politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Rochester leaflet that points to how CON will try to ma
CON literature in Rochester is probably a taster for GE15. Looks quite effective
pic.twitter.com/s8krhqg6KF
Comments
-
They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.0 -
2 further bites at the headlines are the Autumn statement and the budget - frankly I don't understand why Con strategy isn't talk about the economy all day every day.
0 -
Theresa May says Cameron's "no ifs or buts" pledge to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" was just a "comment".
Lol! UKIP doesn't actually have to campaign at the election, it can sit back and let the main parties drive voters into their arms.0 -
We're saving our ace in the hole for the general election campaign.TGOHF said:2 further bites at the headlines are the Autumn statement and the budget - frankly I don't understand why Con strategy isn't talk about the economy all day every day.
0 -
frankly I don't understand why Con strategy isn't talk about the economy all day every day.
Because people keep bringing up the deficit?0 -
Can someone explain how Hannibal came to get his arse kicked by Scipio commanding a smaller force fighting far from home?TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
Had he gone soft?0 -
Hannibal was overrated.Swiss_Bob said:
Can someone explain how Hannibal came to get his arse kicked by Scipio commanding a smaller force fighting far from home?TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
Had he gone soft?
He got lucky at Cannae against a couple of inept Romans.
So after Cannae the myth was born that he was good.
First contact with a decent General at Zama and he gets the spanking of his life.0 -
Before copying the "YES" campaign tactics of say every dug breaking wind is a "massive boost for the X campaign" - you do realise they lost ?KentRising said:Theresa May says Cameron's "no ifs or buts" pledge to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" was just a "comment".
Lol! UKIP doesn't actually have to campaign at the election, it can sit back and let the main parties drive voters into their arms.0 -
Didn't realise I was adopting, let alone copying, any 'tactic', merely pointing out how politicians break promises/lie/twist the truth and that is why people hate them. A morally bankrupt group of people.TGOHF said:
Before copying the "YES" campaign tactics of say every dug breaking wind is a "massive boost for the X campaign" - you do realise they lost ?KentRising said:Theresa May says Cameron's "no ifs or buts" pledge to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" was just a "comment".
Lol! UKIP doesn't actually have to campaign at the election, it can sit back and let the main parties drive voters into their arms.
0 -
A distributional effect, perhaps. If I convince you of a recovery, you'll vote Conservative. Therefore I should try to convince you of a recovery.0
-
On the plus side it highlights the narcissism of your approach. Such as Ukip promising to be different then we read all about Gerard Batten MEP...KentRising said:
Didn't realise I was adopting, let alone copying, any 'tactic', merely pointing out how politicians break promises/lie/twist the truth and that is why people hate them. A morally bankrupt group of people.TGOHF said:
Before copying the "YES" campaign tactics of say every dug breaking wind is a "massive boost for the X campaign" - you do realise they lost ?KentRising said:Theresa May says Cameron's "no ifs or buts" pledge to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" was just a "comment".
Lol! UKIP doesn't actually have to campaign at the election, it can sit back and let the main parties drive voters into their arms.
0 -
I would have chosen yellow boxes.0
-
Sigh....TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
You can accept that the boy is a plastic-muzzie in his head; sadly the Jihadi sentiment is engrained within his heart....
:leaves-pigs-and-dogs-alone:0 -
TGOHF, you're assuming I'm UKIP. I'm not.
Actually, I have voted Conservative at every general election I've been eligible to vote in. I was a party member, and campaigned in 2010.
I now wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Sorry I don't fit your narrative. Having fun doing data entry for the new system at central office?0 -
On topic
"144,000 more immigrants than we promised" not on the leaflets?0 -
Haha they're definitely not on fire!KentRising said:TGOHF, you're assuming I'm UKIP. I'm not.
Actually, I have voted Conservative at every general election I've been eligible to vote in. I was a party member, and campaigned in 2010.
I now wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Sorry I don't fit your narrative. Having fun doing data entry for the new system at central office?0 -
Cannae: where a better armed, much larger force was surrounded by a smaller force.TheScreamingEagles said:
Hannibal was overrated.Swiss_Bob said:
Can someone explain how Hannibal came to get his arse kicked by Scipio commanding a smaller force fighting far from home?TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
Had he gone soft?
He got lucky at Cannae against a couple of inept Romans.
So after Cannae the myth was born that he was good.
First contact with a decent General at Zama and he gets the spanking of his life.
True genius and by denying that you make yourself look foolish.0 -
That graph suggests that Labour and UKIP are battling for the attention of the same audience, and that UKIP is attacking Labour's left flank.0
-
Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
It seems that Scottish Labour (and indeed its Westminster flavour) is not short of intrigue just now:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-labour-party-gordon-brown-turned-down-leadership-job-9849298.html?origin=internalSearch
0 -
That's an excellent idea for the long term. But as a solution for problems with less than a 20 years time span, it does have a few minor defects.KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
Pig dog is German/North Korean in origin.FluffyThoughts said:
Sigh....TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
You can accept that the boy is a plastic-muzzie in his head; sadly the Jihadi sentiment is engrained within his heart....
:leaves-pigs-and-dogs-alone:0 -
The Con:UKIP:Lab figures for "Probably a recovery but not felt" are 65:55:47
The respective figures for "There is recovery which I've felt" are 27:8:13
The leaflet addresses the former, but it is the latter which appears to be more closely correlated with vote intention, and the Tories can't really tell individuals that they are better off if they're not. So it doesn't look to me as though this really helps the Tories, except by a little bit at the margins.
Most people are worse off now then they were in 2010. I think that the majority of people were willing to accept this if it meant that the deficit was eliminated and so the perceived risk of the country going bankrupt was reduced. The big problem for the Tories is that they have failed on the deficit. People are worse off and the deficit is still ~£100bn a year.
That's a hard sell.
Since party political electioneering is a zero-sum game then the Tories are not out of the running, but against a competent Opposition they would surely be dead and buried with that sort of record.0 -
I think the issue is more about social conservatism rather than leftiness. Labour used to be a broad church encompassing everyone from greens, to Guardianistas, white working class, immigrants and benefit claimants. The WWC being by far the biggest part of this historically, which is why when Thatcher coopted a large chunk of WWC she won, and when she p*ssed them off with the poll tax, she lost.MonikerDiCanio said:That graph suggests that Labour and UKIP are battling for the attention of the same audience, and that UKIP is attacking Labour's left flank.
But now the Green Party is offering enough seats around the country that significant numbers of Labour votes are moving there, and the WWC are starting to notice that the Labour Party is really a party for champagne socialists and metropolitan liberals, and are looking around for options. The only party offering social conservatism, and the possibility of wage protection (their other concern, and hence historic support for Labour) is UKIP. A social conservative left wing party would clean up at the election, there used to be one, I think it was called The Labour Party
0 -
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
Cameron actually said something sensible in his speech. The key to slowing immigration from the EU is welfare reform.
Personally I think that welfare reform could have a bigger impact than closing borders, if the tories got it right.0 -
We started doing that, then someone sacked Gove and appointed that muppet we have now who is busy soft-pedalling all his reforms.KentRising said:Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
0 -
Mr. Bob, assuming you're after a serious answer, here it is:
1) Scipio's army was made up of veterans
2) Hannibal's army were mostly raw recruits
3) By this stage the Romans had worked out how to defeat elephants, so they were no longer a great advantage
4) Scipio and his army spent months (better part of a year, I think) in Sicily beforehand, training
5) Rome had Numidian cavalry as well at this stage (due to Massinissa), so they had parity (an advantage, as it turned out) in one arm of the military which had typically been their weakest
After the battle Scipio acknowledged Hannibal's battle plan was the better. He just didn't have the material to make it work. Similarly, (a couple of centuries later) Jugurtha was a very clever man, but his soldiers let him down time and again.0 -
Also you'd expect different countries to do better jobs of teaching different skills, which isn't necessary a bad thing. If the British have brought up loads of computer programmers (BBC Model B, Raspberry Pi...) while the Poles have done really well at training mathematicians, maybe it's best to just let the various education systems do what they're good at and let people come and go to wherever their skills are needed.antifrank said:
That's an excellent idea for the long term. But as a solution for problems with less than a 20 years time span, it does have a few minor defects.KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
Indigo said:MonikerDiCanio said:
But now the Green Party is offering enough seats around the country that significant numbers of Labour votes are moving there, and the WWC are starting to notice that the Labour Party is really a party for champagne socialists and metropolitan liberals, and are looking around for options. The only party offering social conservatism, and the possibility of wage protection (their other concern, and hence historic support for Labour) is UKIP. A social conservative left wing party would clean up at the election, there used to be one, I think it was called The Labour Party
Spot on.0 -
Many a true word spoken in jest, Chuka Umunna's Freudian slip.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11220404/Chuka-Umunna-mistakenly-suggests-he-wants-Dave-in-No-10.html0
-
Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?0
-
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
Apart from the subject that must not be mentioned opinion is also divided as to whether the economy will be still be recovering in six months time. Some think it may well go into reverse. I think it would be useful for PB to have a thread header looking into this as it might well be a significant factor for the GE.taffys said:frankly I don't understand why Con strategy isn't talk about the economy all day every day.
Because people keep bringing up the deficit?0 -
Chuka Umunna nominated Ed Miliband in the 2010 leadership election.dr_spyn said:Many a true word spoken in jest, Chuka Umunna's Freudian slip.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11220404/Chuka-Umunna-mistakenly-suggests-he-wants-Dave-in-No-10.html
0 -
Nah, it makes the tabloids happy but it's bullshit. People with enough get-up-and-go to move country want to work. If you really want to stop people migrating you're going to have to either stop them getting in or stop them working once they're in.taffys said:Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
Cameron actually said something sensible in his speech. The key to slowing immigration from the EU is welfare reform.
Personally I think that welfare reform could have a bigger impact than closing borders, if the tories got it right.0 -
I thought he was from ElthamTheScreamingEagles said:
Pig dog is German/North Korean in origin.FluffyThoughts said:
Sigh....TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
You can accept that the boy is a plastic-muzzie in his head; sadly the Jihadi sentiment is engrained within his heart....
:leaves-pigs-and-dogs-alone:0 -
Sky News are kindly repeating Chuka's small error every newscast... should add up to a few minutes of broadcast all day0
-
A lot of the British who won't do the work won't do it because the financial advantage of doing so compared to being on benefits is so small, if it exists at all.rottenborough said:
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
People with enough get-up-and-go to move country want to work.
I believe they come for money, more than work.
If you want to come to the UK to do a menial job, fair enough. But don't expect us to top it up with tax credits, housing benefit, free healthcare and free education for your children.
0 -
Wasn't IDS trying to do something about this, while being shouted down by all and sundry?JonnyJimmy said:
A lot of the British who won't do the work won't do it because the financial advantage of doing so compared to being on benefits is so small, if it exists at all.rottenborough said:
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
0 -
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
Indeed he was. Isn't he still?KentRising said:
Wasn't IDS trying to do something about this, while being shouted down by all and sundry?JonnyJimmy said:
A lot of the British who won't do the work won't do it because the financial advantage of doing so compared to being on benefits is so small, if it exists at all.rottenborough said:
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
YepIndigo said:
I think the issue is more about social conservatism rather than leftiness. Labour used to be a broad church encompassing everyone from greens, to Guardianistas, white working class, immigrants and benefit claimants. The WWC being by far the biggest part of this historically, which is why when Thatcher coopted a large chunk of WWC she won, and when she p*ssed them off with the poll tax, she lost.MonikerDiCanio said:That graph suggests that Labour and UKIP are battling for the attention of the same audience, and that UKIP is attacking Labour's left flank.
But now the Green Party is offering enough seats around the country that significant numbers of Labour votes are moving there, and the WWC are starting to notice that the Labour Party is really a party for champagne socialists and metropolitan liberals, and are looking around for options. The only party offering social conservatism, and the possibility of wage protection (their other concern, and hence historic support for Labour) is UKIP. A social conservative left wing party would clean up at the election, there used to be one, I think it was called The Labour Party0 -
Have been watching Rome : The World's First Superpower.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Bob, assuming you're after a serious answer, here it is:
1) Scipio's army was made up of veterans
2) Hannibal's army were mostly raw recruits
3) By this stage the Romans had worked out how to defeat elephants, so they were no longer a great advantage
4) Scipio and his army spent months (better part of a year, I think) in Sicily beforehand, training
5) Rome had Numidian cavalry as well at this stage (due to Massinissa), so they had parity (an advantage, as it turned out) in one arm of the military which had typically been their weakest
After the battle Scipio acknowledged Hannibal's battle plan was the better. He just didn't have the material to make it work. Similarly, (a couple of centuries later) Jugurtha was a very clever man, but his soldiers let him down time and again.
Was aware of most of the above but still feel that Hannibal should have also have been aware of it. A touch of the problem Napoleon's Armies had with Wellington if slightly reversed?
"They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way"
Whilst the Romans had learnt from their defeats, which is the way isn't it, you find a successful approach and keep using it until it fails. All depends which side of the curve you're on.0 -
This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):
"Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party
Who could he mean? Stella?0 -
Feels like they are scarping the barrel to try to keep the Ed story going. Nothing has actually happened.richardDodd said:Sky News are kindly repeating Chuka's small error every newscast... should add up to a few minutes of broadcast all day
0 -
As Nelson Muntz says:antifrank said:
Chuka Umunna nominated Ed Miliband in the 2010 leadership election.dr_spyn said:Many a true word spoken in jest, Chuka Umunna's Freudian slip.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11220404/Chuka-Umunna-mistakenly-suggests-he-wants-Dave-in-No-10.html
Ha, Ha.
POCUWAS.
0 -
Funny how many of them seems to end up selling a couple of Big Issues and claiming a load of in-work benefits then. Its not about work, its about money, work would be nice, but its very much an optional extra. If you can claim child support for your children back home, even better.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, it makes the tabloids happy but it's bullshit. People with enough get-up-and-go to move country want to work. If you really want to stop people migrating you're going to have to either stop them getting in or stop them working once they're in.taffys said:Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
Cameron actually said something sensible in his speech. The key to slowing immigration from the EU is welfare reform.
Personally I think that welfare reform could have a bigger impact than closing borders, if the tories got it right.
0 -
Daily politics tory (Greg barker?) flailing (being generous) on immigration, saying the level is down 25% and heading in the right direction0
-
It's not people shouting at him that's his problem - pretty much everybody agrees with the goal. The problem is that the implementation is very complicated, and he has absolutely no idea WTF he's doing.KentRising said:
Wasn't IDS trying to do something about this, while being shouted down by all and sundry?JonnyJimmy said:
A lot of the British who won't do the work won't do it because the financial advantage of doing so compared to being on benefits is so small, if it exists at all.rottenborough said:
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?0 -
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
J It was Chuka who made the mistake in a major statement on Sky..he deserves to be lampooned..0
-
Very interesting, except Thatcher never lost, she was removed by ambitious pygmies.Indigo said:
I think the issue is more about social conservatism rather than leftiness. Labour used to be a broad church encompassing everyone from greens, to Guardianistas, white working class, immigrants and benefit claimants. The WWC being by far the biggest part of this historically, which is why when Thatcher coopted a large chunk of WWC she won, and when she p*ssed them off with the poll tax, she lost.MonikerDiCanio said:That graph suggests that Labour and UKIP are battling for the attention of the same audience, and that UKIP is attacking Labour's left flank.
But now the Green Party is offering enough seats around the country that significant numbers of Labour votes are moving there, and the WWC are starting to notice that the Labour Party is really a party for champagne socialists and metropolitan liberals, and are looking around for options. The only party offering social conservatism, and the possibility of wage protection (their other concern, and hence historic support for Labour) is UKIP. A social conservative left wing party would clean up at the election, there used to be one, I think it was called The Labour Party
0 -
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
What has Umunna done / said?0
-
The crisis is over. Ed is safe...
@LadPolitics: Miliband exit odds shorten again - the latest betting.
http://t.co/uhqAD76kYm0 -
How many is that? Feel free to make a reasonable estimate if you don't have any official numbers. Then divide by the total number of EU immigrants and let us know what you get.Indigo said:
Funny how many of them seems to end up selling a couple of Big Issues and claiming a load of in-work benefits then.0 -
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
antifrank does haughty disdain!!antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Alistair Darling!rottenborough said:This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):
"Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party
Who could he mean? Stella?
I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)0 -
From what I have seen canvassing in R&S there are not a lot of people saying Reckless this time but not next May .Labour switchers look like they have gone for good .One or two ex Tories have said they may switch back but it is not really that sort of by-election given how close it is to the General Election and the fact that Reckless was the sitting MP anyway so it is not an experiment or a speculative fling.TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.0 -
I am aware of that, but that just hastened the demise imo. When she lost the mondeo man vote she was toast.MonikerDiCanio said:
Very interesting, except Thatcher never lost, she was removed by ambitious pygmies.Indigo said:
I think the issue is more about social conservatism rather than leftiness. Labour used to be a broad church encompassing everyone from greens, to Guardianistas, white working class, immigrants and benefit claimants. The WWC being by far the biggest part of this historically, which is why when Thatcher coopted a large chunk of WWC she won, and when she p*ssed them off with the poll tax, she lost.MonikerDiCanio said:That graph suggests that Labour and UKIP are battling for the attention of the same audience, and that UKIP is attacking Labour's left flank.
But now the Green Party is offering enough seats around the country that significant numbers of Labour votes are moving there, and the WWC are starting to notice that the Labour Party is really a party for champagne socialists and metropolitan liberals, and are looking around for options. The only party offering social conservatism, and the possibility of wage protection (their other concern, and hence historic support for Labour) is UKIP. A social conservative left wing party would clean up at the election, there used to be one, I think it was called The Labour Party
0 -
They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.JonnyJimmy said:
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
Who were you canvassing for?PrinceofTaranto said:
From what I have seen canvassing in R&S there are not a lot of people saying Reckless this time but not next May .Labour switchers look like they have gone for good .One or two ex Tories have said they may switch back but it is not really that sort of by-election given how close it is to the General Election and the fact that Reckless was the sitting MP anyway so it is not an experiment or a speculative fling.TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.0 -
Mr. Bob, I watched the first part, but wasn't too taken with it (and I'm watching more TV now than I have for a while, so missing it allows for more work to be done).
There's not much Hannibal could've done better. He couldn't magic men out of nowhere, he had no prospect of stopping Scipio training his men in Sicily or gaining experience in Spain, and his strategy was praised as the better by Scipio after the battle.
The key lesson the Second Punic War teaches us is that it's better to have a fantastic system of governance than it is an individually spectacular general.0 -
I didn't keep my free souvenir copy of Cameron's contract with the British people the he signed and had delivered to every household in the land. You'd imagine that all political parties worth their salt would have an archive of this sort of thing.. I wonder how good an audit of it would look now?isam said:On topic
"144,000 more immigrants than we promised" not on the leaflets?0 -
That's the point right there; Labour wouldn't have made anything like meaningful cuts, they would have jacked up taxes (on evil bankers) to cut the deficit.edmundintokyo said:
They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.JonnyJimmy said:
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
0 -
UKIPJohnO said:
Who were you canvassing for?PrinceofTaranto said:
From what I have seen canvassing in R&S there are not a lot of people saying Reckless this time but not next May .Labour switchers look like they have gone for good .One or two ex Tories have said they may switch back but it is not really that sort of by-election given how close it is to the General Election and the fact that Reckless was the sitting MP anyway so it is not an experiment or a speculative fling.TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.0 -
It may well be down, but unfortunately not where people want it to be down. It won't be down in regards to unskilled EU immigration, but it might be among doctors and nurses from the Commonwealth, for instance.isam said:Daily politics tory (Greg barker?) flailing (being generous) on immigration, saying the level is down 25% and heading in the right direction
0 -
That's a rather perverse interpretation.antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
Don't like that so many locals are feckless layabouts that don't have enough self-respect to get off their sofas and earn a living might be more accurate. Even if being on benefits paid the same as working, you cant better yourself or your family on benefits, you can't get a rise or a promotion, you cant get the pleasure of seeing the money you make provide for your family.
Some jobs don't pay well enough for a middle class standard of living, people need to get over it, they never have and they never will, my job doesn't pay well enough for lots of things my neighbours have either, but I manage to contain my disappointment.
You paint a picture of a country with too many entitled layabouts that feel the world owes them a living, and we have had too many years of government grubbing for their votes quite happy to tell them that it does.
0 -
No plan Bstate_go_away said:
antifrank does haughty disdain!!antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Surely the Conservative by-election leaflet should say it's the COALITION long term economic plan securing a better future - NOT the Conservative long term economic plan.
Innocent face0 -
Holmes seemed very hard in that interview. Could it be he's knows of first hand briefing against Ed by Chuka and that fed his annoyance at Chuka's answers?Jonathan said:
Feels like they are scarping the barrel to try to keep the Ed story going. Nothing has actually happened.richardDodd said:Sky News are kindly repeating Chuka's small error every newscast... should add up to a few minutes of broadcast all day
0 -
I've got it, you're not having it though!!!OblitusSumMe said:
I didn't keep my free souvenir copy of Cameron's contract with the British people the he signed and had delivered to every household in the land. You'd imagine that all political parties worth their salt would have an archive of this sort of thing.. I wonder how good an audit of it would look now?isam said:On topic
"144,000 more immigrants than we promised" not on the leaflets?
0 -
I love the sight of a financial tourist white settler, who has bought property in Hungary because you get a lot more for your money, pretending to himself that no one moves country except for motives which would qualify him for beatification. Unless of course you do a lot of work out there at rates undercutting the natives, in which case my apologies.antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
0 -
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Pretty sure that happens anyway otherwise we wouldn't import the vast amount of stuff made in China that we do.edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Not in particular disagreement. However, I would not have engaged Scipio in a stand up fight in those circumstances, fight them on the beaches? draw them out into line chasing a mirage as Wellington did to Marshall ? in Spain?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Bob, I watched the first part, but wasn't too taken with it (and I'm watching more TV now than I have for a while, so missing it allows for more work to be done).
There's not much Hannibal could've done better. He couldn't magic men out of nowhere, he had no prospect of stopping Scipio training his men in Sicily or gaining experience in Spain, and his strategy was praised as the better by Scipio after the battle.
The key lesson the Second Punic War teaches us is that it's better to have a fantastic system of governance than it is an individually spectacular general.
Didn't the Greeks let the Persians burn Athens rather than engage them there?0 -
You will come to the conclusion that Ukip are far far to the left of Labour - and you will be correct.antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
They want the state to control everything down to who gets hired for jobs.
0 -
I think the simple numbers approach is the right one in terms of getting the message across. The problem is that for all the Tory talk on the economy here in Kent and around the country, actually their record is not good enough.
It looks like they're scrabbling around for the best headline figures where there is a dearth of them. Take the tax one - people pay VAT too. And the last five years has exploded the myth that tax cuts win votes. It's pay rises that now do that - and this is the Tory achilles heel.0 -
Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.Swiss_Bob said:
Alistair Darling!rottenborough said:This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):
"Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party
Who could he mean? Stella?
I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)0 -
That's not how British politics works. Labour would have had an easier time cutting spending than the Tories, since their main threat would have been coming from the right.JonnyJimmy said:
That's the point right there; Labour wouldn't have made anything like meaningful cuts, they would have jacked up taxes (on evil bankers) to cut the deficit.edmundintokyo said:
They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.JonnyJimmy said:
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
It's easy to get misled by this if you make the mistake of believing what politicians say, because the volume of the rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual difference between the parties.0 -
Double post deleted
0 -
Many thanks for that.PrinceofTaranto said:
From what I have seen canvassing in R&S there are not a lot of people saying Reckless this time but not next May .Labour switchers look like they have gone for good .One or two ex Tories have said they may switch back but it is not really that sort of by-election given how close it is to the General Election and the fact that Reckless was the sitting MP anyway so it is not an experiment or a speculative fling.TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
What was the Labour canvassing effort like?
I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.0 -
Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html0 -
They were busy plotting :-)TheScreamingEagles said:
Many thanks for that.PrinceofTaranto said:
From what I have seen canvassing in R&S there are not a lot of people saying Reckless this time but not next May .Labour switchers look like they have gone for good .One or two ex Tories have said they may switch back but it is not really that sort of by-election given how close it is to the General Election and the fact that Reckless was the sitting MP anyway so it is not an experiment or a speculative fling.TheScreamingEagles said:They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
What was the Labour canvassing effort like?
I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it is non exist in Rochester this weekend.0 -
So they are in fact Nationalist Socialists?TGOHF said:
You will come to the conclusion that Ukip are far far to the left of Labour - and you will be correct.antifrank said:I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
They want the state to control everything down to who gets hired for jobs.0 -
Twitter #webackEd open to mischief makers.0
-
No vote on the EAW today0
-
I think, rather, that this explains one of Miliband's myriad problems; he knows he'd have to make cuts but he can't say where because it'll scare off Labour's base support. So he says nothing.edmundintokyo said:
That's not how British politics works. Labour would have had an easier time cutting spending than the Tories, since their main threat would have been coming from the right.JonnyJimmy said:
That's the point right there; Labour wouldn't have made anything like meaningful cuts, they would have jacked up taxes (on evil bankers) to cut the deficit.edmundintokyo said:
They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.JonnyJimmy said:
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
It's easy to get misled by this if you make the mistake of believing what politicians say, because the volume of the rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual difference between the parties.
0 -
You really are on a roll today. I am strongly in favor of controlled immigration to the UK, in the manner of the Australian or Canadian points system, and yet I manage to be married to an immigrant, have adopted an immigrant, and be currently teaching poor children in a third world country.. xenophobia ?antifrank said:
Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
0 -
You have chosen live in a country, Japan , famously averse to uncontrolled immigration. I don't think we should take anything you have to say on this topic seriously, should we ?edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Agreed. Politically I think this is his best strategy under the circumstances - I can't think of a better one.JonnyJimmy said:
I think, rather, that this explains one of Miliband's myriad problems; he knows he'd have to make cuts but he can't say where because it'll scare off Labour's base support. So he says nothing.edmundintokyo said:
That's not how British politics works. Labour would have had an easier time cutting spending than the Tories, since their main threat would have been coming from the right.JonnyJimmy said:
That's the point right there; Labour wouldn't have made anything like meaningful cuts, they would have jacked up taxes (on evil bankers) to cut the deficit.edmundintokyo said:
They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.JonnyJimmy said:
So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.edmundintokyo said:
They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...JonnyJimmy said:
But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?edmundintokyo said:
It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).JonnyJimmy said:Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?
It's easy to get misled by this if you make the mistake of believing what politicians say, because the volume of the rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual difference between the parties.0 -
The Earl of Sandwich has opened a sandwich shop according to the press. Don't know where that leaves your point, but it does mean he can wrong-foot the apostrophe police by putting up a sign saying SANDWICH'S.edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.0 -
Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefallantifrank said:
Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.edmundintokyo said:
Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.antifrank said:
In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.
Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html0 -
My understanding was that there was a cross-party consensus on Universal Credit, which led to cross-party meetings after the 2010 election. When IDS gave incredibly Maoist responses in these meetings to mild Labour criticism of the ambitious timetable and lack of detail on the implementation they became more critical.KentRising said:
Wasn't IDS trying to do something about this, while being shouted down by all and sundry?JonnyJimmy said:
A lot of the British who won't do the work won't do it because the financial advantage of doing so compared to being on benefits is so small, if it exists at all.rottenborough said:
But what about non-skilled jobs? It seems there are large numbers of EU workers out in the fields of Eastern England doing work that British people won't do anymore.JonnyJimmy said:
= "well I wouldn't start from here"KentRising said:Anyone fooled into thinking Cameron was serious on immigration and the EU need only watch his speech at the CBI. He is a europhile, who agrees the country needs high levels of immigration to meet the "skills shortage". Bet he won't be saying that on the doorstep in Rochester.
Here's an idea: why don't we sort our education system out so there's no skills shortage in the first place?
It's worth noting that there has been a lot of cross-party consensus on this sort of thing for a long time. Labour's tax credits were simply an expansion of the family credit system that existed at the time that they took office in 1997. While Osborne has reduced the generosity of the tax credit system the principle is still in place, and the idea of Universal Credit is simply to improve the implementation of those principles.
It's worth pointing out that IDS isn't the only person to have had problems with the implementation of this sort of thing. The introduction of the tax credit system was a massive mess that I experienced at the sharp end. I think I still have a bunch of random girocheques that the system sent me in error, that I dutifully did not cash in and then the bureaucrats insisted I pay them back for a different set of payments that didn't match with what I'd received - which they achieved by docking my future payments.0 -
50-1 isn't value?rottenborough said:
Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.Swiss_Bob said:
Alistair Darling!rottenborough said:This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):
"Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party
Who could he mean? Stella?
I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.
1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
3. He's a 'big beast'.
4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
5. 1-4 make him the next PM.0 -
But it's arguably in his personal interest that David Cameron wins in 2015.antifrank said:
Chuka Umunna nominated Ed Miliband in the 2010 leadership election.dr_spyn said:Many a true word spoken in jest, Chuka Umunna's Freudian slip.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11220404/Chuka-Umunna-mistakenly-suggests-he-wants-Dave-in-No-10.html
Assume Miliband wins, then he will be there for at least 5 and probably 10 years. Chuka is unlikely to have as good a shot at the top job as he would in 2015 following a Tory win.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
