politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson says that in past fortnight we’ve seen a dif
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson says that in past fortnight we’ve seen a different EdM with an effective gameplan
It’s easy to look at British politics as though it were boxing. Journalists will often speak of whether there were any ‘knock out blows’ in Prime Minister’s. Instead I look at the it through the prism of sport I love, which PB old hands know is tennis.
Comments
-
It's a plan, How successful it will be is up in the air at the moment.0
-
Certainly "going for tax avoiders" is a good move. If questioned on specifics he can always say" Well obviously I am not going to say now, before I am elected, because that would just tip them off and give them time to make other arrangements."0
-
Re horridneess. Re-watching 1992 election coverage. Complaining about nasty personal attacks was a pastime reserved for the defeated side.0
-
It gets him away from talking about the economy, unemployment ,welfare reforms or his energy policy so it must be a welcome relief.
Problem is that the NHS, tax avoidance & class based politics can't fill in the next 3 months.'0 -
@john_zims
And bashing benefits recipients can?0 -
If Miliband is prepared to name, shame and take on tax avoiding Labour supporters and donors including former ministers, I'll take him seriously.No_Offence_Alan said:Certainly "going for tax avoiders" is a good move. If questioned on specifics he can always say" Well obviously I am not going to say now, before I am elected, because that would just tip them off and give them time to make other arrangements."
Until then, he's talking balls.0 -
He's going to go after his mother, his two biggest donors and the Labour Party?No_Offence_Alan said:Certainly "going for tax avoiders" is a good move.
0 -
To continue the tennis analogy, Ed has to 'hold the break'. In other words the perceived association of the tories with tax-dodgers needs to be cemented, and voters need to start believing that he would do something about it. However, past form rather suggests his inability to sustain an advantage in this way. But we shall see.0
-
Family? Pah Humbug.JonnyJimmy said:
He's going to go after his mother, his two biggest donors and the Labour Party?No_Offence_Alan said:Certainly "going for tax avoiders" is a good move.
0 -
@JonnyJimmy
Can Dave do much?
It would require tackling his family as well?
And the privileges that allowed him to get where he is?0 -
Everyone here wants to talk about Ed's tax avoidance, why so shy about Dave?0
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.0
-
Dave doesn't have to. He hasn't been a massive hypocrite, so hasn't brought his own affairs under the spotlight.Smarmeron said:@JonnyJimmy
Can Dave do much?
It would require tackling his family as well?
And the privileges that allowed him to get where he is?
Ed has. And I'm pretty sure there'll be plenty of papers and bloggers prepared to direct the spotlight at the murkiest and most hypocritical corners of Labour.0 -
"A dodgy Prime Minister, up to his neck in it"?
I wonder what he meant?
He must have known his tax affairs would be scrutinised, they were on at least three previous occasions?
It's a puzzle.0 -
William Hague also had his good weeks.
Though, of course, Labour may form a minority government, without doing any better than the Tories in 2001.0 -
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
0 -
@JonnyJimmy
Yes. the papers are generally keen on shining the light of truth into Labours dark corners.
Not so keen on doing the same for the Tories, but it has always been the way.
On a brighter note, those bank leaks appear to be only partial, they have millions of other bits of data to collate.
I assume we will not be short of entertainment.0 -
Dave "I don't comment on the tax affairs of individuals what Jimmy Carr did was wrong" Cameron hasn't been a hypocrite?JonnyJimmy said:
Dave doesn't have to. He hasn't been a massive hypocrite, so hasn't brought his own affairs under the spotlight.Smarmeron said:@JonnyJimmy
Can Dave do much?
It would require tackling his family as well?
And the privileges that allowed him to get where he is?
Ed has. And I'm pretty sure there'll be plenty of papers and bloggers prepared to direct the spotlight at the murkiest and most hypocritical corners of Labour.0 -
Good point. I remember being very impressed with Hague when he had Labour on the ropes over the Ecclestone scandal. That was when it emerged that Labour had exempt Formula One from the costly tobacco advertising ban for no other reason than Bernie had paid thousands into Labour Party coffers. Quite an outrage when you think back on it. But nothing really came of it.Sean_F said:William Hague also had his good weeks.
Though, of course, Labour may form a minority government, without doing any better than the Tories in 2001.0 -
Ed only made a (hypocritical) point because The Guardian and the BBC joined together to help Labour and pushed it into the headlines. The tax stuff happened under a Labour government (of which Ed was a part) which did nothing about it. Henry GM is proposing Labour continue to smear the Conservatives.0
-
What's he done?Smarmeron said:Everyone here wants to talk about Ed's tax avoidance, why so shy about Dave?
(Referring to his father isn't answering the question).0 -
Why do we still think Ed is crap? Ed is most definitely not crap! He is merely misunderstood, and I put it to you that is the chief reason why he is so maligned and ridiculed by the evil right-wing media.
I am certain you will agree with me that Ed is magnificently charismatic and eloquent. He is an inspiring and refreshing standard bearer for the social democratic tradition in our great nation.
Yes, indeed: One Nation. Nay, his performance at PMQs this week must surely have been amongst the greatest (if not the greatest) ever given by a leader of the Labour Party, or indeed of any party leader! Such magnificence, such poise, such alacrity. Wow! And his wonderful repertoire of jokes would put even Harry Hill to shame!
He is articulate, passionate, an accomplished orator, and I think a real progressive alternative to the smarmy posh boy Cameron.0 -
Good afternoon:
With Tennis players like Ed Miliband, we should all take up Archery.0 -
Henry G needs to go in to a dark room and have a long lie down.0
-
D. Miliband still alive, as far as I know. Or is there another brother?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.
0 -
@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?0 -
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
0 -
ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/5665819890596003840 -
Off-topic:
Verbal was the assasin: Kobayashi is 'Keyser Söze' as the angered party. Brilliant film (or filem) that requires a new look....
Verbal is too young, but a useful deflect. The Söze family where killed in the 'Eighties (hence the Söze haircut). The response occurred long before the final acts of revenge.
Ergo: Kobayashi is 'Keyser Söze'.
0 -
Not much complaining around here when people "smear" Miliband about his family, be it his finances or alleged lack of fraternal piety. Self-delusion about who is leading in the polls is the more usual sentiment.perdix said:Ed only made a (hypocritical) point because The Guardian and the BBC joined together to help Labour and pushed it into the headlines. The tax stuff happened under a Labour government (of which Ed was a part) which did nothing about it. Henry GM is proposing Labour continue to smear the Conservatives.
0 -
I think singling out Carr was a mistake.Alistair said:
Dave "I don't comment on the tax affairs of individuals what Jimmy Carr did was wrong" Cameron hasn't been a hypocrite?JonnyJimmy said:
Dave doesn't have to. He hasn't been a massive hypocrite, so hasn't brought his own affairs under the spotlight.Smarmeron said:@JonnyJimmy
Can Dave do much?
It would require tackling his family as well?
And the privileges that allowed him to get where he is?
Ed has. And I'm pretty sure there'll be plenty of papers and bloggers prepared to direct the spotlight at the murkiest and most hypocritical corners of Labour.
But at least he said it while his government was going after tax dodgers. Various schemes, like the one Gary Barlow was in, have been shut down and taxes have been paid that wouldn't have been under Labour.
Ed didn't go after tax dodgers when he was in government. He seems to have saved up his anger about it for when he can be an opportunistic hypocritical shit in opposition.0 -
Ed got terribly upset when his dead father was smeared. Perhaps you should follow his guiding example.Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?0 -
Alternatively, as "a senior Labour figure" puts it, Ed is engaging in a “elongated rant on behalf of the disillusioned, disenamoured and disagreeable”.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21643142-labour-partys-campaign-patchwork-angry-protests-no-coherent-theme
Though the tax row has been good for him this week which will no doubt encourage him.
As an aside, Lleyton Hewitt [when at his prime] was known as one of the most immature and dislikeable players on tour.0 -
@TheWatcher
I prefer to follow your example. ;-)0 -
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
Why do we still think Ed is crap? Ed is most definitely not crap! He is merely misunderstood, and I put it to you that is the chief reason why he is so maligned and ridiculed by the evil right-wing media.
I am certain you will agree with me that Ed is magnificently charismatic and eloquent. He is an inspiring and refreshing standard bearer for the social democratic tradition in our great nation.
Yes, indeed: One Nation. Nay, his performance at PMQs this week must surely have been amongst the greatest (if not the greatest) ever given by a leader of the Labour Party, or indeed of any party leader! Such magnificence, such poise, such alacrity. Wow! And his wonderful repertoire of jokes would put even Harry Hill to shame!
He is articulate, passionate, an accomplished orator, and I think a real progressive alternative to the smarmy posh boy Cameron.
Joke post of the day award!
On a serious note, even poor performers have the occasional bit of luck. The most important figures I've seen this year at that Tory voters are responsible for the high NHS is my biggest concern figures - meaning that Lab concentrating on that will be useless; all opinion polls pale into insignificance compared to this.
0 -
Question to Labour supports.
Look, I know you'd like a Miliband win because it would be a kick in Dave's nuts and a bucket of manure over the PB Tories. But it would only amount to a 24 hour euphoria hit. After that Dave would be chillaxing with Sam and his millions, and the PB Tories would be settling down for a prolonged five-year gloating festival over Ed's dour and hapless reign. Five whole years, half a decade of Ed Miliband? For all of us. Every one. Is it worth it? Really?0 -
Ah, so you're also angry about the tax avoidance practised by some Labour donors going unchallenged by the party leader?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
I prefer to follow your example. ;-)0 -
That's from the ITV News poll from last night not from tonight's poll.anotherDave said:ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/5665819890596003840 -
And on an even more serious note, the baggies are THUMPING the hammers. I've never seen my team so engaged before!0
-
Boo!Mortimer said:And on an even more serious note, the baggies are THUMPING the hammers. I've never seen my team so engaged before!
Oh well, we were in the Top 4 earlier in the season...0 -
@TheWatcher
Personally yes, but the public in general will make up their own minds about who gained the most from financial wheezes.
They may even question why the papers are going after Ed for a rehash of an old story, and why others affairs should not be scrutinised.
It will hit all parties, it depends who takes the most damage.0 -
One of your best Henry. I think using your tennis analogy I would describe Cameron as Sharapova. Lots of squealing but really only interested in looking good in her frilly knickers0
-
I think you overestimate how much of a disaster Ed M is likely to be, particularly as his ability to actively try things that might become disasters will be constrained by fiscal realities and his generally incautious nature. The problem is not Labour supporters wanting him in - for the most partisan, even a disastrous Labour administration would be better than a Tory administration, and others probably don't think it will be a disaster anyway - the problem is not enough floating voters fear that he will be a disaster.Stark_Dawning said:Question to Labour supports.
Look, I know you'd like a Miliband win because it would be a kick in Dave's nuts and a bucket of manure over the PB Tories. But it would only amount to a 24 hour euphoria hit. After that Dave would be chillaxing with Sam and his millions, and the PB Tories would be settling down for a prolonged five-year gloating festival over Ed's dour and hapless reign. Five whole years, half a decade of Ed Miliband? For all of us. Every one. Is it worth it? Really?
Even if they are wrong about that, there's no way to convince them of that until it happens, so the Tories are screwed unless suddenly everyone wakes up to the choice between Dave and Ed and decides they cannot risk losing the underwhelming known with the underwhelming unknown. And with the economy doing a bit better, people may well be more willing to take a risk as there is less fear around (even if it should, people don't seem to feel gratitude for a job well done).
0 -
Ed's greatest hit is smearing his opponents?
That's it?
If Miliband gets into power this May it will be a triumph of envy over sanity.
0 -
@Stark_Dawning
Pleading is so pitiful, though quite a few Tories do it very well.
Have fun children, and relax
"Milliband will never be PM" !0 -
Sharapova, Highest ranking number 1, same as Hewitt, and 50% greater prize winnings. You need to have a chat with Hattie in the pink bus.Roger said:One of your best Henry. I think using your tennis analogy I would describe Cameron as Sharapova. Lots of squealing but really only interested in looking good in her frilly knickers
0 -
Didn't Lleyton Hewitt become the first reigning Wimbledon Champion to go out at the first round the next year? Good thing a snap second election seems unlikely for Ed M I guess.
In seriousness, counter punching is probably a good strategy. Labour's polling is below its highs in this parliament, but still consistently above the Tories and so comfortably resulting in a win if they don't panic (and depending on Scotland). While it might be nice if Labour put in a more positive effort and go for a big win, eking it out is more sensible so long as they do not screw it up. That's possible, but given the caution of the past 4 years, unlikely.0 -
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
0 -
Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
Sorry, I really need to go, but I will leave you something to make you all smile
"Ex-HSBC chairman Lord Green resigns from banking body"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-314706270 -
Are you sure? Underneath the question it says "Base 2,003 all GB adults" with changes since 26 Jan, while ITV say they polled 1,004 people, with changes since November 2014.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's from the ITV News poll from last night not from tonight's poll.anotherDave said:ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/566581989059600384
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-13/itv-news-index-poll-reveals-labour-lead-in-crucial-marginal-seats/0 -
There are no depths to the gutter partisans will sink to in pursuit of advantage. Not much point getting especially outraged at any particular incident or which side it came from as I see it, just a matter of seeing if the more egregious examples get officially endorsed or utilized by whichever side and criticise them for crossing the line at that point. Anything before that point is just one side as bad as the other, an axiom not true as often as it is supposed, but definitely when it comes to this sort of issue.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
0 -
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacent as Labour believing that the anti-Tories will vote the Tories out. In forgetting how unpopular they are and just focusing on the unpopularity of EdM the Tories have made a few big mistakes recently - perhaps because they do think it is all in the bag. That ball, the whole business/tax issue; these are issues that remind people just why they do not want a Tory government.kle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
Think you will find it was Ed who named her, bet she is as pleased with him as his brother isMarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
Everyone was blaming the Miliboys for the DoV until Ed revealed that his mother was the sole culprit. And it was only being discussed at all because weird Ed again revealed himself to be a massively hypocritical shit.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
Btw I am only one PB Tory.0 -
Put the spade away and stop digging a deeper gutter .nigel4england said:
Think you will find it was Ed who named her, bet she is as pleased with him as his brother isMarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
I used to think that was mostly it, but I'm coming round to the view that they are holding on to that as the single defining issue because all the other ones which they feel should be helping them do not appear to be working, and that is the last one left which could conceivably still change things significantly, but I put the chances of that as far lower than they. Desperation rather than just arrogance I think.SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacentkle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
Labour I think are luckier as their complacency and arrogance in relying on anti-Toryism does not seem to be as ill-placed, even if they should have done other things to not have to rely mostly on it.0 -
You are Legion.JonnyJimmy said:
Btw I am only one PB Tory.0 -
I am actually pretty relaxed about it. This country needs a political enema. The population still believe in the magical money tree, and think its just the nasty Tories are giving it all to their mates and keeping the whiskey and cigars hidden from the man in the street.kle4 said:Even if they are wrong about that, there's no way to convince them of that until it happens, so the Tories are screwed unless suddenly everyone wakes up to the choice between Dave and Ed and decides they cannot risk losing the underwhelming known with the underwhelming unknown. And with the economy doing a bit better, people may well be more willing to take a risk as there is less fear around (even if it should, people don't seem to feel gratitude for a job well done).
Nothing is going to change that short of them electing a Labour government, what they would consider a "proper" socialist government with Red Ed as it's leader, and one of two things happen:
either he makes essentially the same policy decisions as the coalition, in which case people will see that their country is screwed and needs a lot of changes because there clearly isn't a magic money tree (they will also see the afore mentioned socialist government implode as Red Ed fails to carry a majority for his austerity budget given his troublesome coalition partners and his hard left awkward squad on the back benches).
Alternatively he goes on a spending spree, whacks up the taxes and turns on the taps to the money tree we watch businesses and high net worth people leave for friendlier shores and the economy implode as interest rates race upwards and the bank runs begin.
Either way, the electorate might eventually realise that the country is writing cheques its ego can't cash, and is living well outside its means. Then perhaps a sensible government will be elected to get spending under control and start to rebuild the economy properly, we can live in hope.
0 -
Afraid not: Tories have always had the ball and have always been pro business. There have been several Tory governments. The irresponsibility of Labour's economic competence will take another generation to fix. I know literally no-one in my generation who would ever vote Labour who isbt a member of a union or works for the state...SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacent as Labour believing that the anti-Tories will vote the Tories out. In forgetting how unpopular they are and just focusing on the unpopularity of EdM the Tories have made a few big mistakes recently - perhaps because they do think it is all in the bag. That ball, the whole business/tax issue; these are issues that remind people just why they do not want a Tory government.kle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
To continue to the tennis analogy, it helps if you have somebody lowering the net every time it is your shot, a member of the crowd shining a laser pointer in your opponents eyes and the umpire not seeing any of your shots that were out or hearing the challenge for a Hawkeye replay.0
-
The Tories have helped Labour a whole lot in the last two weeks. It's since they had a week when the polls all went in their favour. The Black and White ball was a huge mistake as it shone a light on precisely where the Tories get their money from and, therefore, who gets to call home favours should the Tories win.kle4 said:
I used to think that was mostly it, but I'm coming round to the view that they are holding on to that as the single defining issue because all the other ones which they feel should be helping them do not appear to be working, and that is the last one left which could conceivably still change things significantly, but I put the chances of that as far lower than they. Desperation rather than just arrogance I think.SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacentkle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
Labour I think are luckier as their complacency and arrogance in relying on anti-Toryism does not seem to be as ill-placed, even if they should have done other things to not have to rely mostly on it.
0 -
What is your generation?Mortimer said:
Afraid not: Tories have always had the ball and have always been pro business. There have been several Tory governments. The irresponsibility of Labour's economic competence will take another generation to fix. I know literally no-one in my generation who would ever vote Labour who isbt a member of a union or works for the state...SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacent as Labour believing that the anti-Tories will vote the Tories out. In forgetting how unpopular they are and just focusing on the unpopularity of EdM the Tories have made a few big mistakes recently - perhaps because they do think it is all in the bag. That ball, the whole business/tax issue; these are issues that remind people just why they do not want a Tory government.kle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
By everyone you mean hypocritical partisan such as yourself .JonnyJimmy said:
Everyone was blaming the Miliboys for the DoV until Ed revealed that his mother was the sole culprit. And it was only being discussed at all because weird Ed again revealed himself to be a massively hypocritical shit.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
Btw I am only one PB Tory.
0 -
The past week has shown the Conservative Party in an unattractive light.SouthamObserver said:
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
OTOH, I don't believe for one moment that the Labour Party is on the side of the average voter, either. This is a battle between rival elites.
0 -
There were two ComRes polls for ITV in the last couple of days, one was the marginals, the other was the one Matthew Goodwin was tweeting.anotherDave said:
Are you sure? Underneath the question it says "Base 2,003 all GB adults" with changes since 26 Jan, while ITV say they polled 1,004 people, with changes since November 2014.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's from the ITV News poll from last night not from tonight's poll.anotherDave said:ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/566581989059600384
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-13/itv-news-index-poll-reveals-labour-lead-in-crucial-marginal-seats/
It is not from tonight's poll.0 -
How am I a hypocrite?MarkSenior said:
By everyone you mean hypocritical partisan such as yourself .JonnyJimmy said:
Everyone was blaming the Miliboys for the DoV until Ed revealed that his mother was the sole culprit. And it was only being discussed at all because weird Ed again revealed himself to be a massively hypocritical shit.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
Btw I am only one PB Tory.0 -
If Ed wants to chuck shit around he has got to expect some to head back his way, he named his Mother so it is down to him I am afraidMarkSenior said:
Put the spade away and stop digging a deeper gutter .nigel4england said:
Think you will find it was Ed who named her, bet she is as pleased with him as his brother isMarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
I can't remember what we're meant to be called now? Generation Y? Born under Thatcher, lived the majority of our lives under the simpering do-little talk-lots of New Labour, don't believe in the state as the answer to any, let alone all prayers....SouthamObserver said:
What is your generation?Mortimer said:
Afraid not: Tories have always had the ball and have always been pro business. There have been several Tory governments. The irresponsibility of Labour's economic competence will take another generation to fix. I know literally no-one in my generation who would ever vote Labour who isbt a member of a union or works for the state...SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacent as Labour believing that the anti-Tories will vote the Tories out. In forgetting how unpopular they are and just focusing on the unpopularity of EdM the Tories have made a few big mistakes recently - perhaps because they do think it is all in the bag. That ball, the whole business/tax issue; these are issues that remind people just why they do not want a Tory government.kle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
Amen to that. This country is pretty great at muddling along in almost all things, stretching things out and just keeping going, but occasionally you do need more significant changes. I think Ed M will do ok, in that it will probably be a mildly crappy government much like this one, but he's professional enough not to be a disaster, but it frankly astounds me how, even with Labour's pronouncements on the subject, many many people seem to think either there will be no more hardship, or that Labour managed hardship will automatically be better than Tory managed hardship because they at least don't get aroused by causing people suffering (or some other ridiculous implications), even though the maths are that basically the same things will need to be done.Indigo said:
Either way, the electorate might eventually realise that the country is writing cheques its ego can't cash, and is living well outside its means. Then perhaps a sensible government will be elected to get spending under control and start to rebuild the economy properly, we can live in hope.kle4 said:Even if they are wrong about that, there's no way to convince them of that until it happens, so the Tories are screwed unless suddenly everyone wakes up to the choice between Dave and Ed and decides they cannot risk losing the underwhelming known with the underwhelming unknown. And with the economy doing a bit better, people may well be more willing to take a risk as there is less fear around (even if it should, people don't seem to feel gratitude for a job well done).
0 -
Clearly a party funded by Len McCluskey and his associates isn't beholden to anyone, and we wont be seeing any pro-union policies or an increase in pilgrims in the public services if Labour get elected, no siree, no way that would happen.SouthamObserver said:If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.
0 -
As I say, I expect very little from a Labour government. But in a situation where whoever gets in will be managing austerity I would prefer the party that is not funded by and therefore beholden to the super-rich to be in charge.Sean_F said:
The past week has shown the Conservative Party in an unattractive light.SouthamObserver said:
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
OTOH, I don't believe for one moment that the Labour Party is on the side of the average voter, either. This is a battle between rival elites.
0 -
Millenials? I'm never certain if that's only for people born after 2000, or people who were children and adolescents around 2000.Mortimer said:
I can't remember what we're meant to be called now? Generation Y? Born under Thatcher, lived the majority of our lives under the simpering do-little talk-lots of New Labour, don't believe in the state as the answer to any, let alone all prayers....SouthamObserver said:
What is your generation?Mortimer said:
Afraid not: Tories have always had the ball and have always been pro business. There have been several Tory governments. The irresponsibility of Labour's economic competence will take another generation to fix. I know literally no-one in my generation who would ever vote Labour who isbt a member of a union or works for the state...SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacent as Labour believing that the anti-Tories will vote the Tories out. In forgetting how unpopular they are and just focusing on the unpopularity of EdM the Tories have made a few big mistakes recently - perhaps because they do think it is all in the bag. That ball, the whole business/tax issue; these are issues that remind people just why they do not want a Tory government.kle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
0 -
I don't think the B+W tie thing made any difference, it actually had very little mainstream coverage...I think most people know the Tories get most of their money from businessmen and Labour from the unions, it is factored in.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories have helped Labour a whole lot in the last two weeks. It's since they had a week when the polls all went in their favour. The Black and White ball was a huge mistake as it shone a light on precisely where the Tories get their money from and, therefore, who gets to call home favours should the Tories win.kle4 said:
I used to think that was mostly it, but I'm coming round to the view that they are holding on to that as the single defining issue because all the other ones which they feel should be helping them do not appear to be working, and that is the last one left which could conceivably still change things significantly, but I put the chances of that as far lower than they. Desperation rather than just arrogance I think.SouthamObserver said:
Assuming that they will be re-elected because Ed is crap is as arrogant and as complacentkle4 said:Is it me, or has the confidence of the Tories, inexplicable as I saw it anyway, actually taken a bit of a hit in the last week or so. Sure Labour rightly or wrongly gained a little traction but in truth there's been little significant movement around for awhile and yet they've remained very assured in the commentariat for the most part, but it just feels like the conversation is moving a little from why the Tories will or should win, to how stupid or disastrous it would be if Ed M were to win, which feels like the possibility the public might be that stupid is beginning to sink in.
Labour I think are luckier as their complacency and arrogance in relying on anti-Toryism does not seem to be as ill-placed, even if they should have done other things to not have to rely mostly on it.
Fink dropped the Tories in it, not by his tax affairs but how he handled it. If he had stuck to I worked in Switzerland, therefore I had a Swiss bank account, now go ask Labour's donors about their accounts....good night, that would have been a totally different outcome to I gonna sue you, everybody is at it, type headlines.0 -
And you would prefer one that is funded by and beholden to the trade unions?SouthamObserver said:
As I say, I expect very little from a Labour government. But in a situation where whoever gets in will be managing austerity I would prefer the party that is not funded by and therefore beholden to the super-rich to be in charge.Sean_F said:
The past week has shown the Conservative Party in an unattractive light.SouthamObserver said:
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
OTOH, I don't believe for one moment that the Labour Party is on the side of the average voter, either. This is a battle between rival elites.0 -
At least there are a few million trade unionists in this country, all of whom live and pay all their tax here and have their futures firmly here too. I am not sure you can say the same about those who fund the Tory party.Indigo said:
Clearly a party funded by Len McCluskey and his associates isn't beholden to anyone, and we wont be seeing any pro-union policies or an increase in pilgrims in the public services if Labour get elected, no siree, no way that would happen.SouthamObserver said:If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.
0 -
That indicates 3 polls...TheScreamingEagles said:
There were two ComRes polls for ITV in the last couple of days, one was the marginals, the other was the one Matthew Goodwin was tweeting.anotherDave said:
Are you sure? Underneath the question it says "Base 2,003 all GB adults" with changes since 26 Jan, while ITV say they polled 1,004 people, with changes since November 2014.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's from the ITV News poll from last night not from tonight's poll.anotherDave said:ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/566581989059600384
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-13/itv-news-index-poll-reveals-labour-lead-in-crucial-marginal-seats/
It is not from tonight's poll.0 -
Henry, I am afraid you're trying to construct the QE2 from a tin can. If you really analyse what Miliband has done in the last two weeks, he has:
(1) responded to criticism from a leading global businessman by making illogical comments about his tax domicile
(2) erroneously smeared a Tory donor as dodgy on the basis of an inaccurate assumption that his Swiss bank account was illegitimate, without realising the man was Swiss resident at the time, and then tried to deny that he had done so.
Sure, in doing so he has kept a topic that is uncomfortable for Conservatives in the headlines, and he has had a bit of good fortune along the way with Fink's ridiculous comment about everybody doing tax avoidance reinforcing an old Tory stereotype, but neither of his major interventions were intelligent, considers or correct.
After months of being utterly moribund, he has finally found a topic that motivates his base. As we have seen on here, his base comprises people who are ignorant about tax, avoidance and revenue collection. People who prefer their lazy stereotypes about Conservatives to analysis about the comparative merits of recent governments in this area. People who cling to the belief that Labour are better, despite the plentiful evidence Labour failed to tackle this while in Government and have shown little interest in it in opposition, except as a handy stick to beat the Conservatives with.
That's not championship winning tennis; it's an exhibition match during a fading club player's testimonial year.0 -
Actually I think in the week of the Milly Dowler comparison its going to be hard to beat Labour for egregious comments in pursuit of partisan advantage.MarkSenior said:
Put the spade away and stop digging a deeper gutter .nigel4england said:
Think you will find it was Ed who named her, bet she is as pleased with him as his brother isMarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT0 -
Btw What are the Labour grass roots feelings like on Trident ?0
-
Why? Your premise is entirely flawed, given Tories are in the main the party of aspiration and perspiration, rather than lazy statist-support. But for a second pretending what you said was true - What on earth could any super rich care about austerity policies? Tax policy perhaps, but under Labour they're more likely to move somewhere more friendly and so the rest of us are worse off?SouthamObserver said:
As I say, I expect very little from a Labour government. But in a situation where whoever gets in will be managing austerity I would prefer the party that is not funded by and therefore beholden to the super-rich to be in charge.Sean_F said:
The past week has shown the Conservative Party in an unattractive light.SouthamObserver said:
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country maStark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
OTOH, I don't believe for one moment that the Labour Party is on the side of the average voter, either. This is a battle between rival elites.0 -
Are you 100% certain of that statement?SouthamObserver said:
At least there are a few million trade unionists in this country, all of whom live and pay all their tax here and have their futures firmly here too. I am not sure you can say the same about those who fund the Tory party.Indigo said:
Clearly a party funded by Len McCluskey and his associates isn't beholden to anyone, and we wont be seeing any pro-union policies or an increase in pilgrims in the public services if Labour get elected, no siree, no way that would happen.SouthamObserver said:If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.
0 -
Yes three ComRes polls.Pulpstar said:
That indicates 3 polls...TheScreamingEagles said:
There were two ComRes polls for ITV in the last couple of days, one was the marginals, the other was the one Matthew Goodwin was tweeting.anotherDave said:
Are you sure? Underneath the question it says "Base 2,003 all GB adults" with changes since 26 Jan, while ITV say they polled 1,004 people, with changes since November 2014.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's from the ITV News poll from last night not from tonight's poll.anotherDave said:ComRes
Matthew Goodwin has tweeted an issues question excerpt, I think from the poll we're expecting today. UKIP are up on immigration and EU, poss up on VI too?
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/566581989059600384
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-13/itv-news-index-poll-reveals-labour-lead-in-crucial-marginal-seats/
It is not from tonight's poll.
Two for ITV News and one for the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror0 -
Yesterday I semi jokingly said Cameron doesn't have to worry about the voters he has to worry about the mob with pitchforks.....
Today on Any Questions I've rarely heard more raw anger. The public are incensed. Osborne's plan-getting a bunch of billionaires to say Labour wouldn't govern in their interests-was lunatic from the word go. Then to allow his party treasurer-Hedge fund donor and billionaire Lord Fink-threatening to sue was to pour kerosene on it.
The two big losers will be the Tories and UKIP. Both who look like they're on the wrong side of this very clear line. The next few polls will be interesting0 -
Does anyone else get put off potentially voting Conservative by having the vile Daily Mail as a cheerleader for it ? ...
0 -
Reality check - the general public is supremely uninterested in the minutiae which preoccupies most of us on here. They will start to take the coming GE seriously about 3/4 weeks before the election, if at all. It is pretty near certain going to be very difficult for any party to win comfortably, if at all. Even the various coalition options are unlikely to be very stable. All of this will be very bad for UKPLC - which is a shame because, for all its faults, the coalition performance has been better than most of Europe and there is still much to be done to get the economy re-balanced. A Lab/SNP arrangement would be the very worst possible outcome for the economy - it may prolong the Union for a few years at best.Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Personally yes, but the public in general will make up their own minds about who gained the most from financial wheezes.
They may even question why the papers are going after Ed for a rehash of an old story, and why others affairs should not be scrutinised.
It will hit all parties, it depends who takes the most damage.0 -
From the Lib Dem who defends his party's immoral refusal to return the stolen £2.5 million donated by convicted fraudster Michael Brown. Oh dear.MarkSenior said:
By everyone you mean hypocritical partisan such as yourself .JonnyJimmy said:
Everyone was blaming the Miliboys for the DoV until Ed revealed that his mother was the sole culprit. And it was only being discussed at all because weird Ed again revealed himself to be a massively hypocritical shit.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
Btw I am only one PB Tory.0 -
Rugby betting tip
Worth backing the French to beat the Irish today.
Last year apart, the Irish have an appalling record against the French, I think it is 5 Irish victories in the last 25 years.0 -
It would be good if the moderators would curtail the gratuitous swearing of Mr. Senior.MarkSenior said:
By everyone you mean hypocritical partisan such as yourself .JonnyJimmy said:
Everyone was blaming the Miliboys for the DoV until Ed revealed that his mother was the sole culprit. And it was only being discussed at all because weird Ed again revealed himself to be a massively hypocritical shit.MarkSenior said:
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .JonnyJimmy said:
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.TheWatcher said:
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful?
On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will?
After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes?
Let's talk about Ed shall we?
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
Btw I am only one PB Tory.0 -
If I were a labour MP I'd be severely concerned that anyone who isn't in a union detests most of what Unions stand for now - the threat of spurious strikes which try to hold the public they profess to serve to ransom. Latest on the RMT position, anyone?SouthamObserver said:
At least there are a few million trade unionists in this country, all of whom live and pay all their tax here and have their futures firmly here too. I am not sure you can say the same about those who fund the Tory party.Indigo said:
Clearly a party funded by Len McCluskey and his associates isn't beholden to anyone, and we wont be seeing any pro-union policies or an increase in pilgrims in the public services if Labour get elected, no siree, no way that would happen.SouthamObserver said:If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.
0 -
No.Roger said:The two big losers will be the Tories and UKIP. Both who look like they're on the wrong side of this very clear line. The next few polls will be interesting
The losers will be the public when they get the Labour government they so desperately want, and either nothing changes and the government implodes, or lots change and the economy implodes. Either way the rich, and a lot of businesses will just leave, they wont pay more tax, they wont create more jobs, they will just leave (see France). The middle incomes earners will have to pay a lot more tax as a result and wont be voting Labour again, and the lower incomes will have to do with a lot less services and wont be happy either. If that makes you happy, I don't know what to say.
0 -
The RMT is not affiliated to the Labour party. I am not sure that many folk in the country hold much affection for the super-rich who funds the Tories either.Mortimer said:
If I were a labour MP I'd be severely concerned that anyone who isn't in a union detests most of what Unions stand for now - the threat of spurious strikes which try to hold the public they profess to serve to ransom. Latest on the RMT position, anyone?SouthamObserver said:
At least there are a few million trade unionists in this country, all of whom live and pay all their tax here and have their futures firmly here too. I am not sure you can say the same about those who fund the Tory party.Indigo said:
Clearly a party funded by Len McCluskey and his associates isn't beholden to anyone, and we wont be seeing any pro-union policies or an increase in pilgrims in the public services if Labour get elected, no siree, no way that would happen.SouthamObserver said:If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.
0 -
Ah, you think Any Questions represents the 'public' - how amusing.Roger said:Yesterday I semi jokingly said Cameron doesn't have to worry about the voters he has to worry about the mob with pitchforks.....
Today on Any Questions I've rarely heard more raw anger. The public are incensed. Osborne's plan-getting a bunch of billionaires to say Labour wouldn't govern in their interests-was lunatic from the word go. Then to allow his party treasurer-Hedge fund donor and billionaire Lord Fink-threatening to sue was to pour kerosene on it.
The two big losers will be the Tories and UKIP. Both who look like they're on the wrong side of this very clear line. The next few polls will be interesting0 -
Funny. I heard it too, and as much anger was directed at Salmond and Harman as anyone else.Roger said:Yesterday I semi jokingly said Cameron doesn't have to worry about the voters he has to worry about the mob with pitchforks.....
Today on Any Questions I've rarely heard more raw anger. The public are incensed. Osborne's plan-getting a bunch of billionaires to say Labour wouldn't govern in their interests-was lunatic from the word go. Then to allow his party treasurer-Hedge fund donor and billionaire Lord Fink-threatening to sue was to pour kerosene on it.
The two big losers will be the Tories and UKIP. Both who look like they're on the wrong side of this very clear line. The next few polls will be interesting
Anna Soubry's good isn't she?0 -
No. It is one the most popular of the Newspapers both in print and on-line.. unless you think we're all vile for reading it. If so it says more about you than them.Pulpstar said:Does anyone else get put off potentially voting Conservative by having the vile Daily Mail as a cheerleader for it ? ...
0 -
The unions are toothless poodles in Labour's pockets.nigel4england said:
And you would prefer one that is funded by and beholden to the trade unions?SouthamObserver said:
As I say, I expect very little from a Labour government. But in a situation where whoever gets in will be managing austerity I would prefer the party that is not funded by and therefore beholden to the super-rich to be in charge.Sean_F said:
The past week has shown the Conservative Party in an unattractive light.SouthamObserver said:
If he does become PM it will be because the Tories have failed to convince voters that they deserve to be in government and the Tories will have no-one to blame but themselves. The last couple of weeks have certainly honed my anti-Tory instincts and confirmed to me that they just do not see the world in the way that I do. The obscenity of their hedge fund ball and their dependency on the super-rich for financing tell me that in the end they will never have a deep-seated interest in tackling the issues that I believe need to be tackled - growing inequality, the widening divide between the richest and the rest, the concentration of opportunity in the hands of an ever-smaller elite, and so on. I do not expect anything much at all from Labour, but right now the Tories need to be out of office and having a rethink about how they develop as a party that clearly has the interests of ordinary people at its heart.Stark_Dawning said:
If it does happen it will be a function of the political mini-nihilism that is gripping much of the free world at present. Insurgent parties, low turnouts - all sorts of unintended outcomes are currently possible; it will have nothing to do with the merits of the Labour Party let alone Ed Miliband. Ultimately though I can't see the British voter ever being that stupid, but even if it does transpire there will certainly be a lot of laughs thereafter.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Just the thought of this fratricidal socialist running the country makes me wonder if the country has taken leave of its senses. But if he "pulls it off" and ends up at No. 10, so be it.Stark_Dawning said:Yeah, yeah, yeah. The 'Ed's played a blinder' thing pops up every so often when journalists (usually in The Spectator) are stumped for things to write a about and need a quick way to look like a free thinker. Miliband remains what he has always been: a crowd pleaser emboldened by the egotism of the nerd and a political sneak.
OTOH, I don't believe for one moment that the Labour Party is on the side of the average voter, either. This is a battle between rival elites.
0
