrats pushed for the low paid. The Tories , of course, looked after their chums earning more than £150k taxable by reducing their taxes. Someone earning a million benefited more than forty grand !

The squeezed middle are feeling the pinch. They start paying HRT earlier. Lose Child Benefit after £50k.

I am sure they will remember that come the elections !

Quincel

Anorak said:

AveryLP said:

We seem to want those in power over us to live by more puritanical rules than we allow for ourselves. Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatories to the No 10 petition to disallow MPs an (albeit overgenerous and untimely) pay increase.

When cold logic and public opinion collide...

Surely wanting those who lead us to be the best of us, in personality and morality as well ability, is only natural? In any case, people wanted to stop the pay rise because they felt MPs were overpaid, not because they thought they should be doing the job for free.

Slackbladder

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

Brown had been doing the same/similar trick for years....

TGOHF

surbiton said:

TGOHF said:

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

You think it was wrong to prioritise the low paid ?

No, I don't.

The Liberal Democrats pushed for the low paid. The Tories , of course, looked after their chums earning more than £150k taxable by reducing their taxes. Someone earning a million benefited more than forty grand !

The squeezed middle are feeling the pinch. They start paying HRT earlier. Lose Child Benefit after £50k.

I am sure they will remember that come the elections !

Hopefully GO will notice that when he has cut tax rates , the tax take has gone up. Time at least index link the 40% rate and continue to raise the 20% thresh hold.

[Deleted User]

tim said:

Patrick said:

Here's a question for PB'ers: Alot of what's in the news right should be bad for Labour and good for Dave - will this at some point translate into shifting polls or is there something keeping the polls the way they are irrespective of the news?

Falling living standards, a toxic Tory brand led by out of touch twits, and solidity among the LD to Labour and Tory to UKIP switchers

The penny has dropped that Dave is going to disappoint the people Crosby was hired to appeal to on immigration too, they thought they could outflank Farage, incredible but they did.

Am I to surmise that you will not be voting Tory in 2015 tim? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

TGOHF

tim said:

IDS, what a man, what a leader, what a brain

"Coalition meets just 0.2% of Universal Credit target
New figures show just 2,150 are claiming the payment, leaving the government 997,850 short of its original target of one million."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/coalition-meets-just-02-universal-credit-target

But he reads his bible, thats what counts.
(can't think of any other reason he got the job)

That's up 150 since this morning tim - even a trend denier such as yourself has to be impressed at the growth.

JosiasJessop

Alan Rusbridger does look a little like an older, haggard Harry Potter.

"No Mr Vaz, I did not give the names of the Order of the Phoenix to Voldemort's men."

JackW

surbiton said:

TGOHF said:

surbiton said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

The hike in personal allowance thresholds from £6,475 to £10,000 didn't register amongst your rich chums?

Could you remind us what the Basic Rate tax band was in 2010 and what it will be in 2014 ?

In other words when do taxpayers start paying HRT @40% ?

You think it was wrong to prioritise the low paid ?

No, I don't.

The Liberal Democrats pushed for the low paid. The Tories , of course, looked after their chums earning more than £150k taxable by reducing their taxes. Someone earning a million benefited more than forty grand !

The squeezed middle are feeling the pinch. They start paying HRT earlier. Lose Child Benefit after £50k.

I am sure they will remember that come the elections !

I confess the threshold for child benefit is to my mind too high.

The welfare state should be a safety net not a comfort blanket for the middle classes. The same goes for winter fuel payments and free TV licences for all but the poorest pensioners.

Slackbladder

TGOHF said:

tim said:

IDS, what a man, what a leader, what a brain

"Coalition meets just 0.2% of Universal Credit target
New figures show just 2,150 are claiming the payment, leaving the government 997,850 short of its original target of one million."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/coalition-meets-just-02-universal-credit-target

But he reads his bible, thats what counts.
(can't think of any other reason he got the job)

That's up 150 since this morning tim - even a trend denier such as yourself has to be impressed at the growth.

Almost matching the growth in tim's postcount over time..

AveryLP

tim said:

Patrick said:

Here's a question for PB'ers: Alot of what's in the news right should be bad for Labour and good for Dave - will this at some point translate into shifting polls or is there something keeping the polls the way they are irrespective of the news?

Falling living standards, a toxic Tory brand led by out of touch twits, and solidity among the LD to Labour and Tory to UKIP switchers

The penny has dropped that Dave is going to disappoint the people Crosby was hired to appeal to on immigration too, they thought they could outflank Farage, incredible but they did.

Be careful when claiming that living standards are falling, tim.

Over the last year household net disposable income has increased (mortgage rates lower, tax thresholds higher). That is why your mentors are very careful to attack the Coalition government on the narrow basis of pay increases not keeping pace with cost inflation (the 37 out of 38 months mantra).

I would hate to see your contributions to pb become spun with the fakery of a snake oil salesman.

Blue_rog

AveryLP said:

anothernick said:

AveryLP said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful in order to find solace in relative poverty? It is an ugly national trait.

I don't think the British hate the rich and successful, it's the much larger number of rich failures that really wind people up - the bankers who walk away with massive pensions having ruined the banking system and made massive demands on the taxpayers, the people at the top of G4S who had to be bailed out by the army and walked away with large payoffs, the health service managers given six-figure redundancy payments one week and reemployed at higher salaries the next week; the BBC executives helping themselves to outrageous amounts of licence payer's money etc etc etc.

You are right about the hatred of rewarding failure.

But we do make an odd distinction between governments or state sponsored corporates wasting "our money" and wholly detached private enterprises doing the same with "their money".

Who, for example, complains about the enormous pay-offs made to unsuccessful Premier League football club managers?

Yet, the fans and Sky Sports subscribers are ultimately paying as much, if not more, for the compensation paid as taxpayers do for, say, dismissed BBC executives.

We seem to want those in power over us to live by more puritanical rules than we allow for ourselves. Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatories to the No 10 petition to disallow MPs an (albeit overgenerous and untimely) pay increase.

Perhaps we don't have a nasty party, just a nasty electorate!

Perhaps if the public face that politician put to the electorate (PMQ's) showed them in a better light, then the electorate would be better disposed to a pay rise.

TGOHF

Blue_rog said:

AveryLP said:

anothernick said:

AveryLP said:

Roger said:

I sense a huge mood change since 2010. The biggest change to polling was in response to the reduction in the top rate of tax for those earning over 150,000 a year. There seems to be something of a revulsion in the inequality that has existed for a long time but which is now seen through the prism of our government appearing to be made up of the privileged for the privileged.

It's going to be a hard one to shake. The losers are definitely the coalition. We don't yet know who the winners will be.

Ps. Avery. Nice comment on the comprehensive shooters. Very funny!

But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful in order to find solace in relative poverty? It is an ugly national trait.

I don't think the British hate the rich and successful, it's the much larger number of rich failures that really wind people up - the bankers who walk away with massive pensions having ruined the banking system and made massive demands on the taxpayers, the people at the top of G4S who had to be bailed out by the army and walked away with large payoffs, the health service managers given six-figure redundancy payments one week and reemployed at higher salaries the next week; the BBC executives helping themselves to outrageous amounts of licence payer's money etc etc etc.

You are right about the hatred of rewarding failure.

But we do make an odd distinction between governments or state sponsored corporates wasting "our money" and wholly detached private enterprises doing the same with "their money".

Who, for example, complains about the enormous pay-offs made to unsuccessful Premier League football club managers?

Yet, the fans and Sky Sports subscribers are ultimately paying as much, if not more, for the compensation paid as taxpayers do for, say, dismissed BBC executives.

We seem to want those in power over us to live by more puritanical rules than we allow for ourselves. Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatories to the No 10 petition to disallow MPs an (albeit overgenerous and untimely) pay increase.

Perhaps we don't have a nasty party, just a nasty electorate!

Perhaps if the public face that politician put to the electorate (PMQ's) showed them in a better light, then the electorate would be better disposed to a pay rise.

You mean questions about an Oxford child care centre don't set the electorate alight ?

Slackbladder

Rusbridger seems to have admitted to breaking the law in front of MPs...

not sure that's wise..

TGOHF

Slackbladder said:

Rusbridger seems to have admitted to breaking the law in front of MPs...

not sure that's wise..

AR seems to be contradicting the top brass at MI5 and MI6 regarding what is important or not..

Life_ina_market_town

Slackbladder said:

Rusbridger seems to have admitted to breaking the law in front of MPs...

not sure that's wise..

Even supposing he had, it would cause him no legal trouble. Per Article IX of the Bill of Rights, proceedings in Parliament may not be questioned in a court of justice.

Bobajob

I can never see much point in such metrics as these. Tory supporters blame Labour for cuts which in any event don't exist - spending has shot up under this government.

Slackbladder

David Barrett ‏@davidbarrett 49s
Editor of the Guardian Alan Rusbridger confirms to MPs his newspaper paid for flights by David Miranda in Snowden leaks row

Ooops...

Charles

Life_ina_market_town said:

Slackbladder said:

Rusbridger seems to have admitted to breaking the law in front of MPs...

not sure that's wise..

Even supposing he had, it would cause him no legal trouble. Per Article IX of the Bill of Rights, proceedings in Parliament may not be questioned in a court of justice.

IANAE, but I thought that applied to proceedings on the Floor of the House, rather than all proceedings (i.e. committee meetings are meetings of parliamentarians rather than a parliament)

isam

Patrick said:

Here's a question for PB'ers: Alot of what's in the news right should be bad for Labour and good for Dave - will this at some point translate into shifting polls or is there something keeping the polls the way they are irrespective of the news?

My guess is that its because many Conservatives feel their party has sold out to the LDs and the LDs vice versa... I reckon both parties % will rise once they start attacking each other in the run up to the election

TGOHF

Who is this questioner ? Winnick ? Useless !

Bobajob

JackW said:

It's a interesting question.

VI mid-term or who's to blame ?

Certainly we know punters like to give governments a decent kicking during this part of the cycle but does the blame game more accurately foretell the punters real feelings ?

My ARSE clearly indicates the latter whilst the intuitive rubbings from OGH's bonce favour the former. The choice is yours !!

Mike's forecasts aren't "intuitive" but based on hard data. Your ARSE is the thing that makes up its outpourings as you go along.

AndyJS

Today's Times has nine pages of small print detailing the HS2 proposals, including every cycle track and access road diversion that will be necessary for the project.

Bobajob

david_herdson said:

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

You've got to be careful not to sound like Stuart Truth. We haven't heard from him since Obama got re-elected.

There's a lot of evidence that the Coalition parties are unpopular; there's no great evidence that labour *is* popular. Indeed, if they were, UKIP wouldn't be polling well into double figures. The figures in the leader clearly indicate that around a third of Labour's current notional support blames them at least as much as the coalition for the cuts which isn't a wonderful augery for their chances in 2015 considering who their top two are.

None of which is to suggest that Labour won't win. I would, however, very much suggest that the game is absolutely still in play.

You would think so. But the danger for the Tories is that they are pissing in too small a pot. So many people will never vote Tory come hell or high water.

isam

tim said:

Slackbladder said:

TGOHF said:

tim said:

IDS, what a man, what a leader, what a brain

"Coalition meets just 0.2% of Universal Credit target
New figures show just 2,150 are claiming the payment, leaving the government 997,850 short of its original target of one million."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/coalition-meets-just-02-universal-credit-target

But he reads his bible, thats what counts.
(can't think of any other reason he got the job)

That's up 150 since this morning tim - even a trend denier such as yourself has to be impressed at the growth.

Almost matching the growth in tim's postcount over time..

How about explaining the position of a tragic UKIP switcher, a Tory who got very excited about immigration in the spring and voted UKIP, what motivates this swing group of pathetic scared people?

Mass immigration changing entire neighbourhoods before their eyes while lefty luvvies tell them how great it is?

TGOHF

Danny Boy aint happy..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100248811/ed-miliband-has-given-up-on-working-people-to-keep-the-unions-cash/

" Labour’s anti-business rhetoric is terrifying potential private sector donors. The Co-op loan is looking distinctly shaky in the wake of the bank’s financial collapse. State funding is a political non-starter.

That’s the main reason Miliband is preparing to kick his reforms into the long grass. He literally can’t afford not to. Either the unions continue to fund the Labour Party, or there is no Labour Party."

AveryLP

Roger said:

@Avery

"But do the British really need to hate the rich and successful......."

I don't particularly see a British characteristic being resentment of success or even wealth but what is a British characteristic is a belief in fair play. You and I know that we don't live in a meritocracy in any way shape or form and parental wealth is a far bigger determinant to future riches than any personal endeavour.

So when the public see IDS Cameron Osborne and co beating up on those living in council houses for having an extra bedroom while enjoying their inherited privileges it offends. It's as simple as that

A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears: see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?

Would a 'bedroom tax' have been easier to bear had it been introduced by a government led by leaders of humbler social origin and less personal wealth?

It is the office not the individual which has power and transferring opposition to the holder of the office not the office itself is an easy means of finding false solace.

Some more Lear:

This is the excellent foppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit
of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our
disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as
if we were villains by necessity; fools by
heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards,
liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we are evil in,
by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion
of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish
disposition to the charge of a star!

AlastairMeeks

@AndyJS off topic, but I know you keep track of how many homicides there have been in London over the course of the calendar year. Where do we stand at present?

Life_ina_market_town

Charles said:

IANAE, but I thought that applied to proceedings on the Floor of the House, rather than all proceedings (i.e. committee meetings are meetings of parliamentarians rather than a parliament)

You're mistaken. If that were the case, MPs who had gone for a drink in their local would have the same status as a Select Committee.

MaxPB

In other news, the UK could be about to lose one of the major smartphone competitors:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/nokia-gets-ruling-blocking-sales-of-htc-s-one-mini-phone-in-u-k-.html

richardDodd

Watching Rusbridger it is easy to understand why the Guardian is such a dreadful newspaper

RobD

AndyJS said:

Today's Times has nine pages of small print detailing the HS2 proposals, including every cycle track and access road diversion that will be necessary for the project.

Wonder how many pages would be needed to list all the temporary closures and diversions necessary to expand capacity on the existing routes.

TGOHF

Half of people who turn up at A&E receive no treatment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10491795/Half-of-AandE-arrivals-sent-home-without-treatment.html

"Half of patients who attended Accident & Emergency departments in the past year only needed advice - or did not receive any treatment at all, according to official figures."

Man up Britain !

anothernick

Bobajob said:

david_herdson said:

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

Yet that [blame affecting VI] doesn’t seem to be happening. Labour continue to have good solid leads across all the firms while the Tories continue to struggle

Labour has good, consistent leads. Whether they are solid is a different matter.

You've got to be careful not to sound like Stuart Truth. We haven't heard from him since Obama got re-elected.

There's a lot of evidence that the Coalition parties are unpopular; there's no great evidence that labour *is* popular. Indeed, if they were, UKIP wouldn't be polling well into double figures. The figures in the leader clearly indicate that around a third of Labour's current notional support blames them at least as much as the coalition for the cuts which isn't a wonderful augery for their chances in 2015 considering who their top two are.

None of which is to suggest that Labour won't win. I would, however, very much suggest that the game is absolutely still in play.

You would think so. But the danger for the Tories is that they are pissing in too small a pot. So many people will never vote Tory come hell or high water.


The Tories fundamental problem is that they came to power saying that we were all it in together and then cut taxes for the highest earners in the country. This was a catastrophic political error from which they have never recovered. If they lose in 2015 this decision will be seen as a key political turning point alongside the poll tax, black Wednesday and the Winter of Discontent.

isam

As the war of words on PB often leads to accusations of extreme positions I would like to say that although I am a UKIP member, I don't oppose all immigration, (and definitely dont dislike individual immigrants themselves just because they are immigrants) just uncontrolled immigration, which I feel has led to a less cohesive society that isn't worth the economic benefit to the country as a whole if there is any.

The three shops I visit most in my own town are probably Aldi, which I would say has 50% non British staff (name badge / accent giveaways), the Costcutter at the top of my road which is run by a lovely Sri Lankan family, and the café round the corner owned and run by friendly Eastern Europeans. The point is that these people have adapted to the local area rather than vice versa, and I believe the reason for this is that the increase in this area has been gradual rather than sudden. Shops haven't opened up to cater for the immigrants, the immigrants have opened shops that cater for everyone.

The problem is that the immigrant population is not evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. If it were then there would be little or no problem

TGOHF

richardDodd said:

Watching Rusbridger it is easy to understand why the Guardian is such a dreadful newspaper

Dull, handwringingly worthy, metropolitan, sadistically PC - the paper is a total embodiment of his persona.

AndyJS

FPT:

old_labour said:

I still like my desktop. You can do so much more on it.

MikeK said:

Looks like the era of the home PC model we all loved at one time or another, is coming to and end.

The future is mobile and I for one am sad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25196031

Apple are about to launch the latest version of their high-end desktop model, the Mac Pro. A lot of fans of the Mac Pro were a bit afraid that they were going to ditch it altogether in favour of laptops and mobile devices, especially since they haven't updated the model for ages:

http://www.apple.com/uk/mac-pro/
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro
http://www.macworld.com/article/2064689/the-new-mac-pro-not-for-the-faint-of-wallet.html

This is what the model currently looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro

Freggles

Bobajob said:

I can never see much point in such metrics as these. Tory supporters blame Labour for cuts which in any event don't exist - spending has shot up under this government.

I'm sick of hearing this. In a discussion about overall spending as a % of GDP that might be relevant, but what is the bedroom tax if it is not a cut?
What is a reduction in a department's budget if it is not a cut?
The fact that spending rises elsewhere doesn't mean there are no cuts, it just means Osborne is going for a mullet strategy - cutting where you shouldn't and letting the wrong bits get out of control.

AndyJS

antifrank said:

@AndyJS off topic, but I know you keep track of how many homicides there have been in London over the course of the calendar year. Where do we stand at present?

87 so far this year according to the MurderMap website.

Looks like we're heading for another 40 year low. Last year the total was 99. The highest was 204 in 2003, so it's more than halved in ten years, mainly because of a crackdown on black-on-black gun crime:

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/Investigate.asp

The only major city which has a homicide rate anywhere near as low as London is Tokyo.

MrJones

FPT

"What went wrong in UK education?"

Teaching time = classroom time - disruption time

so the abandoning of discipline is the main cause having an effect proportional to the roughness of the area as the rougher the area the more discipline is needed to maintain minimum disruption time.

Second is the dumbing down so the brighter kids didn't get stretched as the more people are stretched the bigger the achievement gap gets.

Ultimately the cause for both was the teacher training colleges being hijacked by marxists in the 60s.

Obviously the discipline problems that were just starting to wreck the schools in inner city areas in the mid 70s don't even come close to the situation now in those areas ruled by ultra-violent youth gangs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html

"Britain's worst gang hit neighbourhoods are seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as in war zones, it was claimed today."

Obviously the idea that anyone can be educated in areas like that - at least inside the schools - is nonsense.

There is no possibility of education inside those schools unless the BBC and political class stop lying through their teeth about the gang problem.

isam

Lovers of the same joke told time and time again might like to follow @GreenwichMean on twitter

Makes me laugh anyway!