FlyTheNest

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:What happened to Labour's "rapid rebuttal" strategy (re the Conservative Conference)? I haven't seen much of it in evidence - unless there's just the (usual) dearth of coverage in the press. A bit of aggressive but accurate "rudeness" might alter that situation. If Dominic Grieve can do it (re the the Conservatives' stance on Human Rights) - which he rightly dubs "puerile", so can Labour.

It partly depends on who the media goes to for their quotes. Moreover, I suspect the likes of the BBC prefer to have opposing voices from the LibDems or from the Tories as it makes for a bigger news story, so even if Labour quickly issued a statement and offered someone for bids, they might not be taken up.

Anyway, I thought the 'rapid rebuttal' was intended for accusations made against Labour's policies or record, rather than as a challenge to new Tory policy - not that there's anything wrong with doing the latter as well. I wonder how many LibDems now find themselves astonished to be in government with a party that can be so extreme in its authoritarian instincts? Did they not know this before they trumpeted the 'civil liberties coalition'? Just because one party believes in free markets and another believes in free people does not necessarily make them natural bedfellows. Possibly even quite the opposite, because free markets work on the backs of oppressed people.

Labour were quick out of the traps on responses to all Tory speeches, including Osborne and Cameron. Some of it got reported.

But on the whole the Tories seemed to be taking about right wing policies rather than having a go at Labour.

RobertSnozers wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

adam wrote:Join me next week on 'let's make no fucking sense' when I'll be waxing an owl.

Excellent.

Interestingly, one possible title for Monty Python's Flying Circus was 'Owl Stretching Time'. I think what we'd all like to know is does one stretch the owl before or after waxing, and what each says about your social class and upbringing?

If you don't stretch the owl prior to waxing it can leave some of the smaller feathers attached.

I speak from no experience.

Did the LibDems decide to hold this year's conference in Glasgow because they were supremely confident of a "No" vote or were they secretly hoping for a "Yes" vote in order that they could scuttle off "abroad"? More seriously (maybe), I wonder what they would have done re the venue if Scotland had voted "Yes"? Or are they just a bit dense?

Edited to add a "y".

RobertSnozers wrote:

JackPranker wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: Interestingly, one possible title for Monty Python's Flying Circus was 'Owl Stretching Time'. I think what we'd all like to know is does one stretch the owl before or after waxing, and what each says about your social class and upbringing?

If you don't stretch the owl prior to waxing it can leave some of the smaller feathers attached.

I speak from no experience.

Before?!

F^&*ing pleb

Yes. It shocked me, as well. Very non-U.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:What happened to Labour's "rapid rebuttal" strategy (re the Conservative Conference)? I haven't seen much of it in evidence - unless there's just the (usual) dearth of coverage in the press. A bit of aggressive but accurate "rudeness" might alter that situation. If Dominic Grieve can do it (re the the Conservatives' stance on Human Rights) - which he rightly dubs "puerile", so can Labour.

It partly depends on who the media goes to for their quotes. Moreover, I suspect the likes of the BBC prefer to have opposing voices from the LibDems or from the Tories as it makes for a bigger news story, so even if Labour quickly issued a statement and offered someone for bids, they might not be taken up.

Anyway, I thought the 'rapid rebuttal' was intended for accusations made against Labour's policies or record, rather than as a challenge to new Tory policy - not that there's anything wrong with doing the latter as well. I wonder how many LibDems now find themselves astonished to be in government with a party that can be so extreme in its authoritarian instincts? Did they not know this before they trumpeted the 'civil liberties coalition'? Just because one party believes in free markets and another believes in free people does not necessarily make them natural bedfellows. Possibly even quite the opposite, because free markets work on the backs of oppressed people.

Labour were quick out of the traps on responses to all Tory speeches, including Osborne and Cameron. Some of it got reported.

But on the whole the Tories seemed to be taking about right wing policies rather than having a go at Labour.

To be fair to Labour they were pretty effective on Twitter I thought.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: It partly depends on who the media goes to for their quotes. Moreover, I suspect the likes of the BBC prefer to have opposing voices from the LibDems or from the Tories as it makes for a bigger news story, so even if Labour quickly issued a statement and offered someone for bids, they might not be taken up.

Anyway, I thought the 'rapid rebuttal' was intended for accusations made against Labour's policies or record, rather than as a challenge to new Tory policy - not that there's anything wrong with doing the latter as well. I wonder how many LibDems now find themselves astonished to be in government with a party that can be so extreme in its authoritarian instincts? Did they not know this before they trumpeted the 'civil liberties coalition'? Just because one party believes in free markets and another believes in free people does not necessarily make them natural bedfellows. Possibly even quite the opposite, because free markets work on the backs of oppressed people.

Labour were quick out of the traps on responses to all Tory speeches, including Osborne and Cameron. Some of it got reported.

But on the whole the Tories seemed to be taking about right wing policies rather than having a go at Labour.

To be fair to Labour they were pretty effective on Twitter I thought.

I found it all a bit low-key.

PorFavor wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: Labour were quick out of the traps on responses to all Tory speeches, including Osborne and Cameron. Some of it got reported.

But on the whole the Tories seemed to be taking about right wing policies rather than having a go at Labour.

To be fair to Labour they were pretty effective on Twitter I thought.

I found it all a bit low-key.

Yes I agree. Some commentators have attributed that to the Referendum. Kind of hard to follow in terms of political energy. Not that I'm making excuses for anybody.

It seems clear to me that Labour made a mistake agreeing to be the first party conference after the referendum.

Instead they should have tried to keep the usual party order, just moved back a week. They might have got some "breath" back then.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: To be fair to Labour they were pretty effective on Twitter I thought.

I found it all a bit low-key.

Yes I agree. Some commentators have attributed that to the Referendum. Kind of hard to follow in terms of political energy. Not that I'm making excuses for anybody.

Given that I think it was broadly accepted that Gordon Brown played a pivotal role in securing the "No" vote, I should have thought that the Referendum Roadshow (sorry for shorthand) could have been capitalised on in any conference responses. You know - keep the momentum going. On a roll etc etc . .

@PF

It will be interesting to see how much we see of Brown in the next year.

Actually it would make sense to put him up explicitly against Hague to deal with the constitutional and human rights stuff.

UK Stats Authority have rebuked Cameron claim that the government ''are paying down the debts'' PDF report otherwise I would link.

I thought the attack on "unfunded tax cuts" was well orchestrated and highly effective. Labour (and the Greens and the Lib Dems) need to continue to repeat this relentlessly. People can understand it very simply and it completely destroys the trusted on the economy line from the Tories.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:It seems clear to me that Labour made a mistake agreeing to be the first party conference after the referendum.

Instead they should have tried to keep the usual party order, just moved back a week. They might have got some "breath" back then.

Yes. Idealistic me admires honour, but in the modern UK with its right wing BBC and Guardian, pragmatic me worries about Labour playing too nicely.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I thought the attack on "unfunded tax cuts" was well orchestrated and highly effective. Labour (and the Greens and the Lib Dems) need to continue to repeat this relentlessly. People can understand it very simply and it completely destroys the trusted on the economy line from the Tories.

Relentlessly sounds good.

My overall assessment is to rather agree with the criticisms of the Labour conference. BUT I do think the six policies are good and in contrast to Dodgy Dave's unfunded tax cuts, they are all clearly "funded".

So, I hope with time that the solidity of Labour's offer will come through. What's needed then is people leading on those six who can get their voice heard.

Here's one for Anatoly to rebut

http://may2015.com/parties/labour-have- ... ince-2010/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

labour-have-performed-as-badly-as-the-coalition-in-by-elections-since-2010

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:My overall assessment is to rather agree with the criticisms of the Labour conference. BUT I do think the six policies are good and in contrast to Dodgy Dave's unfunded tax cuts, they are all clearly "funded".

So, I hope with time that the solidity of Labour's offer will come through. What's needed then is people leading on those six who can get their voice heard.

Afternoon. Agree with you on both / all three points. Who would you put in each of the policy leads to fulfil that last aim? The only one that leaps out at me at present is Andy Burnham re Health - he talks about it with the right amount of passion, knowledge and welly.

alexmassie ‏@alexmassie 7m7 minutes ago
Chris Grayling is an advertisement for a Labour government. #echr #humanrights http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... overnment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Something I can agree with him on.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:UK Stats Authority have rebuked Cameron claim that the government ''are paying down the debts'' PDF report otherwise I would link.

Public Sector Net Borrowing (excluding public sector banks) was estimated to be £133.9 billion in the 2010/11 financial year and £99.3 billion in 2013/14, an estimated fall of £34.7 billion.

Pretty certain that the Tories have been flapping their gums about reducing the deficit by 1/3 since taking office. A third would be a drop of 44.2 billion; 35 is 1/4 at best.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:UK Stats Authority have rebuked Cameron claim that the government ''are paying down the debts'' PDF report otherwise I would link.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/9905004 ... ead-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Found it!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Here's one for Anatoly to rebut

http://may2015.com/parties/labour-have- ... ince-2010/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

labour-have-performed-as-badly-as-the-coalition-in-by-elections-since-2010

Easily - "electorate" is an almost meaningless statistic in this context. Vote share is what overwhemingly matters.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: It partly depends on who the media goes to for their quotes. Moreover, I suspect the likes of the BBC prefer to have opposing voices from the LibDems or from the Tories as it makes for a bigger news story, so even if Labour quickly issued a statement and offered someone for bids, they might not be taken up.

Anyway, I thought the 'rapid rebuttal' was intended for accusations made against Labour's policies or record, rather than as a challenge to new Tory policy - not that there's anything wrong with doing the latter as well. I wonder how many LibDems now find themselves astonished to be in government with a party that can be so extreme in its authoritarian instincts? Did they not know this before they trumpeted the 'civil liberties coalition'? Just because one party believes in free markets and another believes in free people does not necessarily make them natural bedfellows. Possibly even quite the opposite, because free markets work on the backs of oppressed people.

Labour were quick out of the traps on responses to all Tory speeches, including Osborne and Cameron. Some of it got reported.

But on the whole the Tories seemed to be taking about right wing policies rather than having a go at Labour.

To be fair to Labour they were pretty effective on Twitter I thought.

Sadiq and Scary Yvette have been on Twitter blowing holes in the Human Rights Act stupidity today, doing a pretty decent job.

Labour know they can't rely on the MSM, so the concentration is very much on the use of social media and doorstep activity; that was what Axelrod did so well for Obama, his expertise should be invaluable .... I hope.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Marie Penman has no intention of packing up her pro-independence banners or tucking her Yes Scotland badges away in a drawer. The yes campaign may have lost the referendum, but she has another goal in mind: unseating the former prime minister Gordon Brown.

A college lecturer and leading yes campaigner in Brown’s home town of Kirkcaldy in Fife, Penman is planning to harness the political energy of the yes movement to continue the fight by other means.

Is this woman mad? She don't want a Tory government so focuses her attentions on unseating Gordon Brown. Great strategy.
Am measurably irritated.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20141001/1935100 ... t-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The SNP already paved the way for Thatcher and now are campaigning to split the left and usher in perhaps a five-year Tory/UKIP government. With their holier than though "progressive" protestations they are nothing but a bunch of short-sighted hypocrites. Am 'kin' FUMING.

RobertSnozers wrote:The spammers are back...

All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

Sorry. Got a bit carried away. The continual sub-division of the left to let in the right just drives me mad.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:The spammers are back...

All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

dfhodges wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:The spammers are back...

All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

that's a degree of naughtiness i can admire.

dfhodges wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:The spammers are back...

All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

I'm not sure I like the cut of your jib...

RobertSnozers wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:Sorry. Got a bit carried away. The continual sub-division of the left to let in the right just drives me mad.

I agree with you. Not that the SNP is any more left wing than the LibDems, but they don't want their supporters to know that. Just as it looks as though we might be over the division in England, the SNP come along and hoover up Labour seats. Mind you, the SNP wants a Tory government in Westminster so they can use it as an excuse to break free.

It's a pretty good excuse, mind.

Does anyone know much about the Hazel Grove constituency, apparently the Labour PPC has resigned citing a ''culture of bullying''

Good afternoon, everyone.

1. Re - rapid rebuttal. There is absolutely no need for Labour to do this. On the tax cuts, the Economist, the IFS, the Times, and various other worthy organs have done the job. Nobody is impressed. Joshua Rosenberg and Dominic Grieve have done likewise with the ECHR nonsense.

3. Re - waxed owls. Evidently all of you have simply no idea how things are done. Owls - especially the endangered ones - are trapped, killed, and gutted by one's ghillie; they are not waxed, but plucked while warm by Cook, upon which they are wrapped in a decent Pate and baked in pastry.
Wellington would eat them in no other fashion, and his standards must be upheld at all times. Have I taught you nothing?


Off for my nightingales on toast. Nanny gets so bored with crumpets for tea.

RobertSnozers wrote:

dfhodges wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote: All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

Hah, who needs that David. We've got our own David who's strong, and manly, and makes the *best* conference speeches...

Psst, I think you meant to log in with your NickRobinson account.

dfhodges wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:The spammers are back...

All (permanently) removed.

I meant to put the Q&A verification live last night, but forgot (emoticon for slightly forgetful/ashamed). It's now in place, and should prevent our botlike chums coming on here. It should be straightforward to answer if you're genuine. If anyone fancies trying to register with a spare email address, feel free to give it a whizz (and report any issues).

What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

Oi! Hodges! Tell your mum to stop moaning about having to release some equity in her property; her privilege is showing!

DonutHingeParty wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

dfhodges wrote: What a stupid idea. David would never have come up with an idea like that. I wish he'd come back. I miss him so much.

Hah, who needs that David. We've got our own David who's strong, and manly, and makes the *best* conference speeches...

Psst, I think you meant to log in with your NickRobinson account.

Which cheered me up by reminding me of this.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/#article/13565" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

That's a disaster for David's brother.

Excellent factual article here - the sort of thing the Graun used to do well, but now so rarely does.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec ... man-rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dfhodges wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

That's a disaster for David's brother.

Welcome dfhodges. I hope you're going to have more than just that one liner to chip in with on here! Or maybe not - it seems to have worked OK for you elsewhere.

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

I'm glad you asked me that Martha, thanks. Looking at what this poll tells us, which is to say what it tells me because everyone with half a brain cell can see what the poll says, is that what we have here is a worrying situation for the Prime Minister, but one that is just as worrying, if not more so, for Ed Miliband. Labour, the party of Mid Staffs, should remember that no party has won a general election with a leader who looks weird, apart from those ones that have, which were under quite different circumstances. With the threat of Ukip certain to spell electoral disaster for Labour, and a resurgent Liberal Democrat party, its supprort up by over ten percent in this one poll, it's now very hard to see how Labour can come back from this five point poll lead. Back to you in the studio. Oh, anyone wanna buy a vacuum cleaner?

dfhodges wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

That's a disaster for David's brother.

I'm glad you asked me that Dan, thanks.

dfhodges wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2h2 hours ago
National Opinion Poll (Populus);
LAB - 38% (+2),
CON - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (+1)
GRN - 3% (-2)

That's a disaster for David's brother.

I'm just waiting for Andrew Marr and Evan Davis to pipe up now.

I'm pleased that we've got new posters here - rather than the spambots we've been getting - but I get a horrible feeling that the political antennae of the newest posters isn't quite as sharply developed as some of the more established contributors.

Do you see any hope for Mr Miliband, Andrew?

Just a glimmer. The electoral system is totally unfair and Mr Miliband could sneak into Downing Street. By the back door, disguised as an errand boy sent by Len McCluskey which is how the public see him. Mr Cameron has pointed out that the Coalition won 59% of the vote last time. So as Mr Cameron will say, Mr Miliband will have to step aside if he wins any less than that.

But, doesn't Mr Cameron have questions to answer about unfunded tax cuts?

Not from me. I wouldn't be doing my job if I asked him about economic credibility. The public don't have any questions about that. I met them the other day. They told me I should just let the Prime Minister waffle on as long as he wanted next time I was on my show.

ErnstRemarx wrote:I'm pleased that we've got new posters here - rather than the spambots we've been getting - but I get a horrible feeling that the political antennae of the newest posters isn't quite as sharply developed as some of the more established contributors.

How can you be so dismissive, Ernst?

I am sufficiently impressed to announce that, suitably fortified after Nanny's tea (the nightingales on toast were a bit overdone, but obviously staff aren't what they used to be) I now intend to be known as Jacobia Rees-Moggy.

Clearly, dfhodges and this robinson person are not entirely PLU, but they seem to have the right ideas. I'm quite convinced I read them with my customary accuracy, as I had my monocle cleaned by my under-footman just the other day.

Honestly, Ernsters my dear old thing, we must be nice to the poor chaps. It's not as though they're normal, is it? One has a sense of noblesse oblige even if some oiks think this is a bit fogeyish for their taste, and new servants are always to be encouraged.

Toodlepip.

ephemerid wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:I'm pleased that we've got new posters here - rather than the spambots we've been getting - but I get a horrible feeling that the political antennae of the newest posters isn't quite as sharply developed as some of the more established contributors.

How can you be so dismissive, Ernst?

I am sufficiently impressed to announce that, suitably fortified after Nanny's tea (the nightingales on toast were a bit overdone, but obviously staff aren't what they used to be) I now intend to be known as Jacobia Rees-Moggy.

Clearly, dfhodges and this robinson person are not entirely PLU, but they seem to have the right ideas. I'm quite convinced I read them with my customary accuracy, as I had my monocle cleaned by my under-footman just the other day.

Honestly, Ernsters my dear old thing, we must be nice to the poor chaps. It's not as though they're normal, is it? One has a sense of noblesse oblige even if some oiks think this is a bit fogeyish for their taste, and new servants are always to be encouraged.

Toodlepip.

My god - now someone strange has logged in as Ephe, or maybe there was a sprinkling of LSD on her nightingales...

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Do you see any hope for Mr Miliband, Andrew?

Just a glimmer. The electoral system is totally unfair and Mr Miliband could sneak into Downing Street. By the back door, disguised as an errand boy sent by Len McCluskey which is how the public see him. Mr Cameron has pointed out that the Coalition won 59% of the vote last time. So as Mr Cameron will say, Mr Miliband will have to step aside if he wins any less than that.

But, doesn't Mr Cameron have questions to answer about unfunded tax cuts?

Not from me. I wouldn't be doing my job if I asked him about economic credibility. The public don't have any questions about that. I met them the other day. They told me I should just let the Prime Minister waffle on as long as he wanted next time I was on my show.

I'm glad you asked me that Andrew, thanks. Well, as you've astutely surmised, Ed Miliband, son of a man who, let's not forget, hated Britain, has a huge electoral advantage from the current imbalance in the system that favours Labour. Let's not forget that Prime Minister Sir David Cameron has already climbed a huge electoral mountain in the shape of Gordon Brown, to come within an ace's hair of an outright majority, and after that speech, who would bet against him? A week is a long time in politics, but being weak means there's not a lot of time for Ed Miliband. Back to you in the studio.

Getting very Fridayish on here except no by-election round up yet?

ephemerid wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:I'm pleased that we've got new posters here - rather than the spambots we've been getting - but I get a horrible feeling that the political antennae of the newest posters isn't quite as sharply developed as some of the more established contributors.

How can you be so dismissive, Ernst?

I am sufficiently impressed to announce that, suitably fortified after Nanny's tea (the nightingales on toast were a bit overdone, but obviously staff aren't what they used to be) I now intend to be known as Jacobia Rees-Moggy.

Clearly, dfhodges and this robinson person are not entirely PLU, but they seem to have the right ideas. I'm quite convinced I read them with my customary accuracy, as I had my monocle cleaned by my under-footman just the other day.

Honestly, Ernsters my dear old thing, we must be nice to the poor chaps. It's not as though they're normal, is it? One has a sense of noblesse oblige even if some oiks think this is a bit fogeyish for their taste, and new servants are always to be encouraged.

Toodlepip.

Well, I think we've just learned something very important from that interview with Jacobia Rees Moggy, and that's that we can no longer regard the Tories as the party solely of the rich. The party of David Cameron can now be seen to be attracting support from right across the board, after that virile speech, and let's not forget that this is a man who's been described as 'vigorous, glossy and unbending' by the Guardian, of all newspapers. You will have noticed the reference to Lady Mogg's footman, who is now just as likely to be voting for Mr Cameron as Lady Mogg herself, if he know's what's good for him. The footman is just in that group of people who won't benefit in the least from the Prime Minister's flexibly funded tax cut even though the Express is treating him as though he will so he'll vote for it. And let's not forget that by refusing to be drawn on where the tax cuts will be funded from, Prime Minister Cameron, the Prime Minister, keeps the pressure on Ed Miliband, whose economic credibility goes from bad to worse.

See you at the shoot at Chequers, Lady Moggy