The LD to Labour switch happened almost as soon as the Coalition was announced, when the Tories actually retained the lead in the polls. It was an instantaneous reaction and nothing since then has changed. Given that, it's hard to see what might happen now to get those voters back into the LD fold - except, perhaps, that some may switch back to keep a Tory out.
Not exactly a positive vote for Labour then is it? A negative reaction to the coalition that might subside or disappear for some come the next election.
There aren't many positive votes for anyone these days, sadly. Take pb.com - I'm keen, Richard N is keen, MikeK is keen, and a few more; after that you find lots of people with doubts and reservations, though full of scorn for another party.
But the Lib-Lab floating vote is motivated and anti-Tory - it's simply an illusion to think they might vote Tory or abstain. I can imagine them voting LibDem, though - either in LibDem-held seats or if Clegg turns predominantly anti-Government - we tried but we were betrayed, etc. But I can't see that happening, can you? His basic problem is that there's a big Lib-Lab tactical vote to be held, but very little sign of a Con-LD tactical vote, so attacking Labour doesn't help him as it annoys the former and doesn't draw much from the latter.
The statistic that surprised me is that Labour have only 80% of their 2010 vote which was historically low - where are the rest - UKIP perhaps ? ...
The other problem is that, as TC repeatedly and gleefully points out, the LDs may be down to 30 (his view, not mine) but the Conservatives will also ship seats to Labour on current numbers.
f Labour falls back to the degree that many on here seem confident (wishful thinking, hopecasting, who knows ?) the chances of a Conservative inority will improve but we need to see sustained slippage in that Labour number rather than Andy's much-vaunted topping off of the froth from yesterday.
I agree the two remaining Budgets will be hugely significant.
Morning Stodge! You're misreading the pie-chart - it doesn't say that only 80% of 2010 Labour voters are planning to vote Labour, but that 80% of Labour voters are former Labour voters. According to today's YG, the actual figures for 2010 Labour are 89% still Lab, 4% UKIP, 3% LD, 2% SNP/PC, 1% Tory, 1% Green.
Not convinced the Budgets will move much - oddly, Budgets rarely have a long-term effect, mainly perhaps because in the end they don't change many people's circumstances: you work out that the net effect is that you gain or lose £14.72/year, and go "meh".
Once again I have to point out that you are not reading the Yougov poll figures correctly . The actual figure for 2010 Labour voters still Labour is NOT 89% because you are ignoring that 2% are WNV and 12% are now Dont Knows .
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
Just imagine the howling and screaming, if they'd 'rigged' the system in their favour.
The LD to Labour switch happened almost as soon as the Coalition was announced, when the Tories actually retained the lead in the polls. It was an instantaneous reaction and nothing since then has changed. Given that, it's hard to see what might happen now to get those voters back into the LD fold - except, perhaps, that some may switch back to keep a Tory out.
Not exactly a positive vote for Labour then is it? A negative reaction to the coalition that might subside or disappear for some come the next election.
Do you have an evidence for that, or is it just a hunch?
The polling. For starters the Lib Dem numbers had declined even before Labour had chosen their new leader
The LD to Labour switch happened almost as soon as the Coalition was announced, when the Tories actually retained the lead in the polls. It was an instantaneous reaction and nothing since then has changed. Given that, it's hard to see what might happen now to get those voters back into the LD fold - except, perhaps, that some may switch back to keep a Tory out.
Not exactly a positive vote for Labour then is it? A negative reaction to the coalition that might subside or disappear for some come the next election.
Do you have an evidence for that, or is it just a hunch?
The polling. For starters the Lib Dem numbers had declined even before Labour had chosen their new leader
That is precisely the point. They felt betrayed by Clegg & co. Who is the Labour leader is irrelevant to them. They hate the evil Tories !!
"One Milibandite frontbencher estimates that only 10 to 20 per cent of his parliamentary colleagues could easily articulate their leader’s philosophy."
"he is running out of time to inspire people with more than just a feeling that he has noticed how expensive life has become."
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
Just imagine the howling and screaming, if they'd 'rigged' the system in their favour.
Yes, but they would have had their changes and a HoL far more democratic.
They still believe that they can win an absolute majority.
Considering the Tories are really a regional party now the chances of winning outright is very slim indeed !
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
Mr. Jonathan, you may be right, although the term 'sticky' is a little unpleasant.
It's also worth mentioning that whilst attacking Labour may make most sense for Clegg in terms of winning more votes, shoring up his position within his party may mean he goes more for the Conservatives.
Farron surely. Cable is like 90 or something - no chance.
The Conservatives can't really do anything to shift the votes of switchers from Lib Dem to Labour. They're the people who viewed the Lib Dems as the rural wing of the Labour Party, and feel betrayed that the Lib Dems didn't go into coalition with Labour in May 2010. The Lib Dems might be able to win some of them back, but not the Tories.
The LD to Labour switch happened almost as soon as the Coalition was announced, when the Tories actually retained the lead in the polls. It was an instantaneous reaction and nothing since then has changed. Given that, it's hard to see what might happen now to get those voters back into the LD fold - except, perhaps, that some may switch back to keep a Tory out.
Not exactly a positive vote for Labour then is it? A negative reaction to the coalition that might subside or disappear for some come the next election.
Do you have an evidence for that, or is it just a hunch?
The polling. For starters the Lib Dem numbers had declined even before Labour had chosen their new leader
That is precisely the point. They felt betrayed by Clegg & co. Who is the Labour leader is irrelevant to them. They hate the evil Tories !!
They're still the dimmest chunk of the electorate, they hate the tories so much their votes let Cameron in to Downing St. We need to keep these people away from sharp implements for their own sake.
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
How independent will an ex Labour Minister be in this case, given that part of the problem with the Co-Op has been over promoted Labour worthies?
From the linked article.
Lord Myners told BBC Radio 5 live that the advantage of the mutually-owned group was that it had no "avaricious shareholders with an open mouth needing to be stuffed full of money".
In other words, "pensioners relying on an income in retirement". Who does Lord Myners expect these shareholders are?
Once again I have to point out that you are not reading the Yougov poll figures correctly . The actual figure for 2010 Labour voters still Labour is NOT 89% because you are ignoring that 2% are WNV and 12% are now Dont Knows .
Sure - all parties have a slice of WNV and DKs. The Lab and Con figures are virtually identical (an eighth) and IMO will probably not vote or vote as before. The LibDem figure is higher (a quarter) and perhaps worth further study: these could be various kinds of people who are vaguely disappointed with the current government but thinking of... what? Voting UKIP, Lab, Con, back to LD, not at all? Hard to guess. It's only a small number of voters, though.
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
If the Tories lose power in 2015 they will blame everyone but themselves. Even Nelson Mandela may get a few blowbacks for dying in a biased way on the day the 2013 Autumn Statement was made.
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
Off the top of my head, Sir John Major, Kenneth Clarke, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir John Nott.
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
Just imagine the howling and screaming, if they'd 'rigged' the system in their favour.
Perfectly logical, non-partisan cases can be made for both AV and the boundary changes. Claims that these amount to rigging the system would not get much traction and I don't think this accounts for the Tory failure to get them through.
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
If the Tories lose power in 2015 they will blame everyone but themselves. Even Nelson Mandela may get a few blowbacks for dying in a biased way on the day the 2013 Autumn Statement was made.
And who will Labour blame if they don't win in 2015?
Lots of things weren't funded, not just school meals, and although growth was revised up for this year and next it was revised down for the following three years as its based on a housing peak and credit rise timed for the election.
"George was taken to pieces in 2012 by an absurd media storm about trivia"
Destroying his "all in this together" meme by prioritising tax cuts for the wealthiest while proving incompetent may be trivia in PB Toryworld, in the real world it wiped 5% off the polling that the Tories haven't got back
As with the 2010 campaign which Osborne also blew with a 5% drop you just cant accept responsibility.
You do realise that taxes on the wealthy went up?
There was a reduction in one marginal tax rate, but both in absolute terms and as a % of income tax paid, the richest are paying more than they did previously.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, dear boy
Repeating a lie, when it has become the accepted "truth", sort of does make it true. And of course it's the Cons' biggest challenge to counter it.
It is not a lie.
I am paying less tax than I paid at the start of this parliament and I am a top rate tax payer. Some taxes that wealthy people pay went up, but if you do not have to pay those taxes then you are actually much better off than you were. The top rate of income tax has come down, as has the amount of tax paid on dividends. The only other direct tax I pay is council tax. VAT went up for everyone.
But tim didn't say they cut taxes for "some of the wealthy". But for "the wealthy". If you look at any of the stats, the top decile has done the worst out of the government of all.
But as someone else pointed out, the truth doesn't matter. The memes are set.
.... The other problem is that, as TC repeatedly and gleefully points out, the LDs may be down to 30 (his view, not mine) but the Conservatives will also ship seats to Labour on current numbers... .
I am not gleeful, I just struggle to square the "common view" that Lib Dem incumbency means that they will keep 40+ seats with the realities of the situation post GE 2010. Before GE 2010 my recollection is that the top 20 LD marginals were approx 75% vs Conservative and 25% Vs Lab/Other. Now that % is closer to 60/40. Here is one view from electoral calculus. http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html
The decline in the Labour vote in 2010 meant that seats won in 2005 were held and the odd gain picked up. I do agree the MPs facing Labour look very vulnerable at this moment.
At the moment, and if you assume a 12% national vote share for the Party, you'd be hard put to argue for 20 seats, let alone 30. The vote is much more concentrated than in 1979 or 1992.
We both know the "campaign" for the LDs will be in 75-80 seats and the rest will be abandoned and there will be some desperate results in the wastelands with hundreds of lost deposits and multiple fourth, fifth and even sixth place finishes - by the way, how about a market from soneone as to how many LD candidates weill finish fifth or worse in England ?
What we don't know is how it will be in the 75-80. Local election polling paints a more positive picture (say that with your teeth out) and we know the LD "ground" operation is stronger in many of these seats. I simply don't know what will happen - you'll forgive me for being cautiously optimistic, I'll happily forgive you for being cautiously realistic.
But tim didn't say they cut taxes for "some of the wealthy". But for "the wealthy". If you look at any of the stats, the top decile has done the worst out of the government of all.
But as someone else pointed out, the truth doesn't matter. The memes are set.
Tbf to tim he used to actually believe that taxes had been cut for the wealthy - I remember an entertaining afternoon when he tried to back that assertion up and failed badly. At least he's only going with "have given the impression of cutting taxes for the wealthy" now.
Mr. Eagles, then your post was as ill-thought out as Caesar's attack on Dyrrachium: "No matter his brilliance, he's getting stabbed in the front and back by a lot of people who never liked him in the first place."
.... The other problem is that, as TC repeatedly and gleefully points out, the LDs may be down to 30 (his view, not mine) but the Conservatives will also ship seats to Labour on current numbers... .
I am not gleeful, I just struggle to square the "common view" that Lib Dem incumbency means that they will keep 40+ seats with the realities of the situation post GE 2010. Before GE 2010 my recollection is that the top 20 LD marginals were approx 75% vs Conservative and 25% Vs Lab/Other. Now that % is closer to 60/40. Here is one view from electoral calculus. http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html
The decline in the Labour vote in 2010 meant that seats won in 2005 were held and the odd gain picked up. I do agree the MPs facing Labour look very vulnerable at this moment.
At the moment, and if you assume a 12% national vote share for the Party, you'd be hard put to argue for 20 seats, let alone 30. The vote is much more concentrated than in 1979 or 1992.
We both know the "campaign" for the LDs will be in 75-80 seats and the rest will be abandoned and there will be some desperate results in the wastelands with hundreds of lost deposits and multiple fourth, fifth and even sixth place finishes - by the way, how about a market from soneone as to how many LD candidates weill finish fifth or worse in England ?
What we don't know is how it will be in the 75-80. Local election polling paints a more positive picture (say that with your teeth out) and we know the LD "ground" operation is stronger in many of these seats. I simply don't know what will happen - you'll forgive me for being cautiously optimistic, I'll happily forgive you for being cautiously realistic.
It seems to me Dave's best plan is to appeal to NOTA and UKIP types and to forget Labour completely - whilst the LibDems' best plan is to try very very hard to win back the lefties who've turned red. Bizarrely that means a rightish Tory campaign and a leftish LD campagn might see us back to where we are now.
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
If the Tories lose power in 2015 they will blame everyone but themselves. Even Nelson Mandela may get a few blowbacks for dying in a biased way on the day the 2013 Autumn Statement was made.
And who will Labour blame if they don't win in 2015?
if they are to stand a chance of winning in 2020 they will need to blame themselves.
Mr. Eagles, then your post was as ill-thought out as Caesar's attack on Dyrrachium: "No matter his brilliance, he's getting stabbed in the front and back by a lot of people who never liked him in the first place."
Like Hannibal at the Assembly, I am forced to apologise.
Just reading the BBC online article regarding the cost of living "crisis" which states:
"However, inflation over the same period, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), was 2.4%.
The average weekly income for full-time employees was £517, a rise of 2.2%."
So, that would suggest the average wage rose from a base of £505. Had it grown at 3% (0.6% above RPI) it would have risen to £521 - a difference of £4 a week.
Is that really what the "crisis" is all about, a difference of £4 per week, or 0.6% of salary? That would be swamped by the rising council tax/petrol duty Labour proposed.
Doesn't sound like much of a crisis to me. What is a genuine crisis is either losing a job or not being able to find one, that really does have a significant impact on household income. Happily, the coalition seems to have their finger on that particular pulse.
After much cajoling .... ok one request !! .... I'll start up a daily JackW Chrimbo Quiz that will thrill and entertain us all for the next week or so.
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
Whitelaw, Hailsham, Brittan, Carrington (don't remember if he is a h'dty or not), Major, Nott, Rifkind, Clarke.
Presumably Michael Havers got a title, so why do I still remember him as Sir Michael?
Mr. Eagles, unlike Hannibal at the Assembly, so you should. It was the Punic state that let him down, not vice versa.
F1: tyre test is from 17-19 of this month, I think, so any look ahead to 2014 will be after that. Harder tyres (to save Pirelli's blushes and to try and reduce them as a problem with the other regulation changes) seem likely.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Oooh another Thatcher cabinet minister who isn't a Lord.
Peter Lilley
Was it the reference to Portillo that brought him to mind? Perhaps the most ridiculous denial of an affair in the history of politics was Lilley's "rather eat cardboard" comment.
Mr. Eagles, unlike Hannibal at the Assembly, so you should. It was the Punic state that let him down, not vice versa.
F1: tyre test is from 17-19 of this month, I think, so any look ahead to 2014 will be after that. Harder tyres (to save Pirelli's blushes and to try and reduce them as a problem with the other regulation changes) seem likely.
Excuses, he's the Luca Badoer of Military Strategists.
Oooh another Thatcher cabinet minister who isn't a Lord.
Peter Lilley
Was it the reference to Portillo that brought him to mind? Perhaps the most ridiculous denial of an affair in the history of politics was Lilley's "rather eat cardboard" comment.
Yes, that's it exactly.
I'm worried for you that you know how my mind works, and if your mind works in the same way.
It seems to me Dave's best plan is to appeal to NOTA and UKIP types and to forget Labour completely - whilst the LibDems' best plan is to try very very hard to win back the lefties who've turned red. Bizarrely that means a rightish Tory campaign and a leftish LD campagn might see us back to where we are now.
Too late for that imo. He needed to do something early in the Parlt to get them on side and didn't.
Osborne prioritised Inheritance Tax Cuts in the 2010 campaign and prioritised top rate tax cuts in the Omnishambles.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
Scouse if you knew anything about the Tax system you would be aware there was no tax cut for the vast majority of the rich. They avoided paying the original increase. Os is right the 40p rate worked fine for years and years, we should go back to that top rate.
.... The other problem is that, as TC repeatedly and gleefully points out, the LDs may be down to 30 (his view, not mine) but the Conservatives will also ship seats to Labour on current numbers... .
I am not gleeful, I just struggle to square the "common view" that Lib Dem incumbency means that they will keep 40+ seats with the realities of the situation post GE 2010. Before GE 2010 my recollection is that the top 20 LD marginals were approx 75% vs Conservative and 25% Vs Lab/Other. Now that % is closer to 60/40. Here is one view from electoral calculus. http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html
The decline in the Labour vote in 2010 meant that seats won in 2005 were held and the odd gain picked up. I do agree the MPs facing Labour look very vulnerable at this moment.
At the moment, and if you assume a 12% national vote share for the Party, you'd be hard put to argue for 20 seats, let alone 30. The vote is much more concentrated than in 1979 or 1992.
We both know the "campaign" for the LDs will be in 75-80 seats and the rest will be abandoned and there will be some desperate results in the wastelands with hundreds of lost deposits and multiple fourth, fifth and even sixth place finishes - by the way, how about a market from soneone as to how many LD candidates weill finish fifth or worse in England ?
What we don't know is how it will be in the 75-80. Local election polling paints a more positive picture (say that with your teeth out) and we know the LD "ground" operation is stronger in many of these seats. I simply don't know what will happen - you'll forgive me for being cautiously optimistic, I'll happily forgive you for being cautiously realistic.
75-80 o_O ? Bit optimistic, that.
Please try to read and understand what I've actually said. The LDs will put up some sort of campaign/fight in these 75-80 seats. I'm NOT expecting the Party to win 75-80 seats. These are the seats (the ones currently held plus a raft of "targets") where resources in terms of activists and money will go. The aim in some of these seats will be to provide a regional focus for activists who have nowhere else they can easily get to as well as aiming to maintain an existing base of local organisation/activity.
The 57 held seats will be contested strongly and my view is we'll hold slightly more than half with perhaps a pick-up elsewhere so I come out at 35 seats but that's a guesstimate and the London locals next year might temper my optimism somewhat.
He's written that column dozens of times, yet done it in a way that seems fresh and readable each time. Not an easy task.
I can now see why you dont want to turn up to a pbc drinks if one encounter softens you up this much! Did you read his "Ed's Xmas party" one? (It was posted here a few times.) It was more worrying than it was bad and it was really bad.
Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.
Indeed.
If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.
They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.
If the Tories lose power in 2015 they will blame everyone but themselves. Even Nelson Mandela may get a few blowbacks for dying in a biased way on the day the 2013 Autumn Statement was made.
And who will Labour blame if they don't win in 2015?
the London locals next year might temper my optimism somewhat.
How many seats are you expecting to hold in London? I would have thought two were absolute goners and many of the rest would be a tough battle. The 2012 results in London were atrocious (coming 4th etc.).
Just reading the BBC online article regarding the cost of living "crisis" which states:
"However, inflation over the same period, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), was 2.4%.
The average weekly income for full-time employees was £517, a rise of 2.2%."
So, that would suggest the average wage rose from a base of £505. Had it grown at 3% (0.6% above RPI) it would have risen to £521 - a difference of £4 a week.
Is that really what the "crisis" is all about, a difference of £4 per week, or 0.6% of salary? That would be swamped by the rising council tax/petrol duty Labour proposed.
Doesn't sound like much of a crisis to me. What is a genuine crisis is either losing a job or not being able to find one, that really does have a significant impact on household income. Happily, the coalition seems to have their finger on that particular pulse.
The latest ONS statistic shows private sector pay up by 1.1% and public sector down by 0.7% [ yes, negative ]
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
The latest ONS statistic shows private sector pay up by 1.1% and public sector down by 0.7% [ yes, negative ]
Is that average pay? If so, it may have gone down by recruiting people under the average (i.e. more employed), or even by reducing headcount for people above average.
The latest ONS statistic shows private sector pay up by 1.1% and public sector down by 0.7% [ yes, negative ]
Is that average pay? If so, it may have gone down by recruiting people under the average (i.e. more employed), or even by reducing headcount for people above average.
Doubtless changes in the composition of the workforce will have had an impact (just as it did when people tried to use the same stats in earlier years to claim there wasnt a pay freeze in the public sector) but it should be borne in mind that the average quoted there does not include the average 1.3% pay cut delivered through higher member pension contributions.
Jack - George Younger because he became an hereditary?
I refer the Honourable (soon surely to be Baroned ) gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago !!
I'm hugely tempted to troll this last one for our leftist friends. Should I go with
a) Adolf Hitler - because it would confirm their view he worked for Thatcher or b) Nelson Mandela because it would confirm she wouldn't knight because she was a racist.
Just reading the BBC online article regarding the cost of living "crisis" which states:
"However, inflation over the same period, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), was 2.4%.
The average weekly income for full-time employees was £517, a rise of 2.2%."
So, that would suggest the average wage rose from a base of £505. Had it grown at 3% (0.6% above RPI) it would have risen to £521 - a difference of £4 a week.
Is that really what the "crisis" is all about, a difference of £4 per week, or 0.6% of salary? That would be swamped by the rising council tax/petrol duty Labour proposed.
Doesn't sound like much of a crisis to me. What is a genuine crisis is either losing a job or not being able to find one, that really does have a significant impact on household income. Happily, the coalition seems to have their finger on that particular pulse.
That's averages for you - they hide all manner of sins.
The other point is that the £4 per week this year, comes on top of similar declines for the last few years. The cumulative impact is starting to bite.
Jack - George Younger because he became an hereditary?
I refer the Honourable (soon surely to be Baroned ) gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago !!
I'm hugely tempted to troll this last one for our leftist friends. Should I go with
a) Adolf Hitler - because it would confirm their view he worked for Thatcher or b) Nelson Mandela because it would confirm she wouldn't knight because she was a racist.
decision, decisions
Lol .... but somewhat incorrect.
Further clue - He'll not let the sun go down on him or his clan even if they have links to Lancaster.
I met that there Dan Hodges last night, at a Telegraph Xmas do, and I asked him this very question: how can Labour NOT win, with so much in their favour.
He was reasonably persuasive that, in the end, people simply won't vote for Ed.
Yet I was not entirely persuaded. Right now I think Ed will scrape a tiny overall majority, or, more likely, a large plurality.
How did the quality of the bubbly at the party affect Ed Miliband's election chances, in Dan's opinion?*
Lord Gowrie - 'cause he was already a Lord when he entered the cabinet.
Hooray !!
The Earl of Gowrie was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Maggies Second Ministry. He left the government stating he couldn't live on the £33,000 salary.
Lord Gowrie became Chairman of Sotheby's for a short period and is the present Clan Chief of Ruthven. He's also a prominent member of the Elton John Aids Foundation.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
The owners of the firm that provided the interpreter at the Mandela memorial have gone missing.
This is hilarious and terrifying all at once - did the SA government really get in someone who literally knows no sign language? Unless I've missed something, all the sign language speakers I've read or heard comment on this have said the guy was literally making it up.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
What about VAT? Bears harder on the less well off/poor because it's on most things apart from most food.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
Hmm I suspect you're confusing the rate with the total tax package including allowances. A friend of mine who was on a big London salary said his biggest hit wasn't on the tax rate but that tax free pension allowances had been so radically reduced. I suspect that's one of the drivers of directors' pay as they shamelessly try to get back to where they were.
Indeed, Mr. Kevin. The chap was stood next to a large number of VIPs. Whilst this is unacceptable incompetence to have him as the interpreter, it could've been much worse if he'd been a malevolent lunatic.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
What about VAT? Bears harder on the less well off/poor because it's on most things apart from most food.
in isolation yes. But the VAT increase was shoved through with a a host of other tax increases and you don't get a VAT exemption if you're well off.
Its always hilarious when somebody gets to do a job in the public for which they have no aptitude or right to do, the SA signer is the latest . We have had Flowers at the Co-op recently and who can forget that bloke who winged his way into letting Souness give him a game in the premiership and being total rubbish-even the SA signer does not come close to that cock up
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
If the 50% rate was such a good idea, politically, why did Labour wait 13 years to implement it?
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
Hmm I suspect you're confusing the rate with the total tax package including allowances. A friend of mine who was on a big London salary said his biggest hit wasn't on the tax rate but that tax free pension allowances had been so radically reduced. I suspect that's one of the drivers of directors' pay as they shamelessly try to get back to where they were.
Again, though, that is a choice about how much you decide to put into your pension and how.
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
If the 50% rate was such a good idea, politically, why did Labour wait 13 years to implement it?
Now, now. They needed some time to think about it. Nothing whatsoever to do with salting the earth / leaving behind the odd land mine or two for the Tories.
I've seen some strange graphs but this one, from Infrastructure plan, takes the biscuit. Check out left-hand scale.
pic.twitter.com/5ZQrV08JJF
Its a log scale which is fairly common in science/engineering when you want to plot multiple values on one graph and some of the values are only a fraction of others. For instance in that graph Intellectual Capital and Waste at £1bn are 1% of the Transport and Energy spending at £100bn. On a normal scale that would be difficult to distinguish whereas on the log scale its easy to see.
He was reasonably persuasive that, in the end, people simply won't vote for Ed.
Define "people"!
I'm starting to think that Ed was, and is, the best choice of Labour leader to appeal to left-leaning ex-LibDems. He appears concerned about social justice, not gung-ho for overseas intervention, thoughtful, a bit wonkish and even awkward. All good qualities for this swing group.
Compare the alternatives in 2010: DavidM (far too Blairite to appeal to anti-Iraq leftist LibDems), Ed Balls (far too much of a bruiser for this sector of the electorate, it would be like LibDems voting for John Reid), Andy Burnham (tainted goods) and Diane Abbott (no comment).
It doesn't matter if the Conservatives like him (they won't vote for him) or, even, whether tribal Labour members like him (they'll vote for him anyway). What matters is that he appeals to the swing group of ex-LibDems, and I suspect he does this better than anyone other candidate.
This story is brilliant - a real case of mistaken identity. Sunderland were led to believe they were buying a player from Uruguayan top-flight side Nacional Montevideo. In fact, Nunez was then playing for a Third Division club, Uruguay Montevideo.
Unsurprisingly, he turned out to be rubbish and managed just 44 minutes for the Wearsiders and cost £1.5m, but this was recouped in an out-of-court settlement with Nunez, his former club and agent.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.
@Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.
Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.
Hmm I suspect you're confusing the rate with the total tax package including allowances. A friend of mine who was on a big London salary said his biggest hit wasn't on the tax rate but that tax free pension allowances had been so radically reduced. I suspect that's one of the drivers of directors' pay as they shamelessly try to get back to where they were.
Again, though, that is a choice about how much you decide to put into your pension and how.
On that basis everything is a choice. It's a choice if you work, it's a choice to take a salary at all. However aggregating everything anyone who has been stuffing a 6 figure sum tax free into their pension each year and who can now no longer do so will have a major hit.
Lord Gowrie inherited his earldom from his grandfather in 1955 aged 15. The following year he inherited from his great uncle the UK title Baron Ruthven of Gowrie but his uncles Scottish title of Lord Ruthven of Freeland passed through the female line to the wife of Sir Walter Monckton who himself became Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in 1957 and whose grandson is OGH's favourite Ukiper
"David Cameron is said to have complained to President Obama that US officials didn’t seem to have heard of George Osborne although – and this clearly hurt – they all knew who Catherine Ashton was. The president apparently explained: “Well, yes… but she is the High Representative of all the countries of Europe.”
Chuckle. (The last sentence of the piece also offers an entertaining wartime anecdote.)
Presumably the other member states will be happy to give her another term, in which case the only problem is getting the Prime Minister to renominate her. I wonder if we should start a petition or something?
Brett Wigdortz @Wigdortz 15m Ofsted inspects 1,144 independent schools, 40% don't have good leadership; a third ranked below good overall (vs only 20% of state schools)
A lot of people being ripped off in that sector
Yet independent schools dominate university entry. Must be something in the water.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25345253
Predator or producer or one of the boys?
How independent will an ex Labour Minister be in this case, given that part of the problem with the Co-Op has been over promoted Labour worthies?
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/12/labour-and-tories-are-both-led-career-politicians-–-label-can-hurt-ed-more-dave
"One Milibandite frontbencher estimates that only 10 to 20 per cent of his parliamentary colleagues could easily articulate their leader’s philosophy."
"he is running out of time to inspire people with more than just a feeling that he has noticed how expensive life has become."
They still believe that they can win an absolute majority.
Considering the Tories are really a regional party now the chances of winning outright is very slim indeed !
No cheating TSE or googling from the usual suspects !!
Off we go then ....
Who of Margaret Thatcher's various cabinet members have to date not been made a life peer ?
Lord Myners told BBC Radio 5 live that the advantage of the mutually-owned group was that it had no "avaricious shareholders with an open mouth needing to be stuffed full of money".
In other words, "pensioners relying on an income in retirement". Who does Lord Myners expect these shareholders are?
LOL.
John Major - Correct
No matter his brilliance, he's getting stabbed in the front and back by a lot of people who never liked him in the first place.
Damn you Lucius Tillius Cimber and you left leaning, Tory hating 2010 Lib Dems.
It's certainly a novel perspective.
But as someone else pointed out, the truth doesn't matter. The memes are set.
That's why I mentioned Cimber and the left leaning, Tory hating 2010 Lib Dems, but I didn't mention Brutus
At the moment, and if you assume a 12% national vote share for the Party, you'd be hard put to argue for 20 seats, let alone 30. The vote is much more concentrated than in 1979 or 1992.
We both know the "campaign" for the LDs will be in 75-80 seats and the rest will be abandoned and there will be some desperate results in the wastelands with hundreds of lost deposits and multiple fourth, fifth and even sixth place finishes - by the way, how about a market from soneone as to how many LD candidates weill finish fifth or worse in England ?
What we don't know is how it will be in the 75-80. Local election polling paints a more positive picture (say that with your teeth out) and we know the LD "ground" operation is stronger in many of these seats. I simply don't know what will happen - you'll forgive me for being cautiously optimistic, I'll happily forgive you for being cautiously realistic.
"No matter his brilliance, he's getting stabbed in the front and back by a lot of people who never liked him in the first place."
UKIP the most talked about political topic on twitter in the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/twitter-trends-2013-ukip-tops-the-political-lot-8999898.html
Hhmmm .... Correct
Others still to find !!
"However, inflation over the same period, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), was 2.4%.
The average weekly income for full-time employees was £517, a rise of 2.2%."
So, that would suggest the average wage rose from a base of £505. Had it grown at 3% (0.6% above RPI) it would have risen to £521 - a difference of £4 a week.
Is that really what the "crisis" is all about, a difference of £4 per week, or 0.6% of salary? That would be swamped by the rising council tax/petrol duty Labour proposed.
Doesn't sound like much of a crisis to me. What is a genuine crisis is either losing a job or not being able to find one, that really does have a significant impact on household income. Happily, the coalition seems to have their finger on that particular pulse.
Presumably Michael Havers got a title, so why do I still remember him as Sir Michael?
F1: tyre test is from 17-19 of this month, I think, so any look ahead to 2014 will be after that. Harder tyres (to save Pirelli's blushes and to try and reduce them as a problem with the other regulation changes) seem likely.
Peter Lilley
@Charles. Still alive please !!
http://www.quietroom.co.uk/santa_brandbook/one
I'm worried for you that you know how my mind works, and if your mind works in the same way.
Osborne prioritised Inheritance Tax Cuts in the 2010 campaign and prioritised top rate tax cuts in the Omnishambles.
The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous.
Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.
Scouse if you knew anything about the Tax system you would be aware there was no tax cut for the vast majority of the rich. They avoided paying the original increase. Os is right the 40p rate worked fine for years and years, we should go back to that top rate.
The 57 held seats will be contested strongly and my view is we'll hold slightly more than half with perhaps a pick-up elsewhere so I come out at 35 seats but that's a guesstimate and the London locals next year might temper my optimism somewhat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25345627
The owners of the firm that provided the interpreter at the Mandela memorial have gone missing.
Willie Whitelaw, he was made a Viscount/Hereditary Peer, not a life Peer.
Clue - A Scot who found London was not paved with gold even when he put the hammer down.
I'm like Hannibal at Zama.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE 5m
I've seen some strange graphs but this one, from Infrastructure plan, takes the biscuit. Check out left-hand scale.
pic.twitter.com/5ZQrV08JJF
a) Adolf Hitler - because it would confirm their view he worked for Thatcher
or
b) Nelson Mandela because it would confirm she wouldn't knight because she was a racist.
decision, decisions
The other point is that the £4 per week this year, comes on top of similar declines for the last few years. The cumulative impact is starting to bite.
Further clue - He'll not let the sun go down on him or his clan even if they have links to Lancaster.
So the central question for the next 18 months is whether facts are going to change that would change some of the public's opinions.
Sorry if that makes any you feel old.
*I'll hazard a wild guess...
The Earl of Gowrie was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Maggies Second Ministry. He left the government stating he couldn't live on the £33,000 salary.
Lord Gowrie became Chairman of Sotheby's for a short period and is the present Clan Chief of Ruthven. He's also a prominent member of the Elton John Aids Foundation.
Ali Dia was his name!!
Its a log scale which is fairly common in science/engineering when you want to plot multiple values on one graph and some of the values are only a fraction of others. For instance in that graph Intellectual Capital and Waste at £1bn are 1% of the Transport and Energy spending at £100bn. On a normal scale that would be difficult to distinguish whereas on the log scale its easy to see.
I'm starting to think that Ed was, and is, the best choice of Labour leader to appeal to left-leaning ex-LibDems. He appears concerned about social justice, not gung-ho for overseas intervention, thoughtful, a bit wonkish and even awkward. All good qualities for this swing group.
Compare the alternatives in 2010: DavidM (far too Blairite to appeal to anti-Iraq leftist LibDems), Ed Balls (far too much of a bruiser for this sector of the electorate, it would be like LibDems voting for John Reid), Andy Burnham (tainted goods) and Diane Abbott (no comment).
It doesn't matter if the Conservatives like him (they won't vote for him) or, even, whether tribal Labour members like him (they'll vote for him anyway). What matters is that he appeals to the swing group of ex-LibDems, and I suspect he does this better than anyone other candidate.
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna 3h
A future Labour government would not tolerate segregation in our universities.
This story is brilliant - a real case of mistaken identity. Sunderland were led to believe they were buying a player from Uruguayan top-flight side Nacional Montevideo. In fact, Nunez was then playing for a Third Division club, Uruguay Montevideo.
Unsurprisingly, he turned out to be rubbish and managed just 44 minutes for the Wearsiders and cost £1.5m, but this was recouped in an out-of-court settlement with Nunez, his former club and agent.
Lord Gowrie inherited his earldom from his grandfather in 1955 aged 15. The following year he inherited from his great uncle the UK title Baron Ruthven of Gowrie but his uncles Scottish title of Lord Ruthven of Freeland passed through the female line to the wife of Sir Walter Monckton who himself became Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in 1957 and whose grandson is OGH's favourite Ukiper