Yes, those who did not vote Labour rejected Labour. But more people voted for Labour than for any other party in 1950 and 1951. That does not indicate a decisive rejection.
1945-51 explanation is simple. Labour lost about 1.5% in 1950 and picked up 2.5% in 1951. However, the independent Liberals contested just 109 seats in 1951 compared to 475 a year before. The Tories picked up ex-Liberals in middle-class marginals, while Labour stacked up bigger and bigger majorities in the cities. (Rationing was very unpopular among the well-off who wanted advanced consumer goods, but it wasn't enough to invert the class interest of Labour voters during the most class-based period of UK politics.)
There were also some uncontested Unionist seats in Ulster. If Labour or their proxies had fielded candidates, the Tory/Unionist voters would have come out and narrowed the gap.
Peers have been accused of showing “contempt” for British voters over the proposed EU referendum, saying the public cannot be trusted to make the right decision.
Dozens of members of the House of Lords today attacked Conservative plans to set in law an in/out vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union by 2017.
Thanks for that recommendation for Purity beer. I see that the Foresters' Arms (a fine little pub) in Horsham sells it. I shall make an expedition to go and try some.
Have you tried the Wood Farm Brewery's products? A small brewery near Rugby. Our local club had some on guest ales weekend. Very, very nice; especially their 1823 dark mild a great session beer, not too strong but full of flavour and better for my money than the Harvey's equivalent.
I am surprised you find Nyetimber superior to Ridgeview. Are you sure you were comparing equivalent brews? Or perhaps its drinking all that perry. Anyway each to his own.
Mr Pole started the scurrilous perry accusation quite vindictively imo to distract from his fondness for Kronenbourg. I'm a cider man should we ever meet and if you offer me a Magners your kneecaps are at risk ;-)
However I will keep an eye out for Wood Farm, my BiL is the big Camra man so I take him on pub tours when's he's up here. You could also try Weatheroak Brewey in Studley which makes quite hoppy ales.
"(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
You are blithely ignoring the fact that the CTC is paid to cover the cost of childcare, which are of course not applicable to people without children. It is not free money - it goes against the childcare bill. If you want to cut the cost of tax credits, try improving childcare provision and reducing its cost.
If you abolish CTC, you will force many parents on low wages to stop working and go on benefits, which will just cost more.
Sorry WRONG, the £2,750 per child, child element of child tax credit is NOT for childcare.
The ChildCARE element of tax credit is for childcare, and this is paid at a rate of up to £300 per week (£15,600 per year) on top of the Child Element of £2,720 per child and the basic element of £1920 and couple element of £1,970 and the family element of £545)
A couple with three children where both partners work 16 hours per week at minimum wage and pay £10 per hour for 16 hours of childcare costs would get £10,500 in wages between them, on which they would pay zero tax and NI. They would get on top of that the following in tax credits:
70% of their childcare costs of £160 per week = £5,839
Tax credits of £545+£1920+£1970+£2720+£2720+£2720) - (41% of earnings over £6420)= £12595 - ((10500-6420)*41%) = £10,922.20
So a net wage of £10,,500 has £10922.20 + £5,839 added to it giving a net income of £27,261.
A single person would have to earn £35,945 to have the same net income (not far short of the higher tax bracket!!!)
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
On the subject of trade revisions the only reason the November deficit has marginally narrowed from October's is that October's deficit was revised upwards by nearly a billion (and a similar negative revision was made to those of July, August and September).
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
On the subject of trade revisions the only reason the November deficit has marginally narrowed from October's is that October's deficit was revised upwards by nearly a billion (and a similar negative revision was made to those of July, August and September).
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
The OBR are forecasting a positive contribution to GDP from net trade in 2015. This would be the first time for over a decade.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say obviously, but beware of wolves dressed in Llama's clothing ). Lay down your pictures of Osborne and find us a real Chancellor.
Mr. Brooke
1. The stocks of North Sea oil and gas are depleting faster than cases of Buckfast 'Tonic' Wine in a Glasgow branch of McMorrisons;
2. World Trade is contracting faster than Chris Christie's waistline with similar prospects of recovery;
3. The share of trade which is forecast to rise (everywhere except the US and EU) is not where the UK is currently strong (maybe a return to Empire building?);
4. Notwithstanding points 1. to 3. above UK trade is doing better than before.
George will triumph against adversity, Mr. Brooke. Mark my words.
So my significant other had a revelation recently. She's about as leftist as I am rightist. However, she just got a new job, one where she earns significantly more than she did in her previous one. He first payslip arrived in the post last week. She is now a higher rate tax payer, her net tax rate was around 30% including income tax and NI. Today she seems much more centrist than she did before. I think what really nudged her towards it was one of her uni friends who did the same course but didn't work hard and ended up with a crap grade still doesn't have her first job and lives in a flat paid for by the council, gets unemployment benefits and is able to laze around Starbucks all day mooching their free wi-fi on her Macbook Pro, doing the bare minimum to find a job.
Now she is all about finding value for money in the public sector and much more open to my brand of smaller state thinking. Being Swiss also gives her a unique perspective on living in a low tax country for so many years before she came here for uni in 2006. She believes it is absolutely possible to reduce taxes and still have the same level of public services we already enjoy.
Re Child Tax Credits and nursery costs. We needed immigration because we had vacancies that couldn't be filled. So we fill them then wonder why immigrants are here.
Alternative idea - have affordable universal child care so that women can afford to work. Of course that would lead to wages going up - which we don't want. So instead we have immigration and state subsidy if wages (which we don't want but the big business patrons of big politicians do)
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
The OBR are forecasting a positive contribution to GDP from net trade in 2015. This would be the first time for over a decade.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say obviously, but beware of wolves dressed in Llama's clothing ). Lay down your pictures of Osborne and find us a real Chancellor.
Mr. Brooke
1. The stocks of North Sea oil and gas are depleting faster than cases of Buckfast 'Tonic' Wine in a Glasgow branch of McMorrisons;
2. World Trade is contracting faster than Chris Christie's waistline with similar prospects of recovery;
3. The share of trade which is forecast to rise (everywhere except the US and EU) is not where the UK is currently strong (maybe a return to Empire building?);
4. Notwithstanding points 1. to 3. above UK trade is doing better than before.
George will triumph against adversity, Mr. Brooke. Mark my words.
Monsieur Pole while you and your friends in The Charlemagne Division still hold the Reichstag we all know this can only end one way. Give up now and save your Walloony comrades. Currently we're checking dental records to see which bits are George.
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
The OBR are forecasting a positive contribution to GDP from net trade in 2015. This would be the first time for over a decade.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say obviously, but beware of wolves dressed in Llama's clothing ). Lay down your pictures of Osborne and find us a real Chancellor.
Mr. Brooke
1. The stocks of North Sea oil and gas are depleting faster than cases of Buckfast 'Tonic' Wine in a Glasgow branch of McMorrisons;
2. World Trade is contracting faster than Chris Christie's waistline with similar prospects of recovery;
3. The share of trade which is forecast to rise (everywhere except the US and EU) is not where the UK is currently strong (maybe a return to Empire building?);
4. Notwithstanding points 1. to 3. above UK trade is doing better than before.
George will triumph against adversity, Mr. Brooke. Mark my words.
Monsieur Pole while you and your friends in The Charlemagne Division still hold the Reichstag we all know this can only end one way. Give up now and save your Walloony comrades. Currently we're checking dental records to see which bits are George.
Careful, Mr. Brooke.
Or I might tell Mr. Llama about your fondness for alcopops.
There were also some uncontested Unionist seats in Ulster. If Labour or their proxies had fielded candidates, the Tory/Unionist voters would have come out and narrowed the gap.
Two of those constituencies had no history of Labour challenges above 2% of the vote, which would really have helped narrow the gap. Give the Unionists 70-30 against nationalists in Armagh and Londonderry on 80% turnout and 85-15 against Labour in North and South Antrim on 65% turnout. This cuts the Labour national vote lead by 150,000, down to about 20,000. My best guess is that Labour would still have had a higher vote total than the Conservatives, but by an amount too insignificant to say that they really won more votes accounting for human error.
(It also illustrates the extent to which the Conservatives really did depend on Northern Ireland back then. In 1951, the Labour-Conservative votes were 48.6-48.0 in UK, but 49.3-47.8 in GB.)
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
The OBR are forecasting a positive contribution to GDP from net trade in 2015. This would be the first time for over a decade.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say George will triumph against adversity, Mr. Brooke. Mark my words.
Monsieur Pole while you and your friends in The Charlemagne Division still hold the Reichstag we all know this can only end one way. Give up now and save your Walloony comrades. Currently we're checking dental records to see which bits are George.
Careful, Mr. Brooke.
Or I might tell Mr. Llama about your fondness for alcopops.
splutter
are there no depths to which you will sink ?
In these dark times when lies and Spads stalk our nation that has to be one of the most foul falsehoods I have seen. Have we no moderators on PB ? Where are all the PB fee chasing lawyers when you need them ? You have spent too much time in France sir !
"(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
You are blithely ignoring the fact that the CTC is paid to cover the cost of childcare, which are of course not applicable to people without children. It is not free money - it goes against the childcare bill. If you want to cut the cost of tax credits, try improving childcare provision and reducing its cost.
If you abolish CTC, you will force many parents on low wages to stop working and go on benefits, which will just cost more.
Sorry WRONG, the £2,750 per child, child element of child tax credit is NOT for childcare.
The ChildCARE element of tax credit is for childcare, and this is paid at a rate of up to £300 per week (£15,600 per year) on top of the Child Element of £2,720 per child and the basic element of £1920 and couple element of £1,970 and the family element of £545)
A couple with three children where both partners work 16 hours per week at minimum wage and pay £10 per hour for 16 hours of childcare costs would get £10,500 in wages between them, on which they would pay zero tax and NI. They would get on top of that the following in tax credits:
70% of their childcare costs of £160 per week = £5,839
Tax credits of £545+£1920+£1970+£2720+£2720+£2720) - (41% of earnings over £6420)= £12595 - ((10500-6420)*41%) = £10,922.20
So a net wage of £10,,500 has £10922.20 + £5,839 added to it giving a net income of £27,261.
A single person would have to earn £35,945 to have the same net income (not far short of the higher tax bracket!!!)
OK, I stand corrected. But a £17k payment (£9k after your example childcare costs) for a family of 4 earning such pitiful wages doesn't seem that high given that housing benefit for a family of 4 would be far higher if none of them would be working. £4,400 per head is much less than the £7k / yr a single pensioner on pension credit (plus various goodies such as the bus pass) would get, especially when you consider the pensioner will probably have no housing costs (they will either have paid off thier mortgage or quality for housing benefit)
And your idea that there`s going to be lots of talk about blackholes in Labour`s plans is another non-starter.Balls will laugh in Osborne`s face that he is ready for his plans to be examined by OBR and Osborne is the one who won`t allow it.
The chancellor is so transparent that opponents are getting out of traps even before he can set them.
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The former Lib Dems who now say they are going to vote Labour are NOT confirmed Labourites . When they have had the opportunity to vote Labour the majority of them have sat on their hands and not voted at all . Some of them in the Broxtowe local elections for example actually went out and voted Lib Dem . Though NIck Palmer EXMP assures us that this was a temporary aberration voting for councillors they like and in a GE they will vote Labour . This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
Is that why Lib Dems have lost hundreds of council seats in the last three years?Another straw clutcher except you are on the LibDem rather than Tory side.
The Lib Dems have lost seats because they have polled fewer votes than they got in the years in which they won them . That is not necessarily because those voters have voted for another party . In most cases they have simply not voted at all and/or Labour voters who sat on their hands and did not vote in 2006 to 2009 have returned to voting Labour now they are in opposition . The point I have tried to make is that most voters who tell the pollsters that they voted LD in 2010 but will vote Labour in 2015 have not yet voted for Labour . They may do so but until they do they are not confirmed Labourites .
That`s an interesting idea.Whats your evidence that Labour has improved it`s tally in the polls,council elections and Parliamentary by-elections simply by picking up non-voters.
Evidence is that non-voters are the hardest group to motivate to vote and the most reliable predictor that someone is going to vote is that they have voted in the previous elections.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The former Lib Dems who now say they are going to vote Labour are NOT confirmed Labourites . When they have had the opportunity to vote Labour the majority of them have sat on their hands and not voted at all . Some of them in the Broxtowe local elections for example actually went out and voted Lib Dem . Though NIck Palmer EXMP assures us that this was a temporary aberration voting for councillors they like and in a GE they will vote Labour . This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
Is that why Lib Dems have lost hundreds of council seats in the last three years?Another straw clutcher except you are on the LibDem rather than Tory side.
That`s an interesting idea.Whats your evidence that Labour has improved it`s tally in the polls,council elections and Parliamentary by-elections simply by picking up non-voters.
Evidence is that non-voters are the hardest group to motivate to vote and the most reliable predictor that someone is going to vote is that they have voted in the previous elections.
These are not non voters per se but more selective voters .The phenomenum of differential voting and the swings it causes in local council elections has been well known for many years . Its effect is somewhat masked by multiple party contests but can be easily demonstrated in an example . ( I believe there is a published study somewhere based on contests in Tamworth which were for many years straight Labour/Conservative contests ) To simplify things . take a ward which in a GE votes 1000 Labour 1000 Conservative . In a Labour in government year it may vote in a local election 600 Con 400 Labour and in a Conservative in government year Labour 550 Conservative 450 . All the apparent swing is caused by differential keenness to vote rather than voters switching from one party to another . It has been demonstrated that Labour do not do as well in Labour in opposition years as Conservatives do in Conservative in opposition years because their GE voters are not as keen to turn out other than at a GE .
What is Generation Y supposed to be? I hadn't heard that at all until recently. We need better generation names if, as suspected, it refers to mine. For 80s/90s the Playstation Generation sounds better. Late 90s onwards could be the iGeneration.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
So, where's your evidence that people born in the Sixties, who own property, and have families, are part of a "left-wing Coalition?". Quite the reverse. Polling indicates that support for Conservatives and UKIP shoots up among people aged over 40, compared to those under 40.
This is why we all like OGH even when he's Grumpy not Genial... telling it how it is here.
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB1h Just unfollowed my fellow Burnley fan, Alastair Campbell, @campbellclaret because every other Tweet is a promotion for his book. Tedious.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
So, where's your evidence that people born in the Sixties, who own property, and have families, are part of a "left-wing Coalition?". Quite the reverse. Polling indicates that support for Conservatives and UKIP shoots up among people aged over 40, compared to those under 40.
At this moment Conservative poll support does not begin to increase rapidly until the over 55 age group(s) .
"Paying off the national credit card". There will be a shock coming when people find he's been increasing the bill.
That's the sort of misinterpretation that is unworthy of you unless you really are about 12 yrs old and can be forgiven... Osborne isn't doing anything of the kind and you know it. You make it sound as tho he is personally responsible which of course he isn't The debt was going to increase whatever Osborne did unless he cut the budget by 156 billion, and that was never going to happen.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
So, where's your evidence that people born in the Sixties, who own property, and have families, are part of a "left-wing Coalition?". Quite the reverse. Polling indicates that support for Conservatives and UKIP shoots up among people aged over 40, compared to those under 40.
At this moment Conservative poll support does not begin to increase rapidly until the over 55 age group(s) .
I agree, the polling over a period of time, does show that it mostly the over 60's who favour the Tories. Presumably on the basis that they feel the Tories will look after them, better than the other parties. i.e Tories more likely to take tough decisions to saddle the younger generations with the costs of looking after older people.
These £25bn of savings that will need to found after 2015 may be an under estimate, because the cost of paying the interest on the nations debt, is going to be increasing over the coming years. If the current growth turns out to be temporary, some serious spending cuts will be needed.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
So, where's your evidence that people born in the Sixties, who own property, and have families, are part of a "left-wing Coalition?". Quite the reverse. Polling indicates that support for Conservatives and UKIP shoots up among people aged over 40, compared to those under 40.
At this moment Conservative poll support does not begin to increase rapidly until the over 55 age group(s) .
That's because much of the rightward shift post-40 goes to UKIP. The latest Yougov poll, for example, has Con/UKIP support going from 33% among the under 40s to 45% among 40-59 year olds, and 60% among people aged over 60.
"Paying off the national credit card". There will be a shock coming when people find he's been increasing the bill.
That's the sort of misinterpretation that is unworthy of you unless you really are about 12 yrs old and can be forgiven... Osborne isn't doing anything of the kind and you know it. You make it sound as tho he is personally responsible which of course he isn't The debt was going to increase whatever Osborne did unless he cut the budget by 156 billion, and that was never going to happen.
Your "excuse"/explanation may indeed be right but we are talking party politics here. Anything that can be used to discredit your opponents will be.
You have always got to ask "how can XYZ be portrayed in the most negative manner to undermine our opponents".
O/T but a question to provoke some debate. I think a GE outcome Of Lab 290 Con 285 LD 35 NI 18 SNP 11 PC 5 UKIP 4 Green 1 Respect 1 is plausible.
What do you think would happen in such a circumstance? I.e. The only feasible coalition with a majority is Con:Lab. If you want to say minority Lab then second quick election, what if you get the same result again? If it was a grand coalition, the LDs would be official opposition!
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
What on earth are you taking about? Gen X are born between 64 and 81. They have families and own property.
So, where's your evidence that people born in the Sixties, who own property, and have families, are part of a "left-wing Coalition?". Quite the reverse. Polling indicates that support for Conservatives and UKIP shoots up among people aged over 40, compared to those under 40.
At this moment Conservative poll support does not begin to increase rapidly until the over 55 age group(s) .
That's because much of the rightward shift post-40 goes to UKIP. The latest Yougov poll, for example, has Con/UKIP support going from 33% among the under 40s to 45% among 40-59 year olds, and 60% among people aged over 60.
It can be quite lonely, as a 75 year old LibDem/Lab voter! However, I do suspect, at least among acquaintances, that the UKIP support is flaky and somewhat driven at the moment by nostalgia. I doubt that some at least of that will survive a GE campaign, wherein real issues are discussed.
O/T but a question to provoke some debate. I think a GE outcome Of Lab 290 Con 285 LD 35 NI 18 SNP 11 PC 5 UKIP 4 Green 1 Respect 1 is plausible.
What do you think would happen in such a circumstance? I.e. The only feasible coalition with a majority is Con:Lab. If you want to say minority Lab then second quick election, what if you get the same result again? If it was a grand coalition, the LDs would be official opposition!
A Rainbow Alliance is possible under those numbers (Lab + LD + SNP + Greens)
Or a Con/LD/DUP alliance.
Edit: There was talk of a rainbow alliance in 2010, until David Blunkett and John Reid shot the idea down
Furthermore since you are a beer drinker from memory Mr L I can recommend the Purity Brewery and it's excellent products, top advice from an Alcesterman.
This is why we all like OGH even when he's Grumpy not Genial... telling it how it is here.
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB1h Just unfollowed my fellow Burnley fan, Alastair Campbell, @campbellclaret because every other Tweet is a promotion for his book. Tedious.
List of people history will remember less kindly than Alistair Campbell:
1. Stalin 2. Mao 3. Hitler 4. Pol Pot 5. Saddam Hussein
An Economist article last week (on differing views to immigration) defined Generation X as those born in the years 1966-79, and Generation Y as those born from 1980 or later, with those born earlier being either baby boomer or pre-war. Can't say it is definitive mind.
O/T but a question to provoke some debate. I think a GE outcome Of Lab 290 Con 285 LD 35 NI 18 SNP 11 PC 5 UKIP 4 Green 1 Respect 1 is plausible.
What do you think would happen in such a circumstance? I.e. The only feasible coalition with a majority is Con:Lab. If you want to say minority Lab then second quick election, what if you get the same result again? If it was a grand coalition, the LDs would be official opposition!
In those circumstances, I'm not sure you'd have a formal coalition. Labour would probably govern on a confidence and supply arrangement, although it would struggle to go to term.
The fact no party would be very close to a majority in that case actually makes a formal coalition less likely. In 2010, the situation was such that Lib Dem + Tory = very healthy majority. That was attractive with the economy as it was and both parties keen on power after a long time out of it. In the 2015 possible situation you suggest, no combination gives a healthy majority, so why not just go issue by issue? Add to that the fact that the economic situation has stabilised and the Lib Dems would likely want to lick their wounds on the backbenches, and that's probably what would happen.
There's no credible Tory route to remain in power there. Their routes to a majority (either a formal coalition or issue by issue) all involve getting consensus between the Lib Dems and the DUP or UKIP (and probably both). That isn't really going to happen, whereas the Lib Dems voting with some combination SNP/SDLP/Green might, and gives Labour something to work with.
Haven't we been running a modern version of the Speenhamland system for years? The amount of in work benefits being paid out would seem to suggest we have been subsidising employers as a cheaper alternative to mass unemployment for quite a while now.
A couple of years ago there was much mirth, not least on this site, when Miliband suggested a policy of pre-distribution (i.e. jacking up the minimum wage so as to save on the need to pay benefits). Am I he only one to be amused by the fact that the Conservatives are now edging towards just that policy, which once they decried and ridiculed.
I have indeed been wondering precisely that about the modern version of Speenhamland, "we" being the taxpayers (so that is another factor to add to the corporation tax balance). Mr M's policy would also save on some welfare admin costs and hassle.
To be sure, the difference was that (IIRC) the Speenhamland system was on a parish level, so the ratepayers (landowners) ended up subsidising the farmers (often but not always the same folk) and, where there were some, country protofactory owners. But the workers still ended up low paid and in a poverty trap as the price for them not starving (or rioting, at least to begin with - there were the Swing riots later on in the 1830s-ish). Checking reminds me that one way of getting rid of Speenhamland was to build poorhouses ...! And of course the Tolpuddle Martyrs were in a classic Speenhamland system county, Dorset.
Comments
If you had been following the full thread, you would have noticed that I have been very nice to you this morning!
Peers have been accused of showing “contempt” for British voters over the proposed EU referendum, saying the public cannot be trusted to make the right decision.
Dozens of members of the House of Lords today attacked Conservative plans to set in law an in/out vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union by 2017.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10564931/Parliament-makes-decisions-not-the-people-anger-as-Peers-say-public-cannot-be-trusted-on-EU-vote.html
However I will keep an eye out for Wood Farm, my BiL is the big Camra man so I take him on pub tours when's he's up here. You could also try Weatheroak Brewey in Studley which makes quite hoppy ales.
Sorry WRONG, the £2,750 per child, child element of child tax credit is NOT for childcare.
The ChildCARE element of tax credit is for childcare, and this is paid at a rate of up to £300 per week (£15,600 per year) on top of the Child Element of £2,720 per child and the basic element of £1920 and couple element of £1,970 and the family element of £545)
A couple with three children where both partners work 16 hours per week at minimum wage and pay £10 per hour for 16 hours of childcare costs would get £10,500 in wages between them, on which they would pay zero tax and NI. They would get on top of that the following in tax credits:
70% of their childcare costs of £160 per week = £5,839
Tax credits of £545+£1920+£1970+£2720+£2720+£2720) - (41% of earnings over £6420)= £12595 - ((10500-6420)*41%) = £10,922.20
So a net wage of £10,,500 has £10922.20 + £5,839 added to it giving a net income of £27,261.
A single person would have to earn £35,945 to have the same net income (not far short of the higher tax bracket!!!)
See page 6 (11 of 158):
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf
What this country needs isn't more forecasts that everything will be fine in a couple of years but admittance that the economy is structurally flawed.
And that's something which the political establishment will never do and so their pet quangos will continue with their present platitudes.
All the while making true structural reform ever harder to achieve.
1. The stocks of North Sea oil and gas are depleting faster than cases of Buckfast 'Tonic' Wine in a Glasgow branch of McMorrisons;
2. World Trade is contracting faster than Chris Christie's waistline with similar prospects of recovery;
3. The share of trade which is forecast to rise (everywhere except the US and EU) is not where the UK is currently strong (maybe a return to Empire building?);
4. Notwithstanding points 1. to 3. above UK trade is doing better than before.
George will triumph against adversity, Mr. Brooke. Mark my words.
Now she is all about finding value for money in the public sector and much more open to my brand of smaller state thinking. Being Swiss also gives her a unique perspective on living in a low tax country for so many years before she came here for uni in 2006. She believes it is absolutely possible to reduce taxes and still have the same level of public services we already enjoy.
Alternative idea - have affordable universal child care so that women can afford to work. Of course that would lead to wages going up - which we don't want. So instead we have immigration and state subsidy if wages (which we don't want but the big business patrons of big politicians do)
Or I might tell Mr. Llama about your fondness for alcopops.
(It also illustrates the extent to which the Conservatives really did depend on Northern Ireland back then. In 1951, the Labour-Conservative votes were 48.6-48.0 in UK, but 49.3-47.8 in GB.)
And your idea that there`s going to be lots of talk about blackholes in Labour`s plans is another non-starter.Balls will laugh in Osborne`s face that he is ready for his plans to be examined by OBR and Osborne is the one who won`t allow it.
The chancellor is so transparent that opponents are getting out of traps even before he can set them.
Evidence is that non-voters are the hardest group to motivate to vote and the most reliable predictor that someone is going to vote is that they have voted in the previous elections.
Very astute. Osborne is a Brown-lite.
"Paying off the national credit card". There will be a shock coming when people find he's been increasing the bill.
A Conservative friend of mine says you have more chance of converting a avowed socialist on a Manchester council estate than someone who never votes.
To simplify things . take a ward which in a GE votes 1000 Labour 1000 Conservative . In a Labour in government year it may vote in a local election 600 Con 400 Labour and in a Conservative in government year Labour 550 Conservative 450 . All the apparent swing is caused by differential keenness to vote rather than voters switching from one party to another . It has been demonstrated that Labour do not do as well in Labour in opposition years as Conservatives do in Conservative in opposition years because their GE voters are not as keen to turn out other than at a GE .
What is Generation Y supposed to be? I hadn't heard that at all until recently. We need better generation names if, as suspected, it refers to mine. For 80s/90s the Playstation Generation sounds better. Late 90s onwards could be the iGeneration.
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB1h
Just unfollowed my fellow Burnley fan, Alastair Campbell, @campbellclaret because every other Tweet is a promotion for his book. Tedious.
That's the sort of misinterpretation that is unworthy of you unless you really are about 12 yrs old and can be forgiven... Osborne isn't doing anything of the kind and you know it. You make it sound as tho he is personally responsible which of course he isn't The debt was going to increase whatever Osborne did unless he cut the budget by 156 billion, and that was never going to happen.
You have always got to ask "how can XYZ be portrayed in the most negative manner to undermine our opponents".
It has to be the worst penalty ever.
Doesn't he realise we've got 10/1 on Palace beating The Spannersurs
http://balls.ie/football/gif-jason-puncheon-hits-worse-penalty-season/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
Of Lab 290 Con 285 LD 35 NI 18 SNP 11 PC 5 UKIP 4 Green 1 Respect 1 is plausible.
What do you think would happen in such a circumstance? I.e. The only feasible coalition with a majority is Con:Lab. If you want to say minority Lab then second quick election, what if you get the same result again? If it was a grand coalition, the LDs would be official opposition!
I doubt that some at least of that will survive a GE campaign, wherein real issues are discussed.
Or a Con/LD/DUP alliance.
Edit: There was talk of a rainbow alliance in 2010, until David Blunkett and John Reid shot the idea down
Hook Norton on the other hand...
1. Stalin
2. Mao
3. Hitler
4. Pol Pot
5. Saddam Hussein
The fact no party would be very close to a majority in that case actually makes a formal coalition less likely. In 2010, the situation was such that Lib Dem + Tory = very healthy majority. That was attractive with the economy as it was and both parties keen on power after a long time out of it. In the 2015 possible situation you suggest, no combination gives a healthy majority, so why not just go issue by issue? Add to that the fact that the economic situation has stabilised and the Lib Dems would likely want to lick their wounds on the backbenches, and that's probably what would happen.
There's no credible Tory route to remain in power there. Their routes to a majority (either a formal coalition or issue by issue) all involve getting consensus between the Lib Dems and the DUP or UKIP (and probably both). That isn't really going to happen, whereas the Lib Dems voting with some combination SNP/SDLP/Green might, and gives Labour something to work with.
To be sure, the difference was that (IIRC) the Speenhamland system was on a parish level, so the ratepayers (landowners) ended up subsidising the farmers (often but not always the same folk) and, where there were some, country protofactory owners. But the workers still ended up low paid and in a poverty trap as the price for them not starving (or rioting, at least to begin with - there were the Swing riots later on in the 1830s-ish). Checking reminds me that one way of getting rid of Speenhamland was to build poorhouses ...! And of course the Tolpuddle Martyrs were in a classic Speenhamland system county, Dorset.
That wins me the Dead Pool on another site.