politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why EdM thinks he’s on to a winner with energy prices

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

"The new boss of the controversial HS2 rail project has been appointed on a salary of £591,000 a year."

http://news.sky.com/story/1146341/hs2s-new-boss-appointed-on-591k-salary

Ouch. I'm not defending that.

BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)

I'll do it for less.

The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.

David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.

MarkSenior said:

MaxPB said:

The Tory line is very easy on this. "We don't think Ed and Labour have thought through the consequences on investment and jobs in the energy sector" or "Ed is putting Britain's energy security at risk to win votes". No more, no less.

And you think scaremongering will work ? Good luck .

This chap seems to:

Energy Secretary Ed Davey, a Lib Dem, said it risked "the lights going out".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688

Plato said:

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.

Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.

AndyJS said:

Plato said:

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.

Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.

I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB

The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team

The youth of today not being as progressive as people like to think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24204742

JosiasJessop said:

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

"The new boss of the controversial HS2 rail project has been appointed on a salary of £591,000 a year."

http://news.sky.com/story/1146341/hs2s-new-boss-appointed-on-591k-salary

Ouch. I'm not defending that.

BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)

I'll do it for less.

The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.

David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.

a) I don't agree the costs are going to rise that much, if at all, as long as the NIMBY's don't get their way. Things are now fairly well defined.
b) We can always wait for something better. It rarely arrives. Let's not build any roads and wait for the new hovercar they've been talking about since the 1950s.
c) The CBR isn't poor, although we await the latest estimate with baited breath.
d) There are costs to not doing HS2; not going ahead could actively harm the economy if you believe that passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase as it has since the 1990s.

Hyperloop technology.

MikeSmithson said:

AndyJS said:

Plato said:

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.

Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.

I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB

The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team

I can't see the problem with including UKIP, as well as maybe the Greens, and the SNP.

Off-topic:

Truly excellent, very funny, poignant, and possibly NSFW if your company has strict policies:

"Women: it's your fault."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8hC0Ng_ajpY

'Is Tim banned?'

He's attending the New Labour wake.

''The proposed solutions to CoL challenges are Maoist and show that the blob has NOT learned''

The UK's energy policy is already Maoist, in that it is driven completely by climate change dogma.

energy must be produced in the 'correct' way - according to dictat - regardless of practicalities or price.

And that is why we have a potential huge catastrophe on our hands.

Polruan said:

perdix said:

ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country.
Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.

Not sure it's dishonest; it's billed as reducing energy bills for 20 months, if enacted it will reduce energy bills for 20 months. I don't remember him saying "by freezing bills for a period we will lower long-term prices and improve energy sufficiency".

As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.

Will it 'reduce' bills? I thought it would stop them going up.

Gerry_Mander said:

Polruan said:

perdix said:

ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country.
Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.

Not sure it's dishonest; it's billed as reducing energy bills for 20 months, if enacted it will reduce energy bills for 20 months. I don't remember him saying "by freezing bills for a period we will lower long-term prices and improve energy sufficiency".

As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.

Will it 'reduce' bills? I thought it would stop them going up.

Yeah, fair point: "reduce the amount charged on utility bills relative to the amount that would have been charged over the same period without intervention". Am I allowed that one?

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

Does anyone know who decides the dates for the party conferences, or more importantly, which one goes last? Surely, if you go last, you get the advantage of ripping the other two parties latest policies apart.

I was wondering that as well. Tradition, perhaps? Am I right in saying the Conservatives are always last?

There must be some arrangement: otherwise there would be absolute chaos, and the media wouldn't want to be in five places at once.

Reverse alphabetical order, with UKIP breaking the rules because they are not like the other parties?

Here is a comres poll on energy:

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/BBC_Radio_5live_Energy_Day_Public_Poll_September_2013.pdf

That wonderful entity "The public" has decided that:

1) The Gov't is not green enough when it comes to energy, and wants more windfarms and solar power.

2) Does not think the price of energy is reasonable, and energy companies are seen as unreasonable, and want energy to be renationalised.

3) Wants to burn more fossil fuels.

4) Is split on Nuclear, but doesn't want it in their backyard.

"The public" lives in la-la land, which is precisely why Labour's energy policies could well turn out to be winners.

"Party leaders also dismissed the idea of renationalising the railways after the conference backed a motion by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association calling for this.
An official said: “Renationalisation is not our policy. Conference is entitled to its view. We are going to do the right thing. We are not going to spend money we do not have.” (FT)

The Miliband effect:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24238619

TwistedFireStopper said:

RedRag1 said:

In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/37448/

http://twitter.com/ITVLauraK/statuses/382865975630000128

Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.

Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.

Don't worry, it will be back once they start repeatedly quoting the one eyed loon again.

Mr. Rag, it's hard to quote Brown now, as he seems to have forgotten to turn up to Parliament or make any speeches since he was finally prised out of the bunker.

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

No representation without taxation?

I suppose that's one explanation for Osborne increasing the Personal Allowance. He intends to restrict the franchise to people paying income tax...

TwistedFireStopper said:

RedRag1 said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RedRag1 said:

In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/37448/

http://twitter.com/ITVLauraK/statuses/382865975630000128

Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.

Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.

Don't worry, it will be back once they start repeatedly quoting the one eyed loon again.

That's uncalled for. Your gang used to to wet themselves with righteous anger, whenever that nutter Gordon Brown's visual disability was mentioned in a derogatory way.

Ok, I make an apology to all loons out there for mentioning them with Dan Hodges.

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

Just as Ed thought it couldn't get any better, those much loved energy companies start publically attacking him....genius.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688

Love the stats.


The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

They will swing the public the Coalition/energy companies way.

How much turnover, and how much investment over the same period?

Look at the whole picture rather than a small bit of it. BTW, do you think profit is evil?

"do you think profit is evil" - No. Do you think all people claiming benefits are scroungers?

RedRag1 said:

The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

And of course, those profits just go into an Olympic-sized swimming pool of grubby fifty pound notes that is for the exclusive use of fat-cat industrialists to dive into, before a day of grinding down the poor at t'mill.

Why do you hate pensioners so much that you would deprive them of their pensions?

Perhaps you would rather there was no money to distribute. Is your idea of a functioning economy one where British Leyland is held out as a model of what should be achieved?

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

Just as Ed thought it couldn't get any better, those much loved energy companies start publically attacking him....genius.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688

Love the stats.


The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

They will swing the public the Coalition/energy companies way.

How much turnover, and how much investment over the same period?

Look at the whole picture rather than a small bit of it. BTW, do you think profit is evil?

Just as an aside, if EdM really wants to go down this route, the trick is to regulate mark-ups rather than prices (takes away the wholesale price argument). You then have the question on how to incentivise investment & it would seem to be the way to do so is to pay out a debt-like return on agreed capital investment (rather than a ROIC measure that the regulartor tries to use and gets wrong at the moment) plus a build fee (with the companies keeping a disproportionate share of any cost savings below contract price) and an annual management fee.

Not, to be clear, that I think any of this is a good idea...

Caroline Lucas to be charged over her Balcombe protest - The Times

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

Just as Ed thought it couldn't get any better, those much loved energy companies start publically attacking him....genius.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688

Love the stats.


The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

They will swing the public the Coalition/energy companies way.

How much turnover, and how much investment over the same period?

Look at the whole picture rather than a small bit of it. BTW, do you think profit is evil?

"do you think profit is evil" - No. Do you think all people claiming benefits are scroungers?

Nope. You'd never see me writing that, and it's pretty far away from what I think. But there are societal problems with many families. (See below).

BTW, how many Conservative politicians have actually uttered 'scroungers'? I'd be interested in direct quotations ...

BTW2: I have previously praised the following scheme on here. Introduced by this government, extending schemes, from memory, debuted by Labour councils. It was extended in June with another £200 million of funds.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/200-million-payment-by-results-scheme-to-help-troubled-families

The tragic case studies in the following document are worth a read:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6151/2183663.pdf

RichardNabavi said:

The rational thing to do is to invest outside the UK, both for individuals and for the boards of the utility companies. It's no coincidence that the utilities share which fell the most today was SSE, the one most almost exclusively dependent on the UK market.

This needs to be looked at coupled to Ed's determination to increase Corporation Tax for larger companies. One of the things that Osborne has had little credit for is getting the G8/G20 to focus on making corporations pay tax SOMEWHERE - and where might that be? Well, possibly in the UK - now that Osborne has given the UK the lowest corporation taxes.

Ed would squash that advantage with his determination to play JCR politics. He really is that dumb.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, that would lead to anyone with an income under £10k having no vote...

But would deliver many early election counts, enabling us to go to bed by midnight....

RedRag1 said:

The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

Isn't it dreadful that companies make profits? Pay dividends? Generate corporation tax revenues? Provide employment? Contribute towards economic growth.

Let's get real on domestic energy prices. The UK is not suffering under the yoke of massive energy prices. We are right in the middle of the European average. Do we all want to pay less? Yes - but trying to claim massive over-pricing is quite frankly ludicrous.

This policy will require legislation - which will no doubt be challenged in the courts. It is designed simply for headlines and to appease the left. It is, as many people have pointed out, economically illiterate.

We have an impending crisis in our generation capacity - that needs investment. Price regulation of the energy sector has not delivered lower prices in the long term in any country that has tried it in the past.

Miliband's role in setting the current energy regulatory regime means that everything he says on the subject is tainted by his failure to act in the best interest of consumers when he actually had the power to effect change. He has burdened us all with a price hikes due to his green levies.

The current prices for Gas and Electricity are very much the fault of the last Labour regime. The coalition should and could have done more - but Miliband was at the heart of setting the cutting systems.

No amount of gesture politics will distract from that. Superficial as ever from Miliband Jr.

JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger "And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)

"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."

Plato said:

Fitch Ratings @FitchRatings
#UK Utility #Tariff Freeze Would Undermine Investment ow.ly/pcPii

Ouch! That's a pretty devastating summary - Miliband wrecking investment by destroying the current 'independent, transparent and predictable nature of UK regulation' so that it becomes like Russia's.

if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.

Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.

Neil - twas a corker of a bet.

One that I tipped ahem

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger ""And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)

"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."

Okay, that's one, and one I've never heard of before, and I utterly disagree with his language.

Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?

We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.

Bobajob said:

This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.

Here are some for your collection. May I suggest that it might be sensible to think about the possibility that these guys might know what they're talking about (I haven't included any industry representatives in this summary)?

- Fitch Ratings: "companies likely to cut back on investment"

- David Casale, who is planning to launch a not-for-profit energy business said, "If this looks anything like becoming policy in the UK we will pull out."

- “The proposed energy price freeze will deter much-needed investment and is at odds with Labour’s pledge to decarbonize the economy and create a million green jobs,” said John Cridland, director general of the CBI, the nation’s main business lobbying group.

- “These significant proposed changes may create a whole new level of uncertainty,” said Tony Ward, head of power and utilities at the consulting firm Ernst & Young LLP. “Each of the changes proposed will require massive change in their own right, and collectively will lead to a reassessment of the risks of operating in the energy market.”

- “Price controls only add greater uncertainty to companies who we need to take the financial risks of energy investment,” said Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors

- “We are concerned about the impact that Ed Miliband’s proposal would have on investment in Britain’s ramshackle energy Infrastructure,” said John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.

- “The big question is: how can Labour square a major reform of the consumer energy market and a freeze on energy bills with the urgent need for investment in low-carbon generation?” asked Nina Skorupska, chief executive officer of the REA. “We cannot afford another investment hiatus."

- Energy Secretary Ed Davey said: "Fixing prices in this way risks blackouts, jeopardises jobs and puts investment in clean, green technology in doubt"

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, that would lead to anyone with an income under £10k having no vote...

Terrible idea. Low income often means terraced house and easy leafleting. High income have great long driveways with steps and often awkward letterboxes.

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger ""And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)

"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."

Okay, that's one, and one I've never heard of before, and I utterly disagree with his language.

Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?

We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)

You only have to look on here most weeks to see Conservative supporters attacking what they call "benefit scroungers".

Really? How many in the last month?

So you found one Conservative backbench MP who has used the term, and you try to paint the whole party with that brush? How pathetic is that?

However, I bet you a fair few Labour supporters would use the term as well.

Are all Labour supporters and MPs anti-redhead after Harriet Harman's stupidly insensitive 'ginger rodent' jobs (which was scripted, so several people must have thought it was a good idea):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325107/Harriet-Harman-brands-Treasury-chief-Danny-Alexander-ginger-rodent-extraordinary-outburst.html

RedRag1 said:

AveryLP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.

Nasty Party reverting to type.

I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

AveryLP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.

Nasty Party reverting to type.

I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.

This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-fear-return-of-nasty-party-in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html

JosiasJessop - "One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."

RedRag1 said:

Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.

Well the Labour lead did tumble 30% the day of Ed's speech, RedRag.

A very nasty fall.

I doubt he would he survive a second.

AveryLP said:

RedRag1 said:

Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.

Well the Labour lead did tumble 30% the day of Ed's speech, RedRag.

A very nasty fall.

I doubt he would he survive a second.

Not long to find out. Though looking at all the negative posts on here, surely your prediction of an imminent crossover of a lead in the polls from Labour to Conservative the other day will be true, eh.

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

AveryLP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.

Nasty Party reverting to type.

I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.

This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-fear-return-of-nasty-party-in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html

Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.

You really must do better.

To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).

Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.

"One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."

@RedRag1

'Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing'


Would you like £120 ?.

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

RedRag1 said:

AveryLP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.

Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.

(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)

If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.

Nasty Party reverting to type.

I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.

This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-fear-return-of-nasty-party-in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html

Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.

You really must do better.

To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).

Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.

"One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."

He's saying they're *not* scroungers, ffs!

Who do you think he is saying has been calling them it when he says "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury......there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party"...Labour? Yes he has not said it, but he is obviously saying people in Tory HQ and the Treasury are.

I doubt it AveryLP - If it is a good poll for the Murdoch Party it will be tweeted asap.

RedRag1 said:

JosiasJessop said:

He's saying they're *not* scroungers, ffs!

Who do you think he is saying has been calling them it when he says "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury......there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party"...Labour? Yes he has not said it, but he is obviously saying people in Tory HQ and the Treasury are.

They didn't get the language right because they allowed Labour to misrepresent their language.

But let's forget about words and look at actions. This coalition government is really trying to help out that particular demographic, to the tunes of over half a billion pounds:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/14000-troubled-families-turned-around
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18391034
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23027664

And a description of the problem:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6151/2183663.pdf

That's real action and real money on the problem. All done by a coalition Conservative / Lib Dem government. Not a Labour government (although some Labour councils debuted it).

You must be so ashamed.