We already have Farage's UKIP. Is there room in the market for more?
...
Is it actually true that their candidates are listed on PB and are going to be available in the bookies in the near future, or is this just Ian Bone's self-promotion?
...
I remember that some fun was had on PB when comparing the list of Class War UK candidates, not least of which Ian Bone, to the output of a website porn name generator.
But such interplay is hardly worthy of note when our resident Scotch Nats refer to their countrymen as "surgers" and speak of "electoral erection failures".
Why even our most prolific left wing poster, tim burr, truncates his name in order to dampen the expectations of PB lady posters.
We already have Farage's UKIP. Is there room in the market for more?
...
Is it actually true that their candidates are listed on PB and are going to be available in the bookies in the near future, or is this just Ian Bone's self-promotion?
...
I remember that some fun was had on PB when comparing the list of Class UK candidates, not least of which Ian Bone, to the output of a website porn name generator.
But such interplay is hardly worthy of note when our resident Scotch Nats refer to their countrymen as "surgers" and speak of "electoral erection failures".
Why even our most prolific left wing poster, tim burr, truncates his name in order to dampen the expectations of PB lady posters.
Perhaps we can keep all our Scottish posters happy.
Those nats expecting a victory in next year's referendum, we should call them Separatist Surgers.
You're missing the point Mr Latham. You ask 80% of voters about specific policies and you'll get blank looks. Michael Foot had an awful press, but so did Ken Livingstone, yet he could ride it out.
I believed in many of those policies but I''d too much experience of being patronised by lefty know-it-alls to make one PM.
I wouldn't vote for Ed for the same reason. The Badger ... maybe? That's possibly why he's good at leading the campaign for 'No'.
Labour mouthpiece at PMQ's refers to the "hated bedroom tax which is as unpopular as Thatcher's poll tax" - dosn't it have a 60%+ approval rate with the public? Labour/The Truth - total strangers
We already have Farage's UKIP. Is there room in the market for more?
...
Is it actually true that their candidates are listed on PB and are going to be available in the bookies in the near future, or is this just Ian Bone's self-promotion?
...
I remember that some fun was had on PB when comparing the list of Class War UK candidates, not least of which Ian Bone, to the output of a website porn name generator.
But such interplay is hardly worthy of note when our resident Scotch Nats refer to their countrymen as "surgers" and speak of "electoral erection failures".
Why even our most prolific left wing poster, tim burr, truncates his name in order to dampen the expectations of PB lady posters.
' tim burr' would suggest a rapidly falling trunk resulting in a weedy stump, and disappointment.
I'm not too sure the House was ready for a Cleggkreig on Hatty.
All good fun.
And not surprising. Harperson is not exactly an intellectual powerhouse.
Are you suggesting someone in Labour reached a position of great power whilst not being up to it.... that would never happen in the Labour & Co-operative movement....
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it may be deliberate. Remember early 2010, the Conservatives revealed too many policies with little in the way of defence lines, and ended up getting themselves bad PR for no reason.
Labour sticking with a single (admittedly deranged) policy that resonates and is easy to understand (superficially) prevents media attention on it being diluted by other issues, and not raising other issues denies the Coalition an easy attack line.
Labour are turning into a single issue party. Energy prices are important, but they offer nothing else.
That's good strategy. The voters aren't paying much attention at this point, so they need to pick one good line and hammer away at it. When we're all totally sick of them banging on about it and left-wingers are ready to vote UKIP just to hear someone talking about something else, that's the point where it's just starting to get through to floating voters.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it may be deliberate. Remember early 2010, the Conservatives revealed too many policies with little in the way of defence lines, and ended up getting themselves bad PR for no reason.
Labour sticking with a single (admittedly deranged) policy that resonates and is easy to understand (superficially) prevents media attention on it being diluted by other issues, and not raising other issues denies the Coalition an easy attack line.
Well its fairly standard Labour. Good at running an election campaign, useless at running the country. They will follow the coalition plan for a year or so and then mess things up once they try to do it their way. The difference between now and 1997 is that our economy is in a far worse state so they have less room to maneuver.
I think it depends on your "target" audience. Re-enforcing the sense among 2010 LD voters that the Party has sold its soul to the Conservatives and that the only safe place for "progressive" voters is in the Labour camp isn't a bad move if you're following a 38% vote strategy.
There appears to be a problem accessing PB.com directly from browser search page – for some reason it does not see most recent threads and deposits you to sometime yesterday.
Is Jnr on the case, or is it just my inter-webbie thing on the blink..!
There appears to be a problem accessing PB.com directly from browser search page – for some reason it does not see most recent threads and deposits you to sometime yesterday.
Is Jnr on the case, or is it just my inter-webbie thing on the blink..!
I've been finding the pages seem to stay in the browser cache for a long time. You have to specifically refresh the page to get the current one.
Pretty much since Fitch stripped the UK of it's AAA rating due to economic stagnation and slipping deficit reduction target, UK PLC has been going gangbusters...
Pretty much since Fitch stripped the UK of it's AAA rating due to economic stagnation and slipping deficit reduction target, UK PLC has been going gangbusters...
The PMIs this week have been stunning. We are looking at 1% for Q4 and strongish growth and employment well into next year on the current figures.
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
"Vasia Veremi may be only 28, but as a hairdresser in Athens, she is keenly aware that, under a current law that treats her job as hazardous to her health, she has the right to retire with a full pension at age 50.
“I use a hundred different chemicals every day — dyes, ammonia, you name it,” she said. “You think there’s no risk in that?”
“People should be able to retire at a decent age,” Ms. Veremi added. “We are not made to live 150 years.”"T
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
Won't the OBR estimates be revised. Wasn't there that plot yesterday showing how the actual borrowing figures were significantly undershooting the estimates from earlier this year?
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
Cutting top end tax has boosted growth and raised revenue - hence a laser like focus on the deficit.
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
From a Labour perspective, you'd want LD/Lab waverers to "come home" to Labour. That means making Clegg look like as much of a Tory as possible. Fortunately the man seems only too happy to comply - I was genuinely surprised how happy he seemed to be parroting Tory party attack lines (as distinct from government lines - not always a clear distinction, but if you apply "would Crosby approve?" as a test, then you should be able to separate the lines that the LDs should be holding due to their government duties from the lines that are designed to attract votes specifically to the Tories).
Helping Clegg to differentiate his party from the Tories' less popular policies has little benefit for Labour: it increases the chances of potential Labour voters thinking that the LDs maybe aren't just evil Tories, and it means that potential Tory switchers may see the LDs as a sensible halfway house rather than jumping all the way to Labour.
Clegg gave a very decent performance .... Even Peter Bone was forced to concede the fact, although some might see that as being offered the black spot.
Labour are in opposition. Why release policies and take the focus off a meandering government? I thought they released the brilliant energy wheeze too early, but still...
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
Won't the OBR estimates be revised. Wasn't there that plot yesterday showing how the actual borrowing figures were significantly undershooting the estimates from earlier this year?
Yes the OBR figures will be revised but it's far from clear that it will be enough for Osborne to say he's meeting his targets.
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
Cutting top end tax has boosted growth and raised revenue - hence a laser like focus on the deficit.
You'll forgive me if I take the OBR's figures over your economic analysis.
Labour are in opposition. Why release policies and take the focus off a meandering government? I thought they released the brilliant energy wheeze too early, but still...
I'd agree they released it too early but then back in September things weren't looking good for Miliband in the run up to the Labour conference - poor polling, leadership rumbles and McBride's book - so I guess he was panicked into doing something.
Think of how much more trouble the Tories would have been in if he had waited until November 2014 before announcing it.
I am doing some research for a potential new thread, and I found this corker, from 2002
Lib Dem chairman Mark Oaten spoke to Guardian Unlimited Politics about his party's policies and why he believes Charles Kennedy will be prime minister by the end of the decade.
Right, because politicians are: 1) Delicate flowers who are not used to being criticized, and can never work with anyone who says something mean about them. 2) Deeply attached to consistency and integrity, so they would never work with someone they had criticized in return for something trivial like being in charge of the government.
@friendsofunion: The SNP wants Scotland to vote again on separation in 15 years’ time if there is a no vote in 2014: http://t.co/PkO7cz8R1F #IndyRef
The Daily Record certainly seems too stupid to proof its online articles, it's whacked a chunk of the Clutha story onto the tail end of the original piece.
I don't remember Wee Willy Harris having a tweetogasm (and it doesn't take much) over his colleague Adam Ingram saying that there could be another Unionist-forced referendum within 2 years if there was a close win for Yes?
On a related matter, another one bites the dust.
'A LABOUR councillor has defected to the SNP so he can campaign for a Yes vote in next year’s independence referendum.'
Labour are in opposition. Why release policies and take the focus off a meandering government? I thought they released the brilliant energy wheeze too early, but still...
Labour are in opposition. Why release policies and take the focus off a meandering government? I thought they released the brilliant energy wheeze too early, but still...
You mean the brilliant wheeze that the Shadow Energy Secretary has conceded is holed below the waterline as "governments cannot control the price of gas."
Gerry Adams blames the RUC officers for their own assassination. If my Sinn Fein to finish 4th at the next Irish GE bet (was 16/1 now 8/1) comes off it will be in large part because of this guy. He may yet face prosecution over the unbelievable way he "dealt" with his brother's abuse of his niece.
Right, because politicians are: 1) Delicate flowers who are not used to being criticized, and can never work with anyone who says something mean about them. 2) Deeply attached to consistency and integrity, so they would never work with someone they had criticized in return for something trivial like being in charge of the government.
Didn't the LDs say in negotiations with Labour in 2010 that Brown would have to go for them to agree? Not that a Lib-Lab coalition was ever that likely.
I'm not sure if anyone has linked to this yet, but this may be useful background for the energy debate, especially those who think the energy companies are profiteering:
May I congratulate the site runners for raising the bar for achieving a post on PB.
This extra navigation complexity is seemingly filtering out the chaff and only those whose IQ presumably also allows them to become higher rate taxpayers on £32k pa to navigate successfully on to here.
We shall see. UKIP have beaten expectations in all polls and elections (bar one in Scotland) in the last year or so. PB attitude is similar to a spread bettor who sells Australa runs at 300 at the start, sells again at 350 when they're 60-0, sells again at 400 when they're 130-1, and carries on until the Aussies are 600-7 dec
And still probably won't admit they were wrong
You may well be right.
But the end result will be to help Labour get into power and deliver even more anti-UKIP policies.
So I'm not sure why you are so pleased.
FWIW I think not a few UKIP supporters and probably some in the Tories as well are reconciled - even looking forward - to a Tory defeat because they think it will lead a coming together of the two parties and the Tories returning to their true values as expressed in the 1980s. They believe that a Miliband government will inevitably be a disaster and pave the way for the re-election of a "real" Tory government.
Thatcher in her prime would have little to no truck with UKIP. She was ultimately a bold but pragmatic politician. UKIP in too many cases looks at the world as they wished it was, not as it really is, and therefore offer only superficially appealing but impractical policy solutions.
...Hmmh. I can see why they appeal to erstwhile Labour voters...
Right, because politicians are: 1) Delicate flowers who are not used to being criticized, and can never work with anyone who says something mean about them. 2) Deeply attached to consistency and integrity, so they would never work with someone they had criticized in return for something trivial like being in charge of the government.
Didn't the LDs say in negotiations with Labour in 2010 that Brown would have to go for them to agree? Not that a Lib-Lab coalition was ever that likely.
That was politics. Keeping Brown would have looked very bad and narked off the voters. At least with a new PM they could have said something had changed.
Just had a brief look at PMQs. Clegg acting like a tory and claiming that the banking crash would never have happened under the blues. No wonder even Peter Bone was impressed by him. Expect the Lib Dems dire polling to continue or even get worse.
Mr. Booth, did he really claim the banking crash would not have happened under the Conservatives? I can see him claiming that for the Coalition (or the reverse, that it could only happen under Labour), but not that it would never have happened under the Conservatives.
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
From a Labour perspective, you'd want LD/Lab waverers to "come home" to Labour. That means making Clegg look like as much of a Tory as possible. Fortunately the man seems only too happy to comply - I was genuinely surprised how happy he seemed to be parroting Tory party attack lines (as distinct from government lines - not always a clear distinction, but if you apply "would Crosby approve?" as a test, then you should be able to separate the lines that the LDs should be holding due to their government duties from the lines that are designed to attract votes specifically to the Tories).
Helping Clegg to differentiate his party from the Tories' less popular policies has little benefit for Labour: it increases the chances of potential Labour voters thinking that the LDs maybe aren't just evil Tories, and it means that potential Tory switchers may see the LDs as a sensible halfway house rather than jumping all the way to Labour.
That is all true if Labour get a majority. But if they don't?
And it is going to make the debates interesting. There is going to be a lot of 2:1 there.
Mr. Booth, did he really claim the banking crash would not have happened under the Conservatives? I can see him claiming that for the Coalition (or the reverse, that it could only happen under Labour), but not that it would never have happened under the Conservatives.
It was something like 'it wouldn't have happened under the parties on this side of the house'. Does Clegg honestly believe that Labour is the party of big money and the Tories a bunch of choirboys?
The message from Clegg was clear. If only we'd had a Tory-dominated government pre-2008 there wouldn't have been a banking collapse.
It's hard to understand him sometimes. I can only assume he just loves being in government to such an extent that he can't see how his loyalty to the 80% Tory coalition irks people.
No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
hmmn. Cameron has already stated there is NO gravy for the squeezed middle. Nada.
Well, except the £50 off energy bills, the introduction of the transferable MMA, the increases in basic rate tax relief, the free school meals. Apart from all of those what has the Coalition ever done for the squeezed middle? Oh yes, the lowest mortgage rates ever.
And it is going to make the debates interesting. There is going to be a lot of 2:1 there.
One of the main tasks for Clegg in the debates will be to hold on to Labour tactical voters in Con / LD constituencies.
The debates are going to be a real challenge for Clegg this time around with a lot of widely spread buttons to press.
But he will go after those Labour voters by arguing that the Lib Dems did a lot in government for the lower paid and less well off in society and that a Lib Dem will always be more likely to do that than a tory (whether that is true or not).
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
From a Labour perspective, you'd want LD/Lab waverers to "come home" to Labour. That means making Clegg look like as much of a Tory as possible. Fortunately the man seems only too happy to comply - I was genuinely surprised how happy he seemed to be parroting Tory party attack lines (as distinct from government lines - not always a clear distinction, but if you apply "would Crosby approve?" as a test, then you should be able to separate the lines that the LDs should be holding due to their government duties from the lines that are designed to attract votes specifically to the Tories).
Helping Clegg to differentiate his party from the Tories' less popular policies has little benefit for Labour: it increases the chances of potential Labour voters thinking that the LDs maybe aren't just evil Tories, and it means that potential Tory switchers may see the LDs as a sensible halfway house rather than jumping all the way to Labour.
That is all true if Labour get a majority. But if they don't?
And it is going to make the debates interesting. There is going to be a lot of 2:1 there.
It is a 38% strategy with limited room for error.
Your point about the debates is fair if on the assumption of 'as previously', but I don't see how they can work in that way - being 2:1 and UKIP not involved. Labour (as well as UKIP and probably the Lib Dems) would be advised to want UKIP involved for different reasons. Labour as it will stop the 2:1 problem; the Libs as it means the Tories will shift Right so they have a clearer differentiation strategy, and clearly UKIP so they look a 'proper' party on equal footing. I struggle to see how Cameron says no to UKIP in any fair manner unless it is 'no debates as it is unclear who should be involved...'
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.
We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
The two self-set targets are to achieve:
1. a "cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling, five year forecast period" (the Primary Fiscal Mandate); and,
2. public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to be falling at a fixed date of 2015-16.
OBR's March EFO forecast that the government was on target to meet the primary mandate but not the supplementary debt ratio target.
Specifically, the OBR forecast that the government, as a result of measures introduced in the March 2013 budget, would put the CACB back into surplus in 2016-17 and achieve a full year net surplus in 2017-18. The OBR claimed this forecast outcome had a greater probability than 50% and therefore that the government was meeting its target.
Chote backed off making a specific prediction on the supplementary target ("unfortunately, one cannot estimate the probability of achieving the supplementary target, given that we do not have a joint distribution that would allow us to apply the same technique."), but produced forecast growth, expenditure and borrowing figures from which headline estimates (without probability assessment) were produced. These forecast PSND as a % of GDP to rise by 2.4% in 2015-16 and by another 0.5% in 2016-17. These forecasts imply that the government would not meet its supplementary target but without the confirmation of a probability assessment.
What we know now is that the OBR's March EFO greatly underestimated growth and revenues this financial year. Given this and, with their forecasts for expenditure being (so far) in line with ONS actuals, the OBR's borrowing forecast ended up being far too high.
Given the pessimism of the March EFO and intervening gaps in forecast to actual, it is almost certain that the OBR will confirm that the government is continuing to meet its primary mandate and highly likely that the dates for achieving the surplus will be brought forward.
The ONS stats show that the supplementary Debt to GDP target is being met for the aggregate figures (PSND) but not on the narrower but headline PSND ex figures:
ONS PSND ex PSND %GDP %GDP ------------------------- 2009/10 56.4 151.7 2010/11 65.9 147.2 2011/12 71.0 139.2 2012/13 74.1 137.4
What is revealing though is the topping out of the ratio in this year's monthly figures. This suggests that the current level of growth is beginning to turn the balance:
ONS PSND ex F/Y 2012-13 2013-14 ----------------------- Apr 69.8 73.6 May 70.1 74.0 Jun 71.5 74.7 Jul 71.0 74.4 Aug 71.4 74.6 Sep 72.6 75.9 Oct 72.6 75.4 Nov 73.3 .. Dec 74.6 .. Jan 72.9 .. Feb 72.8 .. Mar 74.1 ..
We need to wait until the OBR releases its December EFO tomorrow to see what revisions are made to their Debt ratio forecasts. The new forecasts will certainly reduce the growth in debt ratios as forecast in the March publication, but it will be touch and go as to whether Chote will predict that Osborne is now on course to meeting both primary and supplementary targets.
But he will go after those Labour voters by arguing that the Lib Dems did a lot in government for the lower paid and less well off in society and that a Lib Dem will always be more likely to do that than a tory (whether that is true or not).
The new forecasts will certainly reduce the growth in debt ratios as forecast in the March publication, but it will be touch and go as to whether Chote will predict that Osborne is now on course to meeting both primary and supplementary targets.
That's exactly what I said but without the yellow boxes!
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
.
That is all true if Labour get a majority. But if they don't?
And it is going to make the debates interesting. There is going to be a lot of 2:1 there.
It is a 38% strategy with limited room for error.
Your point about the debates is fair if on the assumption of 'as previously', but I don't see how they can work in that way - being 2:1 and UKIP not involved. Labour (as well as UKIP and probably the Lib Dems) would be advised to want UKIP involved for different reasons. Labour as it will stop the 2:1 problem; the Libs as it means the Tories will shift Right so they have a clearer differentiation strategy, and clearly UKIP so they look a 'proper' party on equal footing. I struggle to see how Cameron says no to UKIP in any fair manner unless it is 'no debates as it is unclear who should be involved...'
It really won't be difficult to exclude UKIP from the debates. Just ask how many MPs they currently have. The Greens have a better case for participation. And the SNP. And whatever George Galloway is calling himself these days. Simple.
Mr. Booth, did he really claim the banking crash would not have happened under the Conservatives? I can see him claiming that for the Coalition (or the reverse, that it could only happen under Labour), but not that it would never have happened under the Conservatives.
It was something like 'it wouldn't have happened under the parties on this side of the house'. Does Clegg honestly believe that Labour is the party of big money and the Tories a bunch of choirboys?
The message from Clegg was clear. If only we'd had a Tory-dominated government pre-2008 there wouldn't have been a banking collapse.
It's hard to understand him sometimes. I can only assume he just loves being in government to such an extent that he can't see how his loyalty to the 80% Tory coalition irks people.
Disappointed that an independently minded Yellow Peril aren't the Labour Lite you hoped they'd be.
Thatcher in her prime would have little to no truck with UKIP. She was ultimately a bold but pragmatic politician. UKIP in too many cases looks at the world as they wished it was, not as it really is, and therefore offer only superficially appealing but impractical policy solutions.
...Hmmh. I can see why they appeal to erstwhile Labour voters...
This started to go exponential around 12 years ago
"Britain's worst gang hit neighbourhoods are seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as in war zones, it was claimed today."
Why would the (c. 10%-15%?) of voters who know about this - mostly erstwhile labour voters - vote for people who are quite happy to collude in covering it up?
Comments
But such interplay is hardly worthy of note when our resident Scotch Nats refer to their countrymen as "surgers" and speak of "electoral erection failures".
Why even our most prolific left wing poster, tim burr, truncates his name in order to dampen the expectations of PB lady posters.
In the 'You couldn't make it up' column, may I present the PC to sue Mitchell for libel:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25216627
Those nats expecting a victory in next year's referendum, we should call them Separatist Surgers.
Everyone's a winner.
All good fun.
"That's so insulting".
You're missing the point Mr Latham. You ask 80% of voters about specific policies and you'll get blank looks. Michael Foot had an awful press, but so did Ken Livingstone, yet he could ride it out.
I believed in many of those policies but I''d too much experience of being patronised by lefty know-it-alls to make one PM.
I wouldn't vote for Ed for the same reason. The Badger ... maybe? That's possibly why he's good at leading the campaign for 'No'.
Mark Pritchard @MPritchardMP1m
Clegg: 6 Harman: 0
Mark Pritchard @MPritchardMP4m
Clegg appears to be enjoying PMQs - also no notes
Are you suggesting someone in Labour reached a position of great power whilst not being up to it.... that would never happen in the Labour & Co-operative movement....
Oh....
Would you prefer it to be 50%?
Or 40%, like it was for all but a few days of the Labour administration?
Cleggy 8 .. Hatty 5
Might I suggest that the slow day on PB is a result of many contributors failing to hit the latest thread first time.
Stick a fork in Labour - they are done.
Labour today were very much driving Clegg into the tory camp, getting him to support and enthuse over a range of contentious Coalition policies and concluding that Clegg was the best deputy a Conservative PM could hope to have. Clegg took up the offer and was withering about Labour's complete lack of a credible alternative.
Is this really the best plan for Labour? Might it not have been better tactics to try to tease the Coalition partners apart? To ask about subjects, like the EU (raised ironically if predictably by tory backbenchers) or immigration where Nick would have been looking to differentiate his party rather than emphasising the Coalition line?
No doubt Harriet had her instructions as well as her script to read but I do wonder if this is too tactical and not strategic enough.
Labour sticking with a single (admittedly deranged) policy that resonates and is easy to understand (superficially) prevents media attention on it being diluted by other issues, and not raising other issues denies the Coalition an easy attack line.
The opposition are playing an opposition's game quite well. Why raise another issue, when you still have had the govt on the ropes after three months?
If one policy can do that, imagine what two will do.
Well its fairly standard Labour. Good at running an election campaign, useless at running the country. They will follow the coalition plan for a year or so and then mess things up once they try to do it their way. The difference between now and 1997 is that our economy is in a far worse state so they have less room to maneuver.
Labour peers are pushing for variations in the state pension age based on the type of job people have held and where they live.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/2003963.article?cmpid=pmalert_61901
On this logic, I'd propose any Peer or MP as a career receives no state pension at all so it's not all bad.
Is Jnr on the case, or is it just my inter-webbie thing on the blink..!
I'd go for a max of 40%
So a teacher in the South East retires early and moves to Wales to get a pension..so pushing house prices up in the area?
Crazy idea..
Worked out splendidly.
Time to buy up property in Glasgow and Stoke on Trent then....
@TomHarrisMP: So much for a positive vision: Nicola Sturgeon envisages a "generation" in Scotland to be 15 years! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-snp-set-stage-another-2881063
@friendsofunion: The SNP wants Scotland to vote again on separation in 15 years’ time if there is a no vote in 2014: http://t.co/PkO7cz8R1F #IndyRef
Pretty much since Fitch stripped the UK of it's AAA rating due to economic stagnation and slipping deficit reduction target, UK PLC has been going gangbusters...
It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more
investment(sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scotland-s-high-teenage-pregnancy-rate-will-be-investigated-1-2721300
Puts our firemen to shame I tells ya.
http://www.businessinsider.com/in-greece-you-can-retire-at-50-with-full-benefits-2010-3
"Vasia Veremi may be only 28, but as a hairdresser in Athens, she is keenly aware that, under a current law that treats her job as hazardous to her health, she has the right to retire with a full pension at age 50.
“I use a hundred different chemicals every day — dyes, ammonia, you name it,” she said. “You think there’s no risk in that?”
“People should be able to retire at a decent age,” Ms. Veremi added. “We are not made to live 150 years.”"T
hmmn. Cameron has already stated there is NO gravy for the squeezed middle. Nada.
He really enjoyed himself, he even earned praised from Peter Bone.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/pmqs-labours-attacks-on-nick-clegg-make-a-lib-lab-coalition-unlikely/
https://en-gb.facebook.com/labourforindependence
Helping Clegg to differentiate his party from the Tories' less popular policies has little benefit for Labour: it increases the chances of potential Labour voters thinking that the LDs maybe aren't just evil Tories, and it means that potential Tory switchers may see the LDs as a sensible halfway house rather than jumping all the way to Labour.
Think of how much more trouble the Tories would have been in if he had waited until November 2014 before announcing it.
Lib Dem chairman Mark Oaten spoke to Guardian Unlimited Politics about his party's policies and why he believes Charles Kennedy will be prime minister by the end of the decade.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jul/18/interviews.liberaldemocrats1
1) Delicate flowers who are not used to being criticized, and can never work with anyone who says something mean about them.
2) Deeply attached to consistency and integrity, so they would never work with someone they had criticized in return for something trivial like being in charge of the government.
I don't remember Wee Willy Harris having a tweetogasm (and it doesn't take much) over his colleague Adam Ingram saying that there could be another Unionist-forced referendum within 2 years if there was a close win for Yes?
On a related matter, another one bites the dust.
'A LABOUR councillor has defected to the SNP so he can campaign for a Yes vote in next year’s independence referendum.'
http://tinyurl.com/qc68f4d
Yup, that sounds about right.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/adams-called-on-to-withdraw-comments-on-ruc-men-1.1616679
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/12/03/notes-labours-analysis-of-the-energy-market/
This extra navigation complexity is seemingly filtering out the chaff and only those whose IQ presumably also allows them to become higher rate taxpayers on £32k pa to navigate successfully on to here.
PB eugenics that Boris would approve of.
...Hmmh. I can see why they appeal to erstwhile Labour voters...
And it is going to make the debates interesting. There is going to be a lot of 2:1 there.
It is a 38% strategy with limited room for error.
The message from Clegg was clear. If only we'd had a Tory-dominated government pre-2008 there wouldn't have been a banking collapse.
It's hard to understand him sometimes. I can only assume he just loves being in government to such an extent that he can't see how his loyalty to the 80% Tory coalition irks people.
But he will go after those Labour voters by arguing that the Lib Dems did a lot in government for the lower paid and less well off in society and that a Lib Dem will always be more likely to do that than a tory (whether that is true or not).
1. a "cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling, five year forecast period" (the Primary Fiscal Mandate); and,
2. public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to be falling at a fixed date of 2015-16.
OBR's March EFO forecast that the government was on target to meet the primary mandate but not the supplementary debt ratio target.
Specifically, the OBR forecast that the government, as a result of measures introduced in the March 2013 budget, would put the CACB back into surplus in 2016-17 and achieve a full year net surplus in 2017-18. The OBR claimed this forecast outcome had a greater probability than 50% and therefore that the government was meeting its target.
Chote backed off making a specific prediction on the supplementary target ("unfortunately, one cannot estimate the probability of achieving the supplementary target, given that we do not have a joint distribution that would allow us to apply the same technique."), but produced forecast growth, expenditure and borrowing figures from which headline estimates (without probability assessment) were produced. These forecast PSND as a % of GDP to rise by 2.4% in 2015-16 and by another 0.5% in 2016-17. These forecasts imply that the government would not meet its supplementary target but without the confirmation of a probability assessment.
What we know now is that the OBR's March EFO greatly underestimated growth and revenues this financial year. Given this and, with their forecasts for expenditure being (so far) in line with ONS actuals, the OBR's borrowing forecast ended up being far too high.
Given the pessimism of the March EFO and intervening gaps in forecast to actual, it is almost certain that the OBR will confirm that the government is continuing to meet its primary mandate and highly likely that the dates for achieving the surplus will be brought forward.
[to be continued]
[...continued]
The ONS stats show that the supplementary Debt to GDP target is being met for the aggregate figures (PSND) but not on the narrower but headline PSND ex figures: What is revealing though is the topping out of the ratio in this year's monthly figures. This suggests that the current level of growth is beginning to turn the balance:
We need to wait until the OBR releases its December EFO tomorrow to see what revisions are made to their Debt ratio forecasts. The new forecasts will certainly reduce the growth in debt ratios as forecast in the March publication, but it will be touch and go as to whether Chote will predict that Osborne is now on course to meeting both primary and supplementary targets.
I would not like to bet against Osborne!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22617339
"Police are investigating 54 alleged gangs in a crackdown on child grooming in England and Wales, peers have heard."
This started to go exponential around 12 years ago
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."
Why would the (c. 10%-15%?) of voters who know about this - mostly erstwhile labour voters - vote for people who are quite happy to collude in covering it up?