Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
To me it's not just that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, but also why shouldn't suburbs in the North West be as successful as those in the South East? Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety of the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
By my reckoning Labour now has 45 London MPs compared with only 43 in 2005.
Outside of London the number of Labour MPs have fallen from 312 to 187.
This London concentration of Labour MPs and an even greater concentration of Labour members is a factor in Labour’s loss of connection to and support in medium sized towns in England and Wales and its collapse in Scotland.
"so Labour is not blamed for the global financial crisis."
Not this again. Labour are blamed for leaving us vulnerable to a global financial crisis by spending tax money from the financial sector which proved to be temporary, and committing it to future spending too. Gordon did NOT abolish boom and bust - he just thought he had and spent accordingly.
Guilty as charged.
All governments spend tax receipts, and all governments commit to future spending. In this case, even the Conservatives committed to match Labour's spending, so unremarkable was it in either historical terms or by international comparison. Before the financial crisis hit, both deficit and debt were lower under Labour than had been inherited from the Conservatives, and both were lower than they are now under the Conservatives.
You are wrong, which illustrates my point. The next Labour leader needs to develop the case and not allow the Conservative myth to go unchallenged, least of all concede it from the start.
Has anyone been able to watch Election 2015 on BBC iPlayer using a SmartTV? I tried on the Saturday after the result and only Part 6 worked. I just tried again and it still won't load except Part 6. It doesn't exist when I try to use my laptop to play it.
Should I develop paranoia here? All help much appreciated.
And is there a GE being shown on BBC Parliament this BH? I told a friend that he could watch old GE coverage if the weather was bad on Monday and he assumed I was kidding.
Most of the programme is on YouTube. Only the part after 2pm is unavailable:
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Has anyone been able to watch Election 2015 on BBC iPlayer using a SmartTV? I tried on the Saturday after the result and only Part 6 worked. I just tried again and it still won't load except Part 6. It doesn't exist when I try to use my laptop to play it.
Should I develop paranoia here? All help much appreciated.
And is there a GE being shown on BBC Parliament this BH? I told a friend that he could watch old GE coverage if the weather was bad on Monday and he assumed I was kidding.
Most of the programme is on YouTube. Only the part after 2pm is unavailable:
"so Labour is not blamed for the global financial crisis."
Not this again. Labour are blamed for leaving us vulnerable to a global financial crisis by spending tax money from the financial sector which proved to be temporary, and committing it to future spending too. Gordon did NOT abolish boom and bust - he just thought he had and spent accordingly.
Guilty as charged.
All governments spend tax receipts, and all governments commit to future spending. In this case, even the Conservatives committed to match Labour's spending, so unremarkable was it in either historical terms or by international comparison. Before the financial crisis hit, both deficit and debt were lower under Labour than had been inherited from the Conservatives, and both were lower than they are now under the Conservatives.
You are wrong, which illustrates my point. The next Labour leader needs to develop the case and not allow the Conservative myth to go unchallenged, least of all concede it from the start.
No you are wrong. It is no myth the fact is that the Labour party was running a deficit for seven years prior to the recession starting. If you're running a deficit in the good times, what do you think is going to happen when inevitably a recessions starts.
Oh right, no recession could start because Brown had eliminated boom and bust. There's a word for that: hubris.
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Indeed, and on the other side of the Pennines, see, for example, Keighley, Pudsey, Elmet & Rothwell, Colne Valley, Calder Valley or Morley & Outwood.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
Just thinking about the SW - were there any local situations that made the LD result so poor? I know there was reportedly unhappiness with Mr Laws even all this time on about his expenses in Yeovil [I find that hard to believe myself].
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Indeed, and on the other side of the Pennines, see, for example, Keighley, Pudsey, Elmet & Rothwell, Colne Valley, Calder Valley or Morley & Outwood.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Exactly David. Morley & Outwood especially for obvious reasons was a great result for the party and is a great but not unique example; to ignore all that and pretend that only the number of councillors in Manchester matter is journalistic laziness.
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
If you take into account cost of living and quality of life generally then many northern towns and rural areas are already much superior to their southern equivalents.
But if you want to boost northern England economically, and consequently Conservative prospects there, then lower business rates, cheaper energy costs and faster broadband would perhaps be the best ways.
Obsessing about big cities and trying to copy London (a place where Conservatives fortunes are in steady decline) certainly isn't.
The Independent-no longer worthy of its name when it came out for the Coalition parties precisely to stop the SNP.
I note the comments on the article (not all by SNP supporters) totally lambast that thoroughly amateurish/dishonest article
Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material - I'm not objecting - tho the voters of the United Kingdom, Ed and the Labour Party appear to have reached a different conclusion....
Just thinking about the SW - were there any local situations that made the LD result so poor? I know there was reportedly unhappiness with Mr Laws even all this time on about his expenses in Yeovil [I find that hard to believe myself].
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Indeed, and on the other side of the Pennines, see, for example, Keighley, Pudsey, Elmet & Rothwell, Colne Valley, Calder Valley or Morley & Outwood.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
No I don't think that was the case. If it had been due to local factors then it would have been one seat affected rather than all of them.
Local factors are frequently overstated. When there is an across-the-board change it seems safe to say they weren't the major factor.
If SLAB are serious about recovering in Scotland my advice:
- The SEC should meet and sack Murphy & co, if left in position these guys will spend the next month settling old scores and potentially completely destroy the party, they've already done quite a good job on this score.
- Release SLAB membership data - Labour nationally are releasing surgeon membership figures but SLAB's dogged refusal to release numbers is pathetic.
- The SEC should also confirm that this election will be on a one member one vote basis.
- All the dark forces - be they SLAB insiders, Union barons, London Labour meddlers, MSM etc - should stop making things worse by seeking to interfere in the leadership process. It would appear that Dugdale is the dark forces candidate.
- If SLAB really wanted to reach out to the Scottish people the outgoing 40 Labour MPs should make good Gordon Brown's £1 million promise to food banks, by donating £25,000 of each of their pay offs.
Interesting article and comments on the thread. The arguments are finely-balanced, but giving Ed's instant resignation as leader I'm not sure we had a choice - drifting on for a couple of years with an explicitly interim leader seems very dangerous. I also think that having an explicit exit clause after 3 years would be destabilising, as DavidH concedes might be the case. On the whole, I agree with DavidL that more needs to be done than merely picking a leader, and it's best to get on with it - which can't sensibly be done if the leader hasn't been chosen yet.
At the moment, Labour isn't getting either pressure or attention from the general public. The core vote in England is not having second thoughts, but the floating voters have said "Not you this time" and are more interested in what Cameron and Osborne will do. That gives us a certain breathing space, but it's important to use it productively.
Incidentally, as a defeated candidate it's interesting to see what the postbag holds. I've had a lengthy, very kind handwritten letter from John Healey (who isn't standing for anything that I can affect, so he's just being really nice), and pleasant condolence notes from neighbouring MPs Chris Leslie and Lilian Greenwood and from Stella Creasey, Chris Evans (who thinks I was the candidate for Stockton South - I detect a cut and paste) and Tom Watson (who is sympathetic but moves on to asking for deputy leadership support) and a senior party official, plus approaching 400 letters and emails from constituents expressing regret, wishing me luck etc. (a lot more than in 2010, probably because I'm publicly standing down). In previous defeats I had a nice note from Harriet in 2010 and a reply from Michael Foot in 1983 (who I'd written a cheer-up letter) thanking me for my 'magnaminous' view of his leadership.
A memo stating that Nicola Sturgeon told the French Ambassador that she would "rather see" David Cameron win the election was "recorded accurately" and not politically motivated, an official inquiry has found....
The memo, written by a British civil servant following a conversation with a senior French official, was rejected at the time by Miss Sturgeon as "100 per cent untrue".
I wonder what percent it is untrue now? 90%? 75%? 33%?
The SNP can tell blatant lies, be found out and still increase its vote share. Right now it is completely untouchable. That will only change once the constitutional issue is settled once and for all. Being a non-SNP voter in Scotland currently must be a surreal experience. As unemployment grows, education standards fall, social mobility decreases and the economic case for independence collapses, the government that has presided over it all is ever more popular. What a condemnation of the Westminster parties - and Labour most of all - that is.
I know the DT is continuing to claim black is white, but when Mr Carmichael himself said in his letter to Ms Sturgeon (posted here yesterday) that the memo was all nonsense anyway, it's hard to keep holding to that view.
Even the pro-Union Herald is pretty scathing of Carmichael today.
"The Bank of England has confirmed it is researching the financial risks of the UK leaving the EU after it "inadvertently" sent details of its work to a national newspaper. A senior official sent an email about its confidential project on the issue to an editor at the Guardian newspaper."
Financial risks of leaving the EU, just happened to be sent to the Guardian. What a coincidence.
I would love to know how you 'accidentally' do that. It's not as if you slip on the keyboard and hit a wrong button by mistake.
If it was, in reality, done accidentally, it will have been caused by auto complete of an email address in the sender's address book. Which raises the much more important question of why does a bank of England official have a direct email address of the guardian in his address book?
Well, Lotus Notes, for example, automatically enters everyone ever copied in to any e-mail you receive into your address book.
"so Labour is not blamed for the global financial crisis."
Not this again. Labour are blamed for leaving us vulnerable to a global financial crisis by spending tax money from the financial sector which proved to be temporary, and committing it to future spending too. Gordon did NOT abolish boom and bust - he just thought he had and spent accordingly.
Guilty as charged.
All governments spend tax receipts, and all governments commit to future spending. In this case, even the Conservatives committed to match Labour's spending, so unremarkable was it in either historical terms or by international comparison. Before the financial crisis hit, both deficit and debt were lower under Labour than had been inherited from the Conservatives, and both were lower than they are now under the Conservatives.
You are wrong, which illustrates my point. The next Labour leader needs to develop the case and not allow the Conservative myth to go unchallenged, least of all concede it from the start.
No you are wrong. It is no myth the fact is that the Labour party was running a deficit for seven years prior to the recession starting. If you're running a deficit in the good times, what do you think is going to happen when inevitably a recessions starts.
Oh right, no recession could start because Brown had eliminated boom and bust. There's a word for that: hubris.
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
If you take into account cost of living and quality of life generally then many northern towns and rural areas are already much superior to their southern equivalents.
But if you want to boost northern England economically, and consequently Conservative prospects there, then lower business rates, cheaper energy costs and faster broadband would perhaps be the best ways.
Obsessing about big cities and trying to copy London (a place where Conservatives fortunes are in steady decline) certainly isn't.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
One of the most interesting things about his affair is which newspapers and magazines - and politicians - accept Mr Carmichael's statement that the memo was bollocks, and which continue to persist in claiming otherwise.
The amount of tweet deletion going on at the moment for sure shows a great deal of lack of faith in the memo's truth.
Just thinking about the SW - were there any local situations that made the LD result so poor? I know there was reportedly unhappiness with Mr Laws even all this time on about his expenses in Yeovil [I find that hard to believe myself].
It does just appear to have been reflective of the tides of change nationally re the LDs. I overestimated how well the LDs would do, like most people, but I always felt that their support nationally could (and in fact did) drop to a level where one simply could not rely on their 'stronger' areas staying strong, as when your headline figure drops by so much, even areas that on the previous vote numbers should be totally safe no longer are, as we also saw in Scotland.
The locals in the SW will be ones to watch in coming years, the LDs need to demonstrate they are the natural second choice, not UKIP and Labour (people voted Labour into second or third place in many areas in the SW, I can barely believe it), which then gives them some hope to recover some parliamentary seats.
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Hallam is a special case, could well be taken in 2020.
By Labour.
The Sheffield Hallam Conservatives couldn't find their arse with both hands.
Leeds NW was an especially, but little noticed, dismal result - from second to third in a constituency where they have councillors.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
If you take into account cost of living and quality of life generally then many northern towns and rural areas are already much superior to their southern equivalents.
But if you want to boost northern England economically, and consequently Conservative prospects there, then lower business rates, cheaper energy costs and faster broadband would perhaps be the best ways.
Obsessing about big cities and trying to copy London (a place where Conservatives fortunes are in steady decline) certainly isn't.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
"Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material "
Sturgeon never said that Ed was PM material, she merely denied that she did not think he was-try another cliché, that's a horse of a very different colour.
So on the Lab leadership contest, it appears Cooper is taking the no change, middle of the road candidate option? I wonder if that was her initial intention, or if Burnham has taken the union, lefty candidate credentials (although we have heard no proper lefty is running this time), while Kendall has staked her claim mostly on the right (if you can get that core image, it doesn't matter if some of the things you say are not on the right or left).
One of the most interesting things about his affair is which newspapers and magazines - and politicians - accept Mr Carmichael's statement that the memo was bollocks, and which continue to persist in claiming otherwise.
The amount of tweet deletion going on at the moment for sure shows a great deal of lack of faith in the memo's truth.
The other interesting thing is the enthusiasm of Nats to proudly advertise Nicola's judgement that Miliband was Prime Ministerial material, when the electorate (not least in Scotland), Ed and the Labour Party have pretty comprehensively rejected the idea.....
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Hallam is a special case, could well be taken in 2020.
By Labour.
The Sheffield Hallam Conservatives couldn't find their arse with both hands.
Leeds NW was an especially, but little noticed, dismal result - from second to third in a constituency where they have councillors.
Partly tactical voting, partly the strategic call of other nearby 40/40 seats. You could say the same of Wakefield (which wasn't targeted but is another potential future gain).
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
Hmm. While I've no doubt they had some glorious plans in the event of propping up a Labour government, thinking like most of us idiots that Cameron would struggle to get the numbers he needed, the problem is they are not really disadvantaged in their endgame by Cameron outright winning either. The SNP's ability to cause direct mischief is lessened, but it is still not a bad position for their aims to have Cameron with a majority.
That's the thing about the SNP at the moment - a combination of great leadership, dearth of opposition and the capturing of the public mood and enthusiasm, means that pretty much no matter what they do seems, at the very least in the short term, to be good for them in one way or another.
"The other interesting thing is the enthusiasm of Nats to proudly advertise Nicola's judgement that Miliband was Prime Ministerial material, when the electorate (not least in Scotland), Ed and the Labour Party have pretty comprehensively rejected the idea..... "
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Indeed, and on the other side of the Pennines, see, for example, Keighley, Pudsey, Elmet & Rothwell, Colne Valley, Calder Valley or Morley & Outwood.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
I've said repeatedly that the Conservatives need to concentrate on medium sized towns (places which sound like lower division football clubs) and the edges of the industrial / mining sprawl in northern England. Ditto for Wales.
Newcastle under Lyme, Derbyshire NE, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Bridgend etc.
The needs of such places are not the same as those of the big cities
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I think an election petition would have a fair chance of succeeding. Any voter would have been misled about the character of the candidate. If the test is essentially "Would I have still voted for him if I had known (rather than just suspected) that he was a lying bag of shit? No.", then he is in trouble....
The fundamental misconception of the so called 'Northern Powerhouse' - and its a good lesson in life to beware of anything or anyone with a self-important title - is that northern England needs to become more like London.
Something which would be great for northern fatcats of both public and private sectors but would be economically detrimental to most northern people and politically disasterous for the Conservatives.
Its worth noting that despite ten years of obsessing about northern cities and the supposed boost they expected to get be announcing HS2 the Conservatives are now further from winning Birmingham Edgbaston, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NE, Leeds NW and Bradford W than they were in 2005. Whilst despite the collapse in the LibDems the Conservatives still have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Hallam is a special case, could well be taken in 2020.
By Labour.
The Sheffield Hallam Conservatives couldn't find their arse with both hands.
Leeds NW was an especially, but little noticed, dismal result - from second to third in a constituency where they have councillors.
Leeds NW like Sheffield Hallam is a seat where local Conservatives might not have voted Conservative in order to save the Lib Dems from Labour. Considering we may have needed the Lib Dems as coalition partners if we hadn't won a majority, it made sense to take their seats when we can and to put little effort in some that were more likely to go to Labour.
All good background, for what its worth I posted the following on 6th April:
"As Rennie was one of the first to react, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the work of a Carmichael SPAD, as SPAD's are quasi civil servants. SLAB did jump on it early on, but backpedalled once the Milliband not PM material "quote" sunk in. Anyway this will be an interesting test of Sturgeon's popularity, I don't think it will have much impact, as this is just a Westminster bubble story."
If I could get to the bottom of this with no inside knowledge, why it took 7 weeks and £1.4 million to reach my conclusion beggers belief. Yet again the Tories and SLID are playing the Scottish population as being a bunch of numpties. I think Rennie is being given a soft ride by the MSM, he lost 10 out of 11 seats and has failed to resign, his knowing or unknowing involvement in this turgid affair should finish him as leader.
Funny, the Conservatives actually did rather well in a number of North West marginals like my own marginal of Warrington South. Warrington being located right in the middle in-between Liverpool and Manchester on the M62 corridor.
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
Its not that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, its not just that as well suburbs in the North West should be as successful as those in the South East. Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
If you take into account cost of living and quality of life generally then many northern towns and rural areas are already much superior to their southern equivalents.
But if you want to boost northern England economically, and consequently Conservative prospects there, then lower business rates, cheaper energy costs and faster broadband would perhaps be the best ways.
Obsessing about big cities and trying to copy London (a place where Conservatives fortunes are in steady decline) certainly isn't.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
Obviously not enough actions and the only action I've seen on energy costs is to steadily increase them.
You could have lower energy costs, reduced business rates, faster broadband and better roads for a fraction of the money getting spent on HS2.
I am opening another front on the media lies so beloved by way too many commenters here about the SNP:
Tweet from Diane Abbott MP about the SNP members:
"I am in Parliament with them. Not behaving like children at all. Media stuff is tosh."
And she might seem t be the last person to be kind to them after what happened over the London mansion tax and the 1000 more Scottish nurses - mind you, that was Mr Murphy and not the SNP.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
And you can't use the argument 'You're not an economist, so you wouldn't understand' because of the reply ... 'Well, depending on economists went well, didn't it?'
The thing I always enjoy about these pieces is that even if I do not agree with the conclusions, I always understand the rationale behind them and the factors are explored in an engaging and well written way. Kudos, Mr Herdson.
I think an election petition would have a fair chance of succeeding. Any voter would have been misled about the character of the candidate. If the test is essentially "Would I have still voted for him if I had known (rather than just suspected) that he was a lying bag of shit? No.", then he is in trouble....
If so, the LDs are up sh*t creek. Even if he stands down to avoid a petition of that nature, his LD successor would face the still surging SNP vote and people who want to give the LDs a kicking because of Carmichael personally, and if he is forced out, that's doubly the case.
The Western media seemed to studiously ignore Kerry's visit to Sochi last week. Hopefully Obama is going with his instincts now and ignoring the neocon crazies/liberal interventionists who led him down blind alleys in Libya(Clinton), Syria and the Ukraine(Nuland).
They were talking about post Assad Syria weren't they? Not Ukraine.
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Just thinking about the SW - were there any local situations that made the LD result so poor? I know there was reportedly unhappiness with Mr Laws even all this time on about his expenses in Yeovil [I find that hard to believe myself].
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety on the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Indeed, and on the other side of the Pennines, see, for example, Keighley, Pudsey, Elmet & Rothwell, Colne Valley, Calder Valley or Morley & Outwood.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
Plato, the England wide swing from LD to Con was 8.7%. In the South-West it was 11.68%. North-East was 9.37% and the South-East 9.16%. The lowest was North-West where it was 7.29%
The higher swing in the SW actually did not make any difference. 8.7% would have delivered only Bath. However, on the day the swing in Bath was 16.68%.
The LD results shows the party's extreme naivety. What did they think the Tories would do to them ? Treat them with kid gloves ? After all, the Tories are in power because they won 27 seats from the LD's in England alone.
Those who trot the hollow phrase that they did the country a service [ mainly PB Tories and naïve LD supporters ] should be asked the obvious question:
How come nobody in the country reward them for their services ?
They probably cam claw back in the rural seats in the SW. But the urban seats have gone either to Labour or Labour will become the main opposition party. I am thinking of the London seats, in particular.
We had so many experts here who said the Huppert was a nailed on certainty ! Really ? Labour came from 3rd to win Cambridge.
The thing I always enjoy about these pieces is that even if I do not agree with the conclusions, I always understand the rationale behind them and the factors are explored in an engaging and well written way. Kudos, Mr Herdson.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
Indeed.
I suspect that every seat that Labour lost in Scotland effectively lost it another in England and Wales.
The vision of Sturgeon controlling a weak EdM government was pretty horrific to most of England.
The Western media seemed to studiously ignore Kerry's visit to Sochi last week. Hopefully Obama is going with his instincts now and ignoring the neocon crazies/liberal interventionists who led him down blind alleys in Libya(Clinton), Syria and the Ukraine(Nuland).
They were talking about post Assad Syria weren't they? Not Ukraine.
Doesn't matter. If it's not being mentioned in the 'Western' media, then it's not that it didn't happen (I have no idea in this case in this specific case, and not much interest either, but it is taken as an article of faith as existing on everything, so I think it can be safely taken down), it has to be a sinister 'ignoring' of the truth, man, and the truth is out there.
PS As a corollary, if it is mentioned in the 'Western' media, it doesn't matter, because either it's not 'mainstream' reported, or it's not mentioned prominently enough.
"Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material "
Sturgeon never said that Ed was PM material
She said that the claims in the memo: - that she'd prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was not Prime Ministerial material
Were '100% untrue'.
Surely that means:
- that she'd NOT prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was NOT Prime Ministerial material?
Or was it only 50% untrue?
She might not have said anything on those topics. That's just one possibility.
And Mr Carmichael did say the memo was nonsense. And he should know. It was in his advantage to say it was true.
Why should he know? He wasn't at the meeting, was he? Whether the civil servant minuted it correctly (she must have said something) is another question. I imagine he/his special adviser rationalised the leak on the grounds that "she was saying one thing publicly, and another thing privately (they thought), so they thought the public had a right to know".
The problem was 1) she might not have said exactly what the minutes suggested and 2) it didn't matter because as long as she denied it, Scottish opinion was always going to row in behind her.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
"What is Labour for?" Ed Miliband spent five years looking at a blank sheet of paper, not because there weren't ideas; they just weren't ideas that answered that question. There is no point in keeping Ed in place for another year or two when the electorate have told him he doesn't know what Labour is for. Next....
Labour will struggle whilst ever they don't have a leader who knows how to answer that question in 2020.
Next....
In fairness to Ed he had a blank piece of paper for 5 years but that can be all forgotten when he surpassed himself by filling in that blank piece of paper on a stone obelisk.
"What is Labour for?" Ed Miliband spent five years looking at a blank sheet of paper, not because there weren't ideas; they just weren't ideas that answered that question. There is no point in keeping Ed in place for another year or two when the electorate have told him he doesn't know what Labour is for. Next....
Labour will struggle whilst ever they don't have a leader who knows how to answer that question in 2020.
Next....
In fairness to Ed he had a blank piece of paper for 5 years but that can be all forgotten when he surpassed himself by filling in that blank piece of paper on a stone obelisk.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
Obviously not enough actions and the only action I've seen on energy costs is to steadily increase them.
You could have lower energy costs, reduced business rates, faster broadband and better roads for a fraction of the money getting spent on HS2.
Then you've not been paying much attention.
To pick just one energy cost example from memory, fuel costs are now more than 20p a litre cheaper than they would have been had the planned fuel duty increases continued. Considering that car journeys are more common in the suburbs where Tube-style public transport isn't an option, that has an impact on both business costs and on public costs (which have knock on effects for businesses).
Do you think freezing fuel duties was not worth doing? Would you rather fuel costs be 20p a litre more expensive?
A lot of road improvement work is happening too, including nearby we have had major works on the M62 and M60 as well as having had works done on the M6 recently. Off the motorways we've had a lot of road improvements lately in town as well, as well as new bridges getting developed to resolve spots where traffic has long been a problem.
Broadband is continually improving, we've got fibre optic now. But frankly I think that is BT's job not the governments. I don't want the government getting involved in business provision unless it has to.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
You'd need a heart of stone etc.......
Mind you, it will be interesting to see how they perform on the Select Committees - an effective opposition is good for governance - and lord knows Labour aren't going to provide it in the short term.....
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
"Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material "
Sturgeon never said that Ed was PM material
She said that the claims in the memo: - that she'd prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was not Prime Ministerial material
Were '100% untrue'.
Surely that means:
- that she'd NOT prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was NOT Prime Ministerial material?
Or was it only 50% untrue?
She might not have said anything on those topics. That's just one possibility.
And Mr Carmichael did say the memo was nonsense. And he should know. It was in his advantage to say it was true.
Why should he know? He wasn't at the meeting, was he? Whether the civil servant minuted it correctly (she must have said something) is another question. I imagine he/his special adviser rationalised the leak on the grounds that "she was saying one thing publicly, and another thing privately (they thought), so they thought the public had a right to know".
The problem was 1) she might not have said exactly what the minutes suggested and 2) it didn't matter because as long as she denied it, Scottish opinion was always going to row in behind her.
You need to come up to speed on this, the civil servant who drafted the note wasn't at the meeting either, the note was supposedly drafted after the civil servant had a chat over the phone with someone who was at the meeting. To risk a diplomatic incident for a bit of political capital is pathetic on every level, to make matters worse Carmichael is a solicitor and by approving the leak of a confidential document has undoubtedly breached Law Society professional standards.
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
"so Labour is not blamed for the global financial crisis."
Not this again. Labour are blamed for leaving us vulnerable to a global financial crisis by spending tax money from the financial sector which proved to be temporary, and committing it to future spending too. Gordon did NOT abolish boom and bust - he just thought he had and spent accordingly.
Guilty as charged.
Brown and Labour took away bank supervision from the BoE and allowed UK banks to take on and package up squillions of bad sub prime US debts. The banks then went bust. This precipitated the recession. It also wiped out a chunk of the tax base at a time when Brown had massively increased public spending. Labour apologists are thick.
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
The German Navy were appalled at the prospect of trying to cross the English Channel with the Royal Navy defending the home islands - and some of this may have fed through to Hitler, who had never intended it invade - as Churchill observed, he knew Britain would now have his neck, or perish in the attempt......
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
Actually the Brown surpluses only happened thanks to the golden inheritance he received from Major and while he was following Ken Clarke's plans.
From when Brown's only policies kicked in onwards any hint of control over the deficit was gone. Despite being in a boom.
Plus the reason the Conservatives have had to run deficits is because they're busy cleaning up the mess left by Labour. The Conservatives left a golden legacy to Brown, but it was squandered. Had Brown kept control of the finances and been running a surplus during the boom, or even just a small deficit (sub 1%) then we'd have been able to cope with the recession better.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
They don't have the better record.
1. The binary distinction of running / not running a deficit is ludicrously over-simplifying matters. Much more important are: - how big the deficit is, - at what stage in the economic cycle it's being run, - how it relates to growth in GDP (small deficits can be run indefinitely as long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is at worst stable over the cycle.
2. Labour only ran budget surpluses for four years - Because they followed the Conservative spending plans on taking office - Because they got lucky with the 3G phone licence windfall.
To tie two aspects of the thread together, Labour's approach to preparing for the risk of recession was about the same as Baldwin's approach to the risk of war.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
Hmm. While I've no doubt they had some glorious plans in the event of propping up a Labour government, thinking like most of us idiots that Cameron would struggle to get the numbers he needed, the problem is they are not really disadvantaged in their endgame by Cameron outright winning either. The SNP's ability to cause direct mischief is lessened, but it is still not a bad position for their aims to have Cameron with a majority.
That's the thing about the SNP at the moment - a combination of great leadership, dearth of opposition and the capturing of the public mood and enthusiasm, means that pretty much no matter what they do seems, at the very least in the short term, to be good for them in one way or another.
It was the best outcome the SNP could have hoped for.
"Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material "
Sturgeon never said that Ed was PM material
She said that the claims in the memo: - that she'd prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was not Prime Ministerial material
Were '100% untrue'.
Surely that means:
- that she'd NOT prefer Cameron to be PM and - Ed was NOT Prime Ministerial material?
Or was it only 50% untrue?
She might not have said anything on those topics. That's just one possibility.
And Mr Carmichael did say the memo was nonsense. And he should know. It was in his advantage to say it was true.
Why should he know? He wasn't at the meeting, was he? Whether the civil servant minuted it correctly (she must have said something) is another question. I imagine he/his special adviser rationalised the leak on the grounds that "she was saying one thing publicly, and another thing privately (they thought), so they thought the public had a right to know".
The problem was 1) she might not have said exactly what the minutes suggested and 2) it didn't matter because as long as she denied it, Scottish opinion was always going to row in behind her.
Even though the person writing it third hand themselves said it was horse manure for sure.
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
All good background, for what its worth I posted the following on 6th April:
"As Rennie was one of the first to react, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the work of a Carmichael SPAD, as SPAD's are quasi civil servants. SLAB did jump on it early on, but backpedalled once the Milliband not PM material "quote" sunk in. Anyway this will be an interesting test of Sturgeon's popularity, I don't think it will have much impact, as this is just a Westminster bubble story."
If I could get to the bottom of this with no inside knowledge, why it took 7 weeks and £1.4 million to reach my conclusion beggers belief. Yet again the Tories and SLID are playing the Scottish population as being a bunch of numpties. I think Rennie is being given a soft ride by the MSM, he lost 10 out of 11 seats and has failed to resign, his knowing or unknowing involvement in this turgid affair should finish him as leader.
How could it take £200K a week for 7 weeks to check the absolute turnip had used his official phone to do the smearing. To think that these dunderheids were running the country not long ago is scary.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
Hmm. While I've no doubt they had some glorious plans in the event of propping up a Labour government, thinking like most of us idiots that Cameron would struggle to get the numbers he needed, the problem is they are not really disadvantaged in their endgame by Cameron outright winning either. The SNP's ability to cause direct mischief is lessened, but it is still not a bad position for their aims to have Cameron with a majority.
That's the thing about the SNP at the moment - a combination of great leadership, dearth of opposition and the capturing of the public mood and enthusiasm, means that pretty much no matter what they do seems, at the very least in the short term, to be good for them in one way or another.
It was the best outcome the SNP could have hoped for.
But everything is always 'the best outcome the SNP could have hoped for......
BTW, how have they managed to spin their Educational record?
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
There is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women or two intersex or whatever.
Marriage is between a man and a woman . nothing more nothing less.
They can call it marriage, but it isn't.
No problem them, everyone can be happy - civil authorities can call the arrangements whatever they like, as they have adjusted the rules throughout history and are just adjusting another one, and those who have a firmer definition for moral or religious reasons or whatever, can rest safe in the knowledge that the new 'marriage' is not the proper kind as far as they (and god, or whatever) are concerned, no matter the legalities.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
Obviously not enough actions and the only action I've seen on energy costs is to steadily increase them.
You could have lower energy costs, reduced business rates, faster broadband and better roads for a fraction of the money getting spent on HS2.
Then you've not been paying much attention.
To pick just one energy cost example from memory, fuel costs are now more than 20p a litre cheaper than they would have been had the planned fuel duty increases continued. Considering that car journeys are more common in the suburbs where Tube-style public transport isn't an option, that has an impact on both business costs and on public costs (which have knock on effects for businesses).
Do you think freezing fuel duties was not worth doing? Would you rather fuel costs be 20p a litre more expensive?
A lot of road improvement work is happening too, including nearby we have had major works on the M62 and M60 as well as having had works done on the M6 recently. Off the motorways we've had a lot of road improvements lately in town as well, as well as new bridges getting developed to resolve spots where traffic has long been a problem.
Broadband is continually improving, we've got fibre optic now. But frankly I think that is BT's job not the governments. I don't want the government getting involved in business provision unless it has to.
To summarise:
Anything which changes to the good the government should get credit for and anything which changes to the bad is the fault of someone else.
The government shouldn't interfere in business provision unless its HS2.
A tax freeze is a cut.
And the carbon tax isn't mentioned - what a surprise.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
Actually the Brown surpluses only happened thanks to the golden inheritance he received from Major and while he was following Ken Clarke's plans.
From when Brown's only policies kicked in onwards any hint of control over the deficit was gone. Despite being in a boom.
Plus the reason the Conservatives have had to run deficits is because they're busy cleaning up the mess left by Labour. The Conservatives left a golden legacy to Brown, but it was squandered. Had Brown kept control of the finances and been running a surplus during the boom, or even just a small deficit (sub 1%) then we'd have been able to cope with the recession better.
All good background, for what its worth I posted the following on 6th April:
"As Rennie was one of the first to react, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the work of a Carmichael SPAD, as SPAD's are quasi civil servants. SLAB did jump on it early on, but backpedalled once the Milliband not PM material "quote" sunk in. Anyway this will be an interesting test of Sturgeon's popularity, I don't think it will have much impact, as this is just a Westminster bubble story."
If I could get to the bottom of this with no inside knowledge, why it took 7 weeks and £1.4 million to reach my conclusion beggers belief. Yet again the Tories and SLID are playing the Scottish population as being a bunch of numpties. I think Rennie is being given a soft ride by the MSM, he lost 10 out of 11 seats and has failed to resign, his knowing or unknowing involvement in this turgid affair should finish him as leader.
How could it take £200K a week for 7 weeks to check the absolute turnip had used his official phone to do the smearing.
It is pretty remarkable. I'm beginning to see why actually discovering who leaked things is not really in the public interest in some ways, as it was pretty clear the purpose of the leaking and thus which side it was supposed to benefit (even if it did not and we could not be certain who exactly it was), so the only change resulting from it might be one or two blokes resigning. Not much additional change for £1.4 million really.
Irish gay marriage referendum: 'No' campaigners concede defeat
Gay rights groups hailed victory in Ireland's referendum on same-sex marriage on Saturday after "No" campaigners effectively conceded defeat in the historic vote. "Everyone seems to be predicting a 'yes' ... and that seems to be the case at the moment. It's disappointing," said John Murray from Catholic think tank the Iona Institute, which spearheaded the "No" campaign.
To use an old Tory phrase let us go back to basics.
The reason the memo is bollocks is simple . It is not a minute which some of the dimwits in the metro press contiunue to believe but a third hand account BY PHONE which the writer himself doubted ie "lost in translation".
The two principals say is untrue, the source at the other end of the phone ie Counsel General says it is untrue and the author of the memo thought it was unlikely and "lost in translation". All of that means we don't need any reliance on the discredited Carmichael who also now accepts it was innacurate.
The Telegraph is living in what the Sun Pol Ed described this morning as a "parallel universe". The London Indy guy is too lazy to understand the story on a Bank Holiday Friday but believe me all the Scottish press have their teeth well and truly into Cramichael and he shall not survive.
The ultimate reason comes down to Paul Flynn MP who poitns out that if Carmichael hadn't lied and continues to lie then the Inquiry costs of an amzing £1.4 million would not have been spent.
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
Singapore was lost because of bad generalship and the loss of food and water supplies. Did the French surrender Verdun in WW1 ? I do not see the point of staying in Paris to be surrounded and bypassed.
Miss Lass, I wonder if that might have longer term consequences, making it harder for the Lib Dems to recover in Scotland. £1.4m of public money needlessly spent after a dubious [at best] leak which was denied pre-election and admitted after he'd gotten back in is a rather easy attack line.
To use an old Tory phrase let us go back to basics.
The reason the memo is bollocks is simple . It is not a minute which some of the dimwits in the metro press contiunue to believe but a third hand account BY PHONE which the writer himself doubted ie "lost in translation".
The two principals say is untrue, the source at the other end of the phone ie Counsel General says it is untrue and the author of the memo thought it was unlikely and "lost in translation". All of that means we don't need any reliance on the discredited Carmichael who also now accepts it was innacurate.
The Telegraph is living in what the Sun Pol Ed described this morning as a "parallel universe". The London Indy guy is too lazy to understand the story on a Bank Holiday Friday but believe me all the Scottish press have their teeth well and truly into Cramichael and he shall not survive.
The ultimate reason comes down to Paul Flynn MP who poitns out that if Carmichael hadn't lied and continues to lie then the Inquiry costs of an amzing £1.4 million would not have been spent.
Carmichael is toast.
Has anyone asked the obvious question ? Why did the inquiry cost £1.4m ?
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
The proper way of looking at things is to consider government debt as a percentage of GDP:
The danger period being 2003 to 2007 when, despite the banks pumping a hundred billion a year into the economy in the form of household loans, government debt was steadily rising.
Note that there was no increase in government debt percentage because of the 1980 recession, an increase in government debt percentage of about 15% because of the 1990 recession and an increase in government debt percentage of over 40% because of the 2008 recession.
Indicative of a country now living well beyond its means.
Actions have been taken on business rates etc the idea that its just copying London or about the cities is an oversimplification.
Obviously not enough actions and the only action I've seen on energy costs is to steadily increase them.
You could have lower energy costs, reduced business rates, faster broadband and better roads for a fraction of the money getting spent on HS2.
Then you've not been paying much attention.
To pick just one energy cost example from memory, fuel costs are now more than 20p a litre cheaper than they would have been had the planned fuel duty increases continued. Considering that car journeys are more common in the suburbs where Tube-style public transport isn't an option, that has an impact on both business costs and on public costs (which have knock on effects for businesses).
Do you think freezing fuel duties was not worth doing? Would you rather fuel costs be 20p a litre more expensive?
A lot of road improvement work is happening too, including nearby we have had major works on the M62 and M60 as well as having had works done on the M6 recently. Off the motorways we've had a lot of road improvements lately in town as well, as well as new bridges getting developed to resolve spots where traffic has long been a problem.
Broadband is continually improving, we've got fibre optic now. But frankly I think that is BT's job not the governments. I don't want the government getting involved in business provision unless it has to.
To summarise:
Anything which changes to the good the government should get credit for and anything which changes to the bad is the fault of someone else.
The government shouldn't interfere in business provision unless its HS2.
A tax freeze is a cut.
And the carbon tax isn't mentioned - what a surprise.
Rightly or wrongly the government is heavily involved in transport. It makes provisions for motorways so why not HS2?
Broadband is dealt with efficiently by a private company. Which private company is efficiently building motorways etc?
A tax freeze is a cut on what had been expected and since duty is set in nominal not proportional terms it is also a real terms cut. Fuel duty has been frozen in nominal terms for four years so it is now cheaper in real terms than it was. A real terms cut.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
There is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women or two intersex or whatever.
Marriage is between a man and a woman . nothing more nothing less.
They can call it marriage, but it isn't.
No problem them, everyone can be happy - civil authorities can call the arrangements whatever they like, as they have adjusted the rules throughout history and are just adjusting another one, and those who have a firmer definition for moral or religious reasons or whatever, can rest safe in the knowledge that the new 'marriage' is not the proper kind as far as they (and god, or whatever) are concerned, no matter the legalities.
It would be far simpler and preferable for government to get out of the whole marriage business.
The State should recognise civil partnerships between whatever combination of genders wish to register for legal reasons.
Churches can marry members their congregations by ceremonially blessing partnerships (or refusing to do so) between whichever combinations of genders that religion believes are allowed under their God or gods to fornicate together.
It's a straightforward and elegant solution - take the government out of a role it has no need to be involved in.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
I looked last night and this morning. It's missed because it's either front page and centre (right wing hack) or buried elsewhere on the site where most couldn't find it.(left wing hack) . See BBC for MO on this.
Fact remains the left wing media had months and months of this on front page as did the BBC on every bulletin. . When it comes to their own though it doesn't last for even hours on front page and you have to hunt to find it if it is even mentioned at all. BBC mentioned it on the day way down the news order and then nothing .
Comments
Its not just the cities themselves that matter but the suburbs too. Not everyone who works in London lives in London, many live and commute from other counties like Surrey. In the same way many who work in Liverpool or Manchester commute in from places like Warrington.
To me it's not just that Manchester and Liverpool should be like London, but also why shouldn't suburbs in the North West be as successful as those in the South East? Why should we just look at Manchester and compare to London, why not also look at places like Warrington and compare to places like Woking?
I can't stand these artificial restrictions of looking at "Manchester" as being the entirety of the North West, we're 20 miles away and you wouldn't ignore that in the South East. It shows general laziness of some reporters to confine themselves to the boundaries of a city rather than looking at the whole region.
Outside of London the number of Labour MPs have fallen from 312 to 187.
This London concentration of Labour MPs and an even greater concentration of Labour members is a factor in Labour’s loss of connection to and support in medium sized towns in England and Wales and its collapse in Scotland.
You are wrong, which illustrates my point. The next Labour leader needs to develop the case and not allow the Conservative myth to go unchallenged, least of all concede it from the start.
Nicola Sturgeon did want David Cameron to win the general election, report concludes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-did-want-david-cameron-to-win-the-general-election-report-concludes-10271382.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYUkV-SHFw
Oh right, no recession could start because Brown had eliminated boom and bust. There's a word for that: hubris.
Of the seats Richard mentioned, Leeds NE is trending away from the Tories (which is one reason why some of the above are trending towards them). Leeds NW is a possible future Con gain but the Lib Dems and tactical voting there complicate matters. Bradford W is a law unto itself.
The Independent-no longer worthy of its name when it came out for the Coalition parties precisely to stop the SNP.
I note the comments on the article (not all by SNP supporters) totally lambast that thoroughly amateurish/dishonest article
But if you want to boost northern England economically, and consequently Conservative prospects there, then lower business rates, cheaper energy costs and faster broadband would perhaps be the best ways.
Obsessing about big cities and trying to copy London (a place where Conservatives fortunes are in steady decline) certainly isn't.
Its all about judgement, isn't it?
Local factors are frequently overstated. When there is an across-the-board change it seems safe to say they weren't the major factor.
https://twitter.com/TimReidBBC/status/602027263773769728
If SLAB are serious about recovering in Scotland my advice:
- The SEC should meet and sack Murphy & co, if left in position these guys will spend the next month settling old scores and potentially completely destroy the party, they've already done quite a good job on this score.
- Release SLAB membership data - Labour nationally are releasing surgeon membership figures but SLAB's dogged refusal to release numbers is pathetic.
- The SEC should also confirm that this election will be on a one member one vote basis.
- All the dark forces - be they SLAB insiders, Union barons, London Labour meddlers, MSM etc - should stop making things worse by seeking to interfere in the leadership process. It would appear that Dugdale is the dark forces candidate.
- If SLAB really wanted to reach out to the Scottish people the outgoing 40 Labour MPs should make good Gordon Brown's £1 million promise to food banks, by donating £25,000 of each of their pay offs.
At the moment, Labour isn't getting either pressure or attention from the general public. The core vote in England is not having second thoughts, but the floating voters have said "Not you this time" and are more interested in what Cameron and Osborne will do. That gives us a certain breathing space, but it's important to use it productively.
Incidentally, as a defeated candidate it's interesting to see what the postbag holds. I've had a lengthy, very kind handwritten letter from John Healey (who isn't standing for anything that I can affect, so he's just being really nice), and pleasant condolence notes from neighbouring MPs Chris Leslie and Lilian Greenwood and from Stella Creasey, Chris Evans (who thinks I was the candidate for Stockton South - I detect a cut and paste) and Tom Watson (who is sympathetic but moves on to asking for deputy leadership support) and a senior party official, plus approaching 400 letters and emails from constituents expressing regret, wishing me luck etc. (a lot more than in 2010, probably because I'm publicly standing down). In previous defeats I had a nice note from Harriet in 2010 and a reply from Michael Foot in 1983 (who I'd written a cheer-up letter) thanking me for my 'magnaminous' view of his leadership.
Even the pro-Union Herald is pretty scathing of Carmichael today.
The amount of tweet deletion going on at the moment for sure shows a great deal of lack of faith in the memo's truth.
The locals in the SW will be ones to watch in coming years, the LDs need to demonstrate they are the natural second choice, not UKIP and Labour (people voted Labour into second or third place in many areas in the SW, I can barely believe it), which then gives them some hope to recover some parliamentary seats.
The Sheffield Hallam Conservatives couldn't find their arse with both hands.
Leeds NW was an especially, but little noticed, dismal result - from second to third in a constituency where they have councillors.
Just not with a majority. That's where "writing Labour's budget" and suchlike over-egged the pudding. They were supposed to be getting in the mix on every vote, causing maximum mischief. Lords of misrule. But with Cameron having a majority, they have been reduced to five years of playing musical chairs with the Beast of Bolsover.
Hur hur hur....
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-carmichael-vulnerable-to-election.html
"Fine - go on arguing that Nicola thinks Ed is Prime Ministerial material "
Sturgeon never said that Ed was PM material, she merely denied that she did not think he was-try another cliché, that's a horse of a very different colour.
That's the thing about the SNP at the moment - a combination of great leadership, dearth of opposition and the capturing of the public mood and enthusiasm, means that pretty much no matter what they do seems, at the very least in the short term, to be good for them in one way or another.
"The other interesting thing is the enthusiasm of Nats to proudly advertise Nicola's judgement that Miliband was Prime Ministerial material, when the electorate (not least in Scotland), Ed and the Labour Party have pretty comprehensively rejected the idea..... "
Link??
Newcastle under Lyme, Derbyshire NE, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Bridgend etc.
The needs of such places are not the same as those of the big cities
- that she'd prefer Cameron to be PM and
- Ed was not Prime Ministerial material
Were '100% untrue'.
Surely that means:
- that she'd NOT prefer Cameron to be PM and
- Ed was NOT Prime Ministerial material?
Or was it only 50% untrue?
And Mr Carmichael did say the memo was nonsense. And he should know. It was in his advantage to say it was true.
Looking at the big picture, I think it worked.
"As Rennie was one of the first to react, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the work of a Carmichael SPAD, as SPAD's are quasi civil servants. SLAB did jump on it early on, but backpedalled once the Milliband not PM material "quote" sunk in. Anyway this will be an interesting test of Sturgeon's popularity, I don't think it will have much impact, as this is just a Westminster bubble story."
If I could get to the bottom of this with no inside knowledge, why it took 7 weeks and £1.4 million to reach my conclusion beggers belief. Yet again the Tories and SLID are playing the Scottish population as being a bunch of numpties. I think Rennie is being given a soft ride by the MSM, he lost 10 out of 11 seats and has failed to resign, his knowing or unknowing involvement in this turgid affair should finish him as leader.
Tweet from Diane Abbott MP about the SNP members:
"I am in Parliament with them. Not behaving like children at all. Media stuff is tosh."
You could have lower energy costs, reduced business rates, faster broadband and better roads for a fraction of the money getting spent on HS2.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
And you can't use the argument 'You're not an economist, so you wouldn't understand' because of the reply ... 'Well, depending on economists went well, didn't it?'
Not 'wrong' or 'inaccurate' or 'not my view' but '100% untrue'.....
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/22/sun-reporter-anthony-france-guilty-paying-police-officer
The higher swing in the SW actually did not make any difference. 8.7% would have delivered only Bath. However, on the day the swing in Bath was 16.68%.
The LD results shows the party's extreme naivety. What did they think the Tories would do to them ? Treat them with kid gloves ? After all, the Tories are in power because they won 27 seats from the LD's in England alone.
Those who trot the hollow phrase that they did the country a service [ mainly PB Tories and naïve LD supporters ] should be asked the obvious question:
How come nobody in the country reward them for their services ?
They probably cam claw back in the rural seats in the SW. But the urban seats have gone either to Labour or Labour will become the main opposition party. I am thinking of the London seats, in particular.
We had so many experts here who said the Huppert was a nailed on certainty ! Really ? Labour came from 3rd to win Cambridge.
I suspect that every seat that Labour lost in Scotland effectively lost it another in England and Wales.
The vision of Sturgeon controlling a weak EdM government was pretty horrific to most of England.
PS As a corollary, if it is mentioned in the 'Western' media, it doesn't matter, because either it's not 'mainstream' reported, or it's not mentioned prominently enough.
The problem was 1) she might not have said exactly what the minutes suggested and 2) it didn't matter because as long as she denied it, Scottish opinion was always going to row in behind her.
As I have already pointed out your powers of logical argument are absolutely woeful.
Sturgeon said that claims that she SAID Ed was not PM material were 100% untrue.
That statement is actually NEUTRAL as to her views on Ed.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
..............respect........... He's the man!!
Jamie Bryson
@JamieBrysonCPNI
Proud day for Northern Ireland, as the moral fibre of society corrodes & implodes all around us NI stands firm.
Perhaps they should secede from the festering cesspool of depravity that is the British Isles.
To pick just one energy cost example from memory, fuel costs are now more than 20p a litre cheaper than they would have been had the planned fuel duty increases continued. Considering that car journeys are more common in the suburbs where Tube-style public transport isn't an option, that has an impact on both business costs and on public costs (which have knock on effects for businesses).
Do you think freezing fuel duties was not worth doing? Would you rather fuel costs be 20p a litre more expensive?
A lot of road improvement work is happening too, including nearby we have had major works on the M62 and M60 as well as having had works done on the M6 recently. Off the motorways we've had a lot of road improvements lately in town as well, as well as new bridges getting developed to resolve spots where traffic has long been a problem.
Broadband is continually improving, we've got fibre optic now. But frankly I think that is BT's job not the governments. I don't want the government getting involved in business provision unless it has to.
Mind you, it will be interesting to see how they perform on the Select Committees - an effective opposition is good for governance - and lord knows Labour aren't going to provide it in the short term.....
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/21/daily-mirror-owners-ordered-to-pay-1-2m-to-celebrity-phone-hacking-victims
From when Brown's only policies kicked in onwards any hint of control over the deficit was gone. Despite being in a boom.
Plus the reason the Conservatives have had to run deficits is because they're busy cleaning up the mess left by Labour. The Conservatives left a golden legacy to Brown, but it was squandered. Had Brown kept control of the finances and been running a surplus during the boom, or even just a small deficit (sub 1%) then we'd have been able to cope with the recession better.
1. The binary distinction of running / not running a deficit is ludicrously over-simplifying matters. Much more important are:
- how big the deficit is,
- at what stage in the economic cycle it's being run,
- how it relates to growth in GDP (small deficits can be run indefinitely as long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is at worst stable over the cycle.
2. Labour only ran budget surpluses for four years
- Because they followed the Conservative spending plans on taking office
- Because they got lucky with the 3G phone licence windfall.
To tie two aspects of the thread together, Labour's approach to preparing for the risk of recession was about the same as Baldwin's approach to the risk of war.
Mirror's phone hacking made 'News of the World look like cottage industry'
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/21/mirror-hacking-news-of-the-world-court-tabloid
Has been matched by editorial or commentary criticism......
Marriage is between a man and a woman . nothing more nothing less.
They can call it marriage, but it isn't.
BTW, how have they managed to spin their Educational record?
I expect Tories to point to Labour deficits and vice versa. But if they're wrong to run them, they're still wrong whichever party they are.
Our deficits are nice deficits sums up the Ed campaign.
Anything which changes to the good the government should get credit for and anything which changes to the bad is the fault of someone else.
The government shouldn't interfere in business provision unless its HS2.
A tax freeze is a cut.
And the carbon tax isn't mentioned - what a surprise.
Next 5 years is Popcorn time
Irish gay marriage referendum: 'No' campaigners concede defeat
Gay rights groups hailed victory in Ireland's referendum on same-sex marriage on Saturday after "No" campaigners effectively conceded defeat in the historic vote.
"Everyone seems to be predicting a 'yes' ... and that seems to be the case at the moment. It's disappointing," said John Murray from Catholic think tank the Iona Institute, which spearheaded the "No" campaign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/11625847/Irish-gay-marriage-referendum-No-campaigners-concede-defeat.html
To use an old Tory phrase let us go back to basics.
The reason the memo is bollocks is simple . It is not a minute which some of the dimwits in the metro press contiunue to believe but a third hand account BY PHONE which the writer himself doubted ie "lost in translation".
The two principals say is untrue, the source at the other end of the phone ie Counsel General says it is untrue and the author of the memo thought it was unlikely and "lost in translation". All of that means we don't need any reliance on the discredited Carmichael who also now accepts it was innacurate.
The Telegraph is living in what the Sun Pol Ed described this morning as a "parallel universe". The London Indy guy is too lazy to understand the story on a Bank Holiday Friday but believe me all the Scottish press have their teeth well and truly into Cramichael and he shall not survive.
The ultimate reason comes down to Paul Flynn MP who poitns out that if Carmichael hadn't lied and continues to lie then the Inquiry costs of an amzing £1.4 million would not have been spent.
Carmichael is toast.
Did the French surrender Verdun in WW1 ?
I do not see the point of staying in Paris to be surrounded and bypassed.
There are rumoured to be some recently renewed communications involving London about the status of Assad's wife and kids.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=HF6X&dataset=pusf&table-id=PSA1
1975 55.8
1976 56.5
1977 54.8
1978 50.8
1979 49.0
1980 45.0
1981 45.6
1982 45.3
1983 43.9
1984 43.6
1985 44.3
1986 41.7
1987 40.1
1988 35.6
1989 29.3
1990 26.2
1991 24.2
1992 25.2
1993 29.0
1994 33.9
1995 37.5
1996 39.2
1997 39.9
1998 39.3
1999 37.5
2000 34.6
2001 30.1
2002 29.3
2003 30.3
2004 31.7
2005 34.3
2006 35.4
2007 36.0
2008 36.7
2009 49.0
2010 62.0
2011 68.1
2012 72.3
2013 76.7
2014 79.1
2015 80.4
The danger period being 2003 to 2007 when, despite the banks pumping a hundred billion a year into the economy in the form of household loans, government debt was steadily rising.
Note that there was no increase in government debt percentage because of the 1980 recession, an increase in government debt percentage of about 15% because of the 1990 recession and an increase in government debt percentage of over 40% because of the 2008 recession.
Indicative of a country now living well beyond its means.
Broadband is dealt with efficiently by a private company. Which private company is efficiently building motorways etc?
A tax freeze is a cut on what had been expected and since duty is set in nominal not proportional terms it is also a real terms cut. Fuel duty has been frozen in nominal terms for four years so it is now cheaper in real terms than it was. A real terms cut.
But it seems that nothing is good enough for you.
Removing Saddam was a great idea NOT !. What was said at the time. "We are in clear and present danger " ? Oh, yeah !
The State should recognise civil partnerships between whatever combination of genders wish to register for legal reasons.
Churches can marry members their congregations by ceremonially blessing partnerships (or refusing to do so) between whichever combinations of genders that religion believes are allowed under their God or gods to fornicate together.
It's a straightforward and elegant solution - take the government out of a role it has no need to be involved in.
Fact remains the left wing media had months and months of this on front page as did the BBC on every bulletin. . When it comes to their own though it doesn't last for even hours on front page and you have to hunt to find it if it is even mentioned at all. BBC mentioned it on the day way down the news order and then nothing .