politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real mug punters at the moment are those piling onto a
Comments
-
It would sort of remind them of the principles of small government :-)JackW said:
Rutland - Excellent idea. Squeeze the mp's into historic Oakham Castle !!Alanbrooke said:
Given all the paraphenalia that would accompany it, it would need to be in a major city - Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.0 -
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.RobD said:
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
So York or Rutland it is !!0 -
Indeed. If there's a cap from an organisation - then say GE funding will have to be from hundreds of small units - say CLPs or whatever.Alanbrooke said:
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
Trying to remove the money from politics is impossible - like water, it will find a way to reach its destination point and leak out.0 -
Swedie-boy,Stuart_Dickson said:Ho ho. I thought that Project Fear had given up on the "Arc of Insolvency" jibes.
And here's why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Hint: look at where Ireland and Iceland are, relative to the Yookay.
Jim Murphy slagging off Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc was a great chortle here at PB at the time. Not so funny now, huh?
You've been away, so may be out-off-the-loop: Check PPP, GNI, NNI for comparisons.* As the Oirish Finance Minister admits actual income in The Republic is about 70% of the headline figure. **
* I believe Neil offers remedial classes for you and your ilk.
** See t'Economist.0 -
With Parliament rising for the summer next week, it looks like the PM is packing in as much as possible before everyone goes for a break.
I’m hearing a mini-reshuffle is expected next week now (with perhaps only 8 or so posts at sub-Cabinet level changing). Tuesday, Thursday (when the House formally rises) and Friday are all mooted as possible days for the announcement.
Watch for some rising stars to get advancement and some of the older guard to realise their time is up.
More importantly, a limited Cabinet reshuffle is expected to take place next spring to get the Coaliton teams ready for the election. Women will be a priority. The bookies should cut their odds on Liz Truss getting a promotion.
The idea of splitting a reshuffle over July and then September seems to have been roundly rubbished http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/81670/reshuffle_kerfuffle.html0 -
My reading is that the Tories need constant poll leads from firms like ICM of 7%+ before securing an overall majority comes into the frame.
Nah, there's only one day on which it matters. The polling two years beforehand takes into account all sorts of factors that will have changed by then, from it not being a *real* poll taken after real scrutiny has been given to the various parties and leaders, to the improvements in the economy that are likely to occur between now and 2015.
To put the scale of change into context, the Tories only need a net swing of about a third of a percentage point per month from Labour (though some of that would also come from UKIP to Con and Lab to LD), in the 22 months between now and the election to be in majority-winning territory.
Ref the LD / UKIP figures, they're probably right. The chances of the Lib Dems securing an overall majority are actually much less than the 0.5% quoted. I cannot think of any credible scenario by which they will gain support on 2010 after the events of the last three years (they may well gain some back between now and 2015 but not the full 10-15% they've lost since last time). By contrast, in bad times, there is an outside chance that a populist party *with no historic failure behind it* could capitalise on the simultaneous unpopularity of all three established parties and secure 25-30% at a general election, especially if their leader takes part in, and performs very well in, national debates. It is highly unlikely (the 100/1 is probably right), but it's not inconceivable.0 -
Rutland motto - Multum in Parvo - Much in Little.Alanbrooke said:
It would sort of remind them of the principles of small government :-)JackW said:
Rutland - Excellent idea. Squeeze the mp's into historic Oakham Castle !!Alanbrooke said:
Given all the paraphenalia that would accompany it, it would need to be in a major city - Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.0 -
@David_Herdson
Good point - it'd be interesting to know how much polls change DURING a GE campaign and if they changed the result from start to end - much, at all, the Party who won.0 -
Will Balls and other union paid Mps be heckling Cameron or rEd at PMQs today ?
0 -
Having been on the receiving end of this - I concur.
"Patients' lives are being put at risk because thousands of healthcare assistants in hospitals across the country receive no training at all, an inquiry has found.
A third of trusts do not even check whether the assistants, who carry out a range of vital caring tasks instead of nurses, can read or write properly, according to a government-commissioned study. The only training some staff received before caring for the sick was watching a DVD.
Report author Camilla Cavendish warned the NHS is 'extremely bad at getting rid of people', damaging public confidence in the entire health service.
'I think what you need is proper leadership and management, which is in every care home and every hospital the employers are held responsible for the quality of those staff and they are held responsible for meeting certain basic standards of competence and care,; she told BBC Radio 4.
The situation is so dangerous because on most wards there are more healthcare assistants than fully-trained nurses.
The Cavendish review was ordered in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal in which hundreds of patients are thought to have died needlessly as a result of poor care and neglect.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359128/Cavendish-report-warns-thousands-untrained-healthcare-assistants-putting-patients-lives-risk.html#ixzz2Yd5A5XvY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
0 -
The motto of my old school is "Parva Magna Crescunt".JackW said:
Rutland motto - Multum in Parvo - Much in Little.Alanbrooke said:
It would sort of remind them of the principles of small government :-)JackW said:
Rutland - Excellent idea. Squeeze the mp's into historic Oakham Castle !!Alanbrooke said:
Given all the paraphenalia that would accompany it, it would need to be in a major city - Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.
(will that go through the obscenity filter ?)0 -
"But in the past incumbency works for the yellows much more than the other parties": very probably a side effect of being regarded as a party which would never be in power, therefore able to be very good constituency MPs because of lack of distractions, and not to blame for anything happening on a national scale.0
-
And simple but effective recommendations:
"All healthcare assistants in hospitals and home helps employed by councils should undergo the same basic level of training so that the public could be confident they were ‘up to the job’, Miss Cavendish said.
They should be forced to go through a two-week induction and then undergo a six-month probation period, during which they are monitored to ensure they are providing decent care. If they fail, they would have to be sacked.
Miss Cavendish said there was a tendency to ‘understate’ what we regard as basic patient care, what it actually involves and how important it is.
‘I’m proposing a certificate of fundamental care which will be a basic minimum of care.. infection control, dementia awareness...
‘The best hospitals are giving people inductions and then having long probationary periods where members of staff are supervised. Everything I’ve recommended is based on what the best organisations are doing,’ she said.
She said there had to be a cultural change in the NHS towards the role of care staff.
‘There are 60 different titles for healthcare assistants – they should all be called nursing assistants, they should have clear job descriptions, and be held accountable against what they are responsible for.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359128/Cavendish-report-warns-thousands-untrained-healthcare-assistants-putting-patients-lives-risk.html#ixzz2Yd5ssqoi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
0 -
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.tim said:Alanbrooke said:
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.tim said:
It would apply to all TU donationsAlanbrooke said:
except when it doesn't.tim said:@TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG
Very sensible
And it will apply to Trade Unions
That's the risk Ed is taking
And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.0 -
RE:WLQ
In Wales there is always pressure for more than the 60AMs as the case is made that the WG is not subject to enough scrutiny. There is of course resistance from the electorate to the employment of more politicians.
However, I see no reason that (if HoC business is organised correctly) that the 40 Welsh MPs could not sit as a form of Upper Chamber in Cardiff, in the rest of their time, and scrutinise the work of the WG and AMs.
At least it would stop my local MP from saying that topics like health, education etc are nothing to do with him as there are devolved matters. Of course the cost of these MPs could be split between Westminster and Cardiff.
Probably the same arrangement could work for Scotland (presuming no independence) and NI.0 -
More tightening up of the Civil Service
"The Civil Service is already 15 per cent smaller than at the time of the last election. It’s the smallest it has been since the Second World War. But with fewer staff, it’s doing more. This jump in productivity contrasts with the period from 1997 to 2010, when public sector productivity flat-lined...
None of these new proposals require legislation or affect the fundamental Civil Service values which are enshrined in law.
Our changes include:
- Allowing ministers to establish Extended Ministerial Offices (EMOs). The officials and special advisers in these offices can be personally appointed by the minister to whom they will be accountable. These offices will include career Civil Servants working alongside other officials, brought in from outside on fixed-term appointments to provide - for example - policy advice, as well as special advisers.
- Moving Permanent Secretaries on to fixed-tenure appointments. This will sharpen accountability and make a reality of an announcement that the then Prime Minister Tony Blair made back in 2004.
- Introducing cross-Whitehall functional leadership. These heads of function (such as HR and procurement) will help drive greater savings and strengthen the corporate culture.
- Strengthening the accountability of Civil Servants to Parliament. We are reviewing the Osmotherly rules and will announce our changes in due course. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/francis-maude-mp-fixed-tenure-permanent-secretaries-and-much-more-our-next-steps-in-civil-service-re.html
0 -
Re "the allowed stakes are often too paltry to bother": agreed. PP allow me pathetic sums on political bets, no doubt due to my wins at the Scottish GE 2011. Hills are only slightly better, but will only allow me 50 GBP on Yes.JackW said:
Incorrect Stuart.Stuart_Dickson said:Jack, I note that your preliminary Scotch ARSE is predicting a 60/40 victory for Alistair Darling's "Project Fear" campaign.
In that case, I assume that you consider Paddy Power's 5/6 on the YES vote percentage being lower that 41.5% to be money in the bank? How much have you put on?
The 60/40 was my own initial view. My tartan ARSE, not a "Scotch ARSE", has yet to issue its first projection and will not do so until the autumn.
The PP 5/6 is value but I rarely tie money up in long date wagers and more personally the allowed stakes are often too paltry to bother !!
Mind you, Victor Chandler takes the biscuit. They were in such a huff over my wins they closed my account.
0 -
@DavidKendrick
"Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result."
I believe, David, that a high proportion is also robotic. Certainly in horse racing margins have been squeezed to the point where I find myself using the exchanges less and less.0 -
Betfair most seats
Lab 1.7
Con 2.44
0 -
Having lived and worked in York during the early days of PB having moving from Oxford I would back it.
A great city but like many of the places that I have lived/work in lost its league football in recent times. Same with Oxford, Cambridge and Bedfordshire (Luton). Oxford United only returned after I'd left the city.JackW said:
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.RobD said:
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
So York or Rutland it is !!0 -
Was Athelstan's capital not at Malmsebury? Or was it Winchester?JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmesbury
Fine place.
0 -
This will be rubbished but...
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
0 -
You don't think he should wait to find out the details first then? He should just accept the lot based on a plan that wasn't even being considered a couple of weeks ago. Seriously?tim said:
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.Alanbrooke said:
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.tim said:Alanbrooke said:
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.tim said:
It would apply to all TU donationsAlanbrooke said:
except when it doesn't.tim said:@TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG
Very sensible
And it will apply to Trade Unions
That's the risk Ed is taking
And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
But Cameron can accept Labours offer to take union leaders out of the funding equation (above £5k) if he wants to.
I don't think he wants to.0 -
What's Cameron got to do with it ? Ed's Union issue is Ed's. and Ed's alone and atm he's grandstanding and hoping the problem will be forgotten. He's only in this pickle because he has nothing to say about the country so his agenda is now getting written for him. His silence of the bland policy only works if he can stay on the attack, as soon as the opposition hit back big holes open up because there's nothing there to fill them.tim said:
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.Alanbrooke said:
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.tim said:Alanbrooke said:
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.tim said:
It would apply to all TU donationsAlanbrooke said:
except when it doesn't.tim said:@TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG
Very sensible
And it will apply to Trade Unions
That's the risk Ed is taking
And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
But Cameron can accept Labours offer to take union leaders out of the funding equation (above £5k) if he wants to.
I don't think he wants to.0 -
@StuartDickson
At least Victor Chandler have the honesty to close accounts outright.
The other scoundrels rid themselves of winning customers by restricting them to ridiculously small bets.
It is time the Gambling Commission took a look at this practice.0 -
With all the excitement of the Speech you probably missed my request yesterday:tim said:
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.Alanbrooke said:
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.tim said:Alanbrooke said:
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.tim said:
It would apply to all TU donationsAlanbrooke said:
except when it doesn't.tim said:@TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG
Very sensible
And it will apply to Trade Unions
That's the risk Ed is taking
And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
Can you please suggest a sensible bet that reflects your views on the leaders' debates.
0 -
This is very funny even if you think its wrong EdM vs The Unions cartoon
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOzONoQCcAAlM5O.jpg:large0 -
It is an interesting piece of statistics, but seems to be mostly a leveling down.
So despite all the screams of anguish, we are a more equal society than 2010.
It seems to be a good thing that Labour plan to follow the same policies, but we come back to the same question. What would be the point of a Labour government?Plato said:This will be rubbished but...
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.0 -
Mary Riddel who frankly I usually dismiss as a Labour cheerleader in the DT is singing a slightly different tune today.
Ed Miliband is no weakling but this union battle could destroy him.
The Labour leader has picked a fight that has very little relevance to voters...
He should instead be much more worried by the silent moderates fearful that the leader may go too far. In their view, Mr Miliband should temper his reforms with a proud defence of a union link intrinsic to the party’s history and future. “For God’s sake, proceed with caution,” says one senior figure, who speaks for what may be the majority of Labour MPs...
The rise of Ukip and Euroscepticism is one example. While all the major parties have been inert [I have no idea what she's saying here as its nonsense re the Tories], Labour – still dithering over whether to hold a referendum – may reap the whirlwind by failing to make a proper defence of Europe at the outset. Even on smaller, totemic matters there is fudge or silence. On the iniquitous spare bedroom tax, for example, MPs are mortified that they have nothing to say on what has become the biggest doorstep issue. “People are furious,” says one leading party figure. “Yet we have no clear position.”
Far from demonstrating his Iron Man credentials, Mr Miliband risks being drawn into a scuffle that increases contempt for politics in general and Labour in particular. The Ed and Len show is, at root, a battle of ideology and thus of supreme uninterest to voters engaged in their own survival struggles. Ideology pays no bills, minds no children, trains no teachers and offers no succour to the sick, the elderly and the dying. Mr Miliband’s huge gamble in moving his party to the Left can work only if he can prove that Labour will offer fair wages to those in penury, jobs and training for the young and care for the old. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10168911/Ed-Miliband-is-no-weakling-but-this-union-battle-could-destroy-him.html0 -
I see that David Blunkett has just this week taken a second job working for a City firm. He must be very impressed by Ed's speech yesterday0
-
Morning all
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.0 -
An ex colleague of mine runs a tennis betting operation that uses software to compile odds and they then bet on betfair if there is a discrepancy.Peter_the_Punter said:@DavidKendrick
"Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result."
I believe, David, that a high proportion is also robotic. Certainly in horse racing margins have been squeezed to the point where I find myself using the exchanges less and less.
Ozzies apparently are playing a 19yo debutant slow left armer.
Laying the draw is free money. Backing England at greater than evs is also good value. May be worth saving some bank for after the toss - could be a good one to lose.0 -
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
Not only is this nothing to be proud of, but it's a hideous example of how the State forces control and regulation on our lives. It's a socialist command economy.
I want the freedom, the equality of opportunity and the lack of State heavy handed regulation and restriction to be able to succeed or fail. If I succeed I want to be able to do so without boundaries and with a personal nosebleed-high potential. If I fail I don't ask for more than to be picked up and dusted off in an emergency safety net for those with absolutely nothing so that I can try again.
My measure of utopia for a country is a spectacularly unequal society where the top have got there purely on merit. And, of course, pay a flat rate of tax which is the other dreadful factoid from that link. If it costs 38% of income to run a country then it costs *everyone* 38%.
0 -
Though very unfashionable at almost every point in his Cabinet career and since - I've been a bit of a Blunkett fan. I read his autobiog and its fascinating greasy pole stuffrichardDodd said:
I see that David Blunkett has just this week taken a second job working for a City firm. He must be very impressed by Ed's speech yesterday
0 -
So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
0 -
The Third Way has destroyed it unless you yearn for the 70/80s if the Left are right. Most of us reject that idea - but it shows the paucity of thinking that this is best they can come up with = recycled politics that's failed everywhere.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
on another note
ONS @statisticsONS
Quality-adjusted labour input up 3.2% in 2012, following 1.4% in 2011 bit.ly/1aVg3WU0 -
Faux class war and porkbarrelling.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?0 -
stodge said:
Morning all
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
It's a great policy isn't it. I wonder how high we can raise the personal allowance? Certainly up to full time minimum wage, maybe even full time living wage. It would also be great if that process could be started before the election.
0 -
Shouldn't Labour just apologise for the last 20 years, wrap up their party and let the LDs get on with being the opposition ? At least the LDs get results.TGOHF said:
Faux class war and porkbarrelling.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?0 -
For EdM fans and Mr Hodges is now in a minority of cheerleaders... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100225777/forget-len-mccluskeys-crocodile-smile-eds-speech-really-was-a-historic-moment/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"One is the unhelpfully positive response from Len McCluskey. Over the past few days we’ve become accustomed to an avalanche of self-pitying, self-indulgent bombast from the Unite leader. But yesterday he was the epitome of moderation and restraint. Miliband’s speech was “visionary” he said. His union would engage “positively” with the proposals.
All of which is jolly nice of him, but not necessarily indicative of the response of the union movement as a whole. Over the past week the other union general secretaries have been furious at McCluskey’s grandstanding. And my understanding is that Unite have now agreed to dial down the rhetoric and allow other unions to take a lead in responding to the Miliband plan.
And their response is instructive. Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, was said to be “bouncing off the walls” over what Miliband had announced, something reflected in his slightly tortured description of the proposals as “completely without the necessary substance that is required to see if they are workable”. Ominously, he added that “in the scrum of publicity it is important to note that Ed Miliband has said that these ideas will take a considerable length of time to flesh out and if feasible to implement them”. Billy Hayes of the CWU described the announcement as “dog whistle” politics, whilst Dave Prentis of Unison described the whole thing as “an unforgivable diversion from the real issues that this country faces”. That last comment was probably directed as much at the leader of Unite as the leader of the Labour Party...0 -
Indeed should be accelerated. Best thing the LDs have done in govt.JonathanD said:stodge said:Morning all
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
It's a great policy isn't it. I wonder how high we can raise the personal allowance? Certainly up to full time minimum wage, maybe even full time living wage. It would also be great if that process could be started before the election.0 -
Weather forecast for Trent Bridge looks amazing - 5 days of sunshine ! Laying the draw here.0
-
Just seen Mr Kenny on BBC24 - and he's grimly smiling at it all "Ed talked about *mending not ending* - I think he's ended it"0
-
So Bresnan or Finn? I would say Finn. If it is Bresnan England are more worried about their batting than they want to admit.
Australia have called up a young mystery spinner. Looks like they have swallowed the line about spinning pitches.
Given the weather forecast laying the draw here seems to me to be a no brainer. A winner is slightly harder to call. Australia will be enormously up for this and I think their best chance of a win in the series is the first or the last test.
Edit. And its Finn. Good positive choice for England.0 -
Morning all,
My prediction for the Ashes is 3-1 England but I think the best bet on England, assuming England are on top, is for Joe Root to be top England batsman @ 11/2. As an opener, he is likely to get the most chance for runs if England ever face a small fourth innings total and he is in form. Obviously, Cook is the top man but I think the significantly longer price on Root is very fair.
Swann looks the obvious choice for top bowler as England would have been mad not to try get pitches that turn a bit given Australia's struggle to find a spinner. But his record at TB is poor so it might be worth looking for longer prices after the first Test.
Anyone else have last minute thoughts while we wait the last half hour?
0 -
I find this so depressing but you're spot on.TGOHF said:
Faux class war and porkbarrelling.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
The Class War advocated by numpties like Owen Jones and his Uncle Len are just snobbery dressed up as something worthy - and virtually everything I associate with Labour is playing to the Pressure Group Gallery of minorities, health care and safety nazis et al.
All parties have their fair share of lobbyist - but Labour has cornered the market in those that demand we pay for them to boss us about and in many cases live rather better-off lives. The ludicrous Bedroom Tax being a prime example of their hypocrisy.0 -
Seumas Milne takes an unsurprising line on Ed Miliband's union reforms:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/labour-unite
He does, however, make one arresting point:
"Miliband yesterday denounced Falkirk as the "death-throes" of a "hated machine politics". In reality, it was New Labour which deployed machine politics over two decades to parachute in croney candidates, often with the collaboration of pliant union officials.
One consequence is the hopelessly unrepresentative nature of the parliamentary Labour party, only 9% of whose members are now from a manual occupation, compared with 40% in 1979 and 4% in parliament as a whole."
0 -
England and Wales playing Oz in the ashes,
I wonder if the English will fly union jacks as not just an English team?
Thought not.
Maybe the welsh should get their own team as many in England have difficulty recognising they even exist as a joint team. No flag, just the English one so might as well just call it England as it is in all but very occasional name.
Everyone is deemed English unless the players put up a stink and then we have to all be British it seems.
Why is the all England club not called the all UK club I wonder?
Does it only have authority over England? What about Guernsey where that good tennis player comes from that people say is English? Or that other one from Dunblane that Inverdale thinks is English? : )-1 -
As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.0 -
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generationstodge said:As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.0 -
I'd expect the Lib Dems to recover to 17/18% in 2015, UKIP to win 7% or so, and Others to win 5/6%.stodge said:Morning all
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.0 -
OT If you're on Twitter and your timeline is infested with tweets about stuff you really aren't interested in... try this.
Go to Settings in Tweetdeck [ download it here if you want it separate from your browser page - http://tweetdeck.com/ , click on Mute and type in the words you don't want to read about - even if they're from your favourite Twits.
I've already added MUFC and CFC to mine...0 -
It's not good news, though, as it involves levelling down, rather than levelling up.Plato said:This will be rubbished but...
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
0 -
*sigh*
So the Indie scoop on a WLQ 'solution' is based on briefings on an Oliver Nitwit/Danny Alexander master strategy?
Pity.
I'll believe it when I see the legislation.
0 -
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3942/what_is_labour_for#.Ud0tfkx2s9Q.twitter
What is Labour for and how Fatcha has won....
0 -
For those wondering who'd be effected by the ECHR view re whole-life tariffs, here are the contenders. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3811907.ece
"When life means life
The 49 with whole-life tariffs include:
Jeremy Bamber Shot dead adoptive parents, sister and twin nephews
Douglas Vinter Released from life sentence for murder, then killed wife
Peter Moore Killed, mutilated men
Robert Maudsley Jailed for murder, he killed three more men in prison
Dennis Nilsen Muswell Hill killer
Rosemary West Wife of Fred West
Stephen Griffiths Crossbow cannibal
Levi Bellfield Milly Dowler killer
Dale Cregan Police killer
Mark Bridger April Jones’s killer
Steve Wright Suffolk Strangler
Peter Sutcliffe Yorkshire Ripper
Ian Brady Moors murderer"0 -
But I'll bet that he won't turn up his nose at the absolutely mouth-watering tax breaks that well-off married couples get in relation to Inheritance Tax, and Capital Gains Tax.tim said:The Spectator @spectator
I’ll tell you what really devalues marriage: patronising, preachy little tax breaks, says @hugorifkind. http://specc.ie/11j6pu1
Try telling Date Night Dave that, and all he sees are the photo ops.
Deploy the Sam Cam.0 -
I assume this is Ozzies fault as well....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23251821
Small government in action: Corporate interests defeated. The free-market will out...!0 -
That Root call looks a good one, Lucian. I'm joining you.Lucian_Fletcher said:Morning all,
My prediction for the Ashes is 3-1 England but I think the best bet on England, assuming England are on top, is for Joe Root to be top England batsman @ 11/2. As an opener, he is likely to get the most chance for runs if England ever face a small fourth innings total and he is in form. Obviously, Cook is the top man but I think the significantly longer price on Root is very fair.
Swann looks the obvious choice for top bowler as England would have been mad not to try get pitches that turn a bit given Australia's struggle to find a spinner. But his record at TB is poor so it might be worth looking for longer prices after the first Test.
Anyone else have last minute thoughts while we wait the last half hour?
Good luck to us all.0 -
So laments the Winchester and Balliol horny-handed son of toil.antifrank said:Seumas Milne takes an unsurprising line on Ed Miliband's union reforms:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/labour-unite
He does, however, make one arresting point:
"Miliband yesterday denounced Falkirk as the "death-throes" of a "hated machine politics". In reality, it was New Labour which deployed machine politics over two decades to parachute in croney candidates, often with the collaboration of pliant union officials.
One consequence is the hopelessly unrepresentative nature of the parliamentary Labour party, only 9% of whose members are now from a manual occupation, compared with 40% in 1979 and 4% in parliament as a whole."0 -
Still not convinced about Bairstow as Test batsman.
And not totally happy about those clouds.0 -
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/wansbeck-mp-ian-lavery-hits-4922157
Ian Lavery MP less than impressed with rEd.
0 -
0
-
Miliband is no Blair...
In Major's second election his share of the two-party share declined by 13.4 percentage points, to 41.5%. A similar decline for Cameron would put him on 42.1% of the two-party share, which would be about 27.4% on a static two-party share, against Labour's 37.7%. Miliband just short of a 100-seat majority...0 -
Cracking start by Oz 0
-
Ghost of Harmison past bowling first ball.0
-
@JohnO He's an easy target but he makes a fair point. Our MPs are not remotely representative of anything other than themselves.0
-
Even if the LDs wanted to do it, I suspect neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties would. I agree the commitment to abolishing fees was a disastrous political error for which the Party will be paying for a long time to come.Alanbrooke said:
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generationstodge said:As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
That said:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/university-tuition-fees/repaying-your-student-loan/if-you-come-from-england/
Given what we have, my immediate thoughts are that the income at which loans start to become repayable could be raised to perhaps £30k to give more people more time to start building up savings and I would also be looking at the interest rates charged on the loans and asking if these loans shouldn't really be interest-free. It's part of the investment we're making in the individual and the individual is making in themselves and thereby for the benefit of the whole economy.0 -
@tim - Just by chance, I can't recall how it happened, but I had supper with young Seumas (whom I knew slightly at college) in 1984 in Bournemouth the same evening following Kinnock's attack on Militant. I was gushing with enthusiasm at the speech - he was rather less impressed. Can't think why! Of course Hugh Gaitskell was also a Wykehamist.
0 -
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.tim said:
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/1
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?0 -
I really rate these Aussie quicks but they seem a yard off with every ball.0
-
Have they ever been? Tory MPs today are far more representative (no, far less unrepresentative) of Tory voters in terms of background/occupation/gender than ever before.antifrank said:@JohnO He's an easy target but he makes a fair point. Our MPs are not remotely representative of anything other than themselves.
0 -
Root seemed to be falling over a bit there.
God, I'm nervous. Feck knows how he feels.0 -
Miliband is no Blair...Are you suggesting that the political colossus Gordon Brown was a more formidable opponent for Cameron in 2010 than Kinnock faced in John Major in 1992?Charles said:
In Major's second election his share of the two-party share declined by 13.4 percentage points, to 41.5%. A similar decline for Cameron would put him on 42.1% of the two-party share, which would be about 27.4% on a static two-party share, against Labour's 37.7%. Miliband just short of a 100-seat majority...
Are you Gabble in disguise?0 -
I do hope all those who moan about the occasional TV or film review aren't cricket fans... ;^ )0
-
Unfortunately, one of the few genuinely working-class Conservative MPs of the 1950s and 60s, Ray Mawby, turned out to be a Czech spy.JohnO said:
Have they ever been? Tory MPs today are far more representative (no, far less unrepresentative) of Tory voters in terms of background/occupation/gender than ever before.antifrank said:@JohnO He's an easy target but he makes a fair point. Our MPs are not remotely representative of anything other than themselves.
0 -
Few things are more political than international sport!Plato said:
I do hope all those who moan about the occasional TV or film review aren't cricket fans... ;^ )
0 -
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...tim said:
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
0 -
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?Alanbrooke said:
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.tim said:
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/1
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
0 -
Kitty Donaldson @kitty_donaldson
Ever wondered how many spies the UK has? In 2011/12 GCHQ employed 6,132 people, MI5 3,961 and MI6 3,200. Figures in today's ISC report0 -
Seumas Milne is one of those characters that has the ability to unite the whole country in a mutual loathing for him.TOPPING said:
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...
(Though you really shouldnt be surprised that tim cant stand him given tim's own brand of politics.)
0 -
Do you also support taxpayer subsidised loans to people who do not choose to go to university?stodge said:
Even if the LDs wanted to do it, I suspect neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties would. I agree the commitment to abolishing fees was a disastrous political error for which the Party will be paying for a long time to come.Alanbrooke said:
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generationstodge said:As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
That said:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/university-tuition-fees/repaying-your-student-loan/if-you-come-from-england/
Given what we have, my immediate thoughts are that the income at which loans start to become repayable could be raised to perhaps £30k to give more people more time to start building up savings and I would also be looking at the interest rates charged on the loans and asking if these loans shouldn't really be interest-free. It's part of the investment we're making in the individual and the individual is making in themselves and thereby for the benefit of the whole economy.
0 -
So I expect that you would support the coalition policies that have reduced inequalities, and maintained international aid and obligations.
It leaves Labour as the continuity coalition at the next election, though I expect that the Tories will run with a more right wing manifesto. So the political centre shifts rightwards.SouthamObserver said:
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?Alanbrooke said:
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.tim said:
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/1
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.0 -
The LDs' poll numbers have been very steady since late 2010. Nothing seems to move them up or down.Sean_F said:
I'd expect the Lib Dems to recover to 17/18% in 2015, UKIP to win 7% or so, and Others to win 5/6%.stodge said:Morning all
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary0 -
RT @dlknowles Also, all that stuff you hear about inequality soaring... Gini coefficients for the last thirty years: pic.twitter.com/4Ghu3KB7kB
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/10 -
LOL .... How about moving to Manchester then ?!?MikeSmithson said:Having lived and worked in York during the early days of PB having moving from Oxford I would back it.
A great city but like many of the places that I have lived/work in lost its league football in recent times. Same with Oxford, Cambridge and Bedfordshire (Luton). Oxford United only returned after I'd left the city.JackW said:
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.RobD said:
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.JackW said:Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
So York or Rutland it is !!
0 -
You're Rontim said:
Three debates during the election campaign is my bottom line.TOPPING said:
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...tim said:
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
Dave does three and you win.0 -
I didn't put a LOL in that post SO - LOLSouthamObserver said:
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?Alanbrooke said:
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.tim said:
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success.Alanbrooke said:So now the labour "fairness" argument has gone.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/1
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
As for your definition well at least you're prepared to give it a go which the party apparatchiks have chickened off doing. However what you say Labour stands for is showing your age. Little of what you propose resembles the modern Labour party. it might have been Labour fifty years ago, but today Labour is primarily a sectional interest group for the Public sector, middle class ideologues and minority pressure groups and is basing it's election plans around getting those people mobilised to vote for it. The principles of a modern forward looking party have long gone and aren't coming back. Porkbarrellissimo.
0 -
"Ever wondered how many spies the UK has? In 2011/12 GCHQ employed 6,132 people, MI5 3,961 and MI6 3,200. Figures in today's ISC report"
I think 'spies' might be a little overenthusiastic! I wonder how many would describe their job as as being in an true intelligence capacity. I'm sure these organisations must have cleaners and other support staff, PAs, HR people, and so on.0 -
On the inequality front, although it's an interesting stat from a campaign perspective, I can't help thinking that it's not particularly good news. If PBers recall the Simon Hughes/Margaret Thatcher exchange, then Thatcher's point really was that if the poorest's incomes fall, but the richest's fall proportionately more, that would not be a success and vice-versa. The overall figures show that is pretty much what has happened - although the fall for the poorest has been slight https://twitter.com/jamestplunkett/status/354886182477373441/photo/10
-
Bournemouth again !!JohnO said:@tim - Just by chance, I can't recall how it happened, but I had supper with young Seumas (whom I knew slightly at college) in 1984 in Bournemouth the same evening following Kinnock's attack on Militant. I was gushing with enthusiasm at the speech - he was rather less impressed. Can't think why! Of course Hugh Gaitskell was also a Wykehamist.
0 -
Ms Plato,Plato said:There was a White Flight debate on here yesterday - this is pertinent
Eric Kaufmann @epkaufm
ONS LS: London white British working class leaving London at faster rate than professionals. Some indication of trend toward widening gap
Unfortunately the young Yorkshireman chose the wrong target. Mr and Mrs Billy Bragg hardly count as "white-flight"....0 -
Yep - and no Scottish Mings or whatever they will be called by then.tim said:TOPPING said:
You're Rontim said:
Three debates during the election campaign is my bottom line.TOPPING said:
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...tim said:
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
Dave does three and you win.
A tenner though, I might have to put that through the Charlesometer and generate a few dozen posts prevaricating.0
