Haven't Labour given themselves another problem by effectively announcing "Ed is dead" is dead? The implication seems to be they'll "do a Livingstone" with an early post-election change of PM (older - quite a lot older! - readers will recall the GLC Labour group's removal of Andrew McIntosh after he'd won the election for them).
That's not the implication. The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election. If he wins the election then it's empirically disproved and he's safe.
Ed is speaking today to offer big business a deal - he'll never take Britain out of the UK providing they raise pay to Living wage levels.
This is a reminder of how Ed Miliband gets to be leading a large political party, and favourite to become the next Prime Minister, despite being the third least charismatic person in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all her various colonies and dominions.
The EU is a tricky issue for Labour as so many voters disagree with them on it and it involves cooperating with foreigners which is always unpopular, but this is a very clever and sharp way to frame it.
Are PB people saying what they mean today? Will Ed take Britain out of the UK? I guess that would leave Northern Ireland?
I'm assuming Felix meant to say the EU, although it's probably true that the UK leaving the EU would cause the subsequent breakup of the UK as well.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But really, is it? Let's say Reckless wins by a clear 10%. He will have done so on the back of the Labour vote deserting en masse - from a seat they used to hold - to return a piss-poor MP who is a member of a party that is even more anathema to the Labour DNA than the Tories.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
"Yay - the Tories lost!
Er.
Hmmmm....."
Yep, but trumping that will undeniably be the 'UKIP on the march" story. And good news stories for UKIP are seriously bad news for the Tories.
If Reckless hadn't been a knob and prostituted himself to a protest party who have no chance of power but an excellent chance of putting Labour in power, Labour's outlook now would be even more miserable. Suicidal in fact, and six months of in-fighting and severe depression would've ensued. And with Ed in charge too. Ouch.
Where we differ is in the notion that "UKIP on the march" most damages the Tories. I believe that, point forward, any such march is going to come not from Tories - who have been bled dry by UKIP - but from a Labour party led by Ed is Crap. Ed's numbers with 2010 Labour voters went over a cliff in October. That won't result in a big shift to the Tories, but it will to both UKIP and the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Opinium's 24 October survey asked
"I would vote for UKIP if I thought they could win in the constituency I live in" agree/disagree
EiT, "The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election."
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
EiT, "The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election."
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
A LOTO who wins the election is a successful LOTO by definition. If you're right about how disastrous he is then he won't win, but if he does win then he's safe.
Although it is worth remembering that that is before Housing Benefit, which (where I live) is about £250/week.
So, actually, your after-tax income is £320/week -> which may not be fabulously high, but isn't the end of the word. People can (and do) live on this.
The big issue is that if you are offered a £300/week (pre-tax job) then the incentive to go into work is small. How much better off will you be - even with in-work benefits?
Wow, where do you live? The maximum HB for a single person in Bristol is £116/wk, and Bristol is one of the most expensive cities for private rentals outside of London (Bristol Local Housing Allowance rates: www.bristol.gov.uk/page/financial-help-and-benefits/local-housing-allowance-housing-benefit.)
I'm sure most people on here will dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do pretty robust research work on what the general public think should be minimum standards of living for someone in the UK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis.
Big front page splash in today's FT on the reality of the budget cuts to come and Osborne's smoke and mirrors over cuts versus tax.
Yeah, £48 billion worth of cuts rather than £25bn expected.
If Ed becomes PM on say 31% of the vote, and has to enact those cuts, well Labour could be down low teens in the polls.
Labour could be destroyed for a generation in the next parliament.
Is that what's needed to eliminate the Structural Deficit? Because Labour could just not do that. I doubt the Tories would either...
Pass
George Osborne must cut deeper into the budgets of the army, police and courts as the annual savings needed to meet his austerity targets are set almost to double to £48bn, Financial Times analysis shows.
As Britain hits the midway mark of its decade of planned austerity, the findings suggest that far from the cuts becoming lighter after 2015 – as the chancellor and prime minister David Cameron have suggested – they are poised to become much harsher for departments outside the protected areas of health, schools and overseas aid.
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
I'm sure most people on here will dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do pretty robust research work on what the general public think should be minimum standards of living for someone in the UK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis.
I don't particularly dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but I do get very tired of them constantly recalibrating relative poverty until it borders on requiring you to cable TV and a foreign holiday every year or you are poor. For half the people I see every day that is luxury beyond their wildest dreams.
Big front page splash in today's FT on the reality of the budget cuts to come and Osborne's smoke and mirrors over cuts versus tax.
Yeah, £48 billion worth of cuts rather than £25bn expected.
If Ed becomes PM on say 31% of the vote, and has to enact those cuts, well Labour could be down low teens in the polls.
Labour could be destroyed for a generation in the next parliament.
Is that what's needed to eliminate the Structural Deficit? Because Labour could just not do that. I doubt the Tories would either...
Pass
George Osborne must cut deeper into the budgets of the army, police and courts as the annual savings needed to meet his austerity targets are set almost to double to £48bn, Financial Times analysis shows.
As Britain hits the midway mark of its decade of planned austerity, the findings suggest that far from the cuts becoming lighter after 2015 – as the chancellor and prime minister David Cameron have suggested – they are poised to become much harsher for departments outside the protected areas of health, schools and overseas aid.
The key phrase is "to meet his austerity targets". The obvious conclusion - have a go on the FT calculator if you don't believe me - is that whoever wins the election won't meet Osborne's austerity targets. That won't be the end of the world - although they won't have eliminated the deficit they'll have cut it, so they'll have a reasonably good story to tell.
All publicity is good publicity and so it is with Ed. His problem isn't that he's been seen as hopeless (other than by his opponents) it's that he's been invisible. This latest farago has cast the spotlight onto him and given him an outstanding opportunity to define himself and his vision.
I'm sure most people on here will dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do pretty robust research work on what the general public think should be minimum standards of living for someone in the UK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis.
I don't particularly dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but I do get very tired of them constantly recalibrating relative poverty until it borders on requiring you to cable TV and a foreign holiday every year or you are poor. For half the people I see every day that is luxury beyond their wildest dreams.
But that's the point - the research doesn't show what the JRF thinks, it shows what the general public think is needed for a basic standard of living (and currently the general public think that internet access at home *is* essential, but cable TV isn't.)
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
Perhaps we could deport the unproductive UK residents that contribute to the deficit as well. There are some nice empty bits of Siberia, which could make a handy new Van Diemens Land. I'm sure if we were nice enough to the Russians they'd let us use some of it.
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
Perhaps we could deport the unproductive UK residents that contribute to the deficit as well. There are some nice empty bits of Siberia, which could make a handy new Van Diemens Land. I'm sure if we were nice enough to the Russians they'd let us use some of it.
Deporting anyone who has ever been on The Jeremy Kyle show will be the best option.
The key phrase is "to meet his austerity targets". The obvious conclusion - have a go on the FT calculator if you don't believe me - is that whoever wins the election won't meet Osborne's austerity targets. That won't be the end of the world - although they won't have eliminated the deficit they'll have cut it, so they'll have a reasonably good story to tell.
But cutting the deficit only reduces the rate at which things get worse. If we cut 50% off the deficit, we are still owning 50bn more every year to someone, and we are still increasing the total amount we pay in interest every year by the equivalent amount. In 2012, the average household is paying £2000 every year in tax, just to service the interest on the debt, roughly the same as servicing the whole defense budget.
I'm sure most people on here will dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do pretty robust research work on what the general public think should be minimum standards of living for someone in the UK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis.
I don't particularly dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but I do get very tired of them constantly recalibrating relative poverty until it borders on requiring you to cable TV and a foreign holiday every year or you are poor. For half the people I see every day that is luxury beyond their wildest dreams.
But that's the point - the research doesn't show what the JRF thinks, it shows what the general public think is needed for a basic standard of living (and currently the general public think that internet access at home *is* essential, but cable TV isn't.)
Sorry, my mistake, its the general public that are seriously deluded then.
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
Last week's CReAM report showed non EEA migrants contributed £5bn since 2001 whereas natives cost £616bn. Shouldn't we kick out the natives if we were to base our decisions on pure mathematics?
EiT, "The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election."
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
I am not sure Ed Miliband can be deposed except by conference resolution (but I'm open to be corrected on that) - basically he has to be pressured into resigning. Dramatic resignations do happen but I'm far from convinced Labour would benefit from one in the pre-election period despite the OTT brouhaha in the press and elsewhere. A resignation would imply their leader was not fit for office and voters might then reasonably ask if the party can be trusted in government given that it chose him in the first place. Even the skills of Michael Howard were unable to revive the Tories that much after the IDS debacle despite a hugely unpopular war being waged by the incumbent gov't. Howard also had much longer than any successor to Ed would have. My feeling is It's Ed or bust.
EiT, "The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election."
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
A LOTO who wins the election is a successful LOTO by definition. If you're right about how disastrous he is then he won't win, but if he does win then he's safe.
Iain Duncan Smith "won" the local elections and his defenestration started the very next day.
EiT, "The argument against Ed Miliband is that he doesn't have the charisma to win the election."
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
A LOTO who wins the election is a successful LOTO by definition. If you're right about how disastrous he is then he won't win, but if he does win then he's safe.
Iain Duncan Smith "won" the local elections and his defenestration started the very next day.
Actually it began just before.
Crispin Blunt resigned before the polls closed then to his amazement the Tories won.
As terrible strategies go, it is up there with Hannibal
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
Perhaps we could deport the unproductive UK residents that contribute to the deficit as well. There are some nice empty bits of Siberia, which could make a handy new Van Diemens Land. I'm sure if we were nice enough to the Russians they'd let us use some of it.
Deporting anyone who has ever been on The Jeremy Kyle show will be the best option.
Still no support for my plan to package up "prime" Uk resident spare Labour units and sell batches of 1000 of them to the Qataris to build the World Cup stadiums. Payment and reduces the deficit ongoing as benefits are reduced.
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
If non EU immigration best case scenario is that is cost 120 billion over ten years then the majority of the fiscal consolidation can be achieved simply by ending immigration and deporting those already here.
Perhaps we could deport the unproductive UK residents that contribute to the deficit as well. There are some nice empty bits of Siberia, which could make a handy new Van Diemens Land. I'm sure if we were nice enough to the Russians they'd let us use some of it.
Deporting anyone who has ever been on The Jeremy Kyle show will be the best option.
Still no support for my plan to package up "prime" Uk resident spare Labour units and sell batches of 1000 of them to the Qataris to build the World Cup stadiums. Payment and reduces the deficit ongoing as benefits are reduced.
Sort of a Collateralized Deficit Obligation then ?
For those that are interested some anecdotal canvassing info from R&S .Canvassed an area around the Chatham marina on the outskirts of the constituency on Saturday (main parties did not canvass on Sunday though the Greens did).Area is perceived to be strongly Conservative and they have obviously thrown money at it with big Kelly Tolhurst billboards around the Marina area.Tories and Ukip seem pretty even steven with Labour vote almost non-existent in an area where they must have at least turned up when they won in 2005.However ,there are alot of undecideds as well as quite a few who are definitely will not vote and say so.These undecideds ,who seem to have experienced significant levels of contact yet still cannot make up their minds, divide between genuine Tory/Ukip waverers and many who say they haven't even really addressed their minds to it yet.Got to believe many of the latter category will not vote,particularly as there are not huge numbers of registered PV voters.This suggests turnover will not be that high at least in this part of the constituency although voters I believe are more motivated elsewhere in R&S . If the Tories do not get these undecideds out in areas like this you have to believe they will struggle.
Perhaps we could deport the unproductive UK residents that contribute to the deficit as well. There are some nice empty bits of Siberia, which could make a handy new Van Diemens Land. I'm sure if we were nice enough to the Russians they'd let us use some of it.
Or send them to Jobbiklund:
JSA and Housing 'bennies' could improve the neighbourhood (and attract property-rentiers of basement swimming-pools)...!
Well within MOE of course - and Populus weights Conservative and (especially) Labour and Lib Dem supporters favourably and downgrades UKIP - based on their poor voting intention last election.
You may like to know that in THIS Populus report (2047), UKIP were weighted from 291 to 160, whereas in the LAST Populus report (2011) UKIP were weighted from 285 to 187.
Comments
"I would vote for UKIP if I thought they could win in the constituency I live in" agree/disagree
33% current-Con agree
17% current-Lab agree
25% current-LD agree.
p.37 of PDF
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/sites/ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/files/vi_21_10_2014_tables.pdf
10/11/2014 09:45
Theresa May flaps on Tory immigration promise that they broke youtube.com/watch?v=9hInK-…
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9hInK-Ze_NA
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29985252?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
And one of them is Mr Ed.....
No, that is not the argument.
The argument is that does not have the competence to be a successful LOTO (inspiring the team around him, delivering conference speeches). He is the worst Labour LOTO of all time, and only IDS compares to him in general uselessness.
LOTO is an easier job to do than PM. A poor LOTO will make a disastrous PM.
The Tories were right to depose IDS. Labour should depose EM. Ig they don't, there is worse to come,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11220404/Chuka-Umunna-mistakenly-suggests-he-wants-Dave-in-No-10.html
I'm sure most people on here will dismiss them as hopeless lefties, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do pretty robust research work on what the general public think should be minimum standards of living for someone in the UK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis.
George Osborne must cut deeper into the budgets of the army, police and courts as the annual savings needed to meet his austerity targets are set almost to double to £48bn, Financial Times analysis shows.
As Britain hits the midway mark of its decade of planned austerity, the findings suggest that far from the cuts becoming lighter after 2015 – as the chancellor and prime minister David Cameron have suggested – they are poised to become much harsher for departments outside the protected areas of health, schools and overseas aid.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5426fc12-6346-11e4-8a63-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3If0cIC5O
Crispin Blunt resigned before the polls closed then to his amazement the Tories won.
As terrible strategies go, it is up there with Hannibal
JSA and Housing 'bennies' could improve the neighbourhood (and attract property-rentiers of basement swimming-pools)...!
You may like to know that in THIS Populus report (2047), UKIP were weighted from 291 to 160, whereas in the LAST Populus report (2011) UKIP were weighted from 285 to 187.
Hence the reduction in support
http://unfashionista.com/2014/11/05/why-was-jasna-badzak-arrested-for-rting-a-critical-blog-about-ukip/
"This blog is a story of how two Met Police Officers conspired and colluded against a private citizen on behalf of a politician...."
http://unfashionista.com/2014/11/05/why-was-jasna-badzak-arrested-for-rting-a-critical-blog-about-ukip/
"This blog is a story of how two Met Police Officers conspired and colluded against a private citizen on behalf of a politician...."