Wednesday 15th October 2014

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:57 pm

John Pienaar is a twat. That is all

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:58 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 14s15 seconds ago
My #PMQs review: Miliband rattles Cameron with passionate attack on Lord Freud's comments http://bit.ly/1runFm7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:03 pm

@Jack

Thanks for the observation. I do think the "tribal" arises from the continual onslaught on Miliband in the media.

We've always been clear that posts from all viewpoints are welcome. And just a reminder that we agreed a ground rule that we should not comment on an individual's voting intentions.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:08 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:From btl AS

outoftouch2010 2m ago
McVey just said they had spent £50 billion a year on the disabled. Hm! Any thoughts

Well, 500 million of that was on ATOS.

The rest is, of course, bollocks.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/gover ... iture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's 25 bn a year for ALL social exclusion n.e.c

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:10 pm

JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.

Was quite relieved (in a weird way) to see Frank Field being interviewed in the Guardian this morning where he said "There's no point me joining UKIP; they've already adopted my policies." Er, thanks?

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:10 pm

JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.

Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?
Frankly,to me,the election IS absolutely about Labour beating the coalition.If they don't there will be another 5 years of carnage.
If that's too 'tribal' for you,then tough.I fail to see why voicing my political opinions on a political blog should be described as 'waaaaay too tribal' and think you could maybe be a little less patronising and a little more polite.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:14 pm

Jeremy Browne to stand down at the next election, and to avoid any doubt ''I won't be joining another party'' yet anyway?!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:17 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Jeremy Browne to stand down at the next election, and to avoid any doubt ''I won't be joining another party'' yet anyway?!

Wow - a genuine surprise, that.

Taunton a nailed on Tory gain now, shurely?

(though that could have arguably have been described as a shift to the left, before today

)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:18 pm

Cameron is in dire need of being lectured ,don't use the memory of your sadly deceased son to attempt to stifle criticism about the policies which your Government has enacted.I,in turn will not take lectures from a man that compulsively lies about "exemptions" and "protections".

Freud is of course beneath contempt and not worthy to lick my better halves boots for which he can have a cup of tea,if it comes up to our standards which I doubt.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:26 pm

HindleA wrote:Cameron is in dire need of being lectured ,don't use the memory of your sadly deceased son to attempt to stifle criticism about the policies which your Government has enacted.I,in turn will not take lectures from a man that compulsively lies about "exemptions" and "protections".

Freud is of course beneath contempt and not worthy to lick my better halves boots for which he can have a cup of tea,if it comes up to our standards which I doubt.

Another of James Purnell's successes.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:28 pm

Well, looks like AS isn't getting much support for his rather strange PMQs verdict - even from most other pundits

I suspect he might want to rethink this one......

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:31 pm

50 billion figure (a,bit out of date but gives,what they include)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... led-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:36 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, looks like AS isn't getting much support for his rather strange PMQs verdict - even from most other pundits

I suspect he might want to rethink this one......

Yes - even Norman Smith, on BBC News 24, thinks Ed Miliband scored a hit.

And -

Good afternoon, everyone.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:55 pm

HindleA wrote:50 billion figure (a,bit out of date but gives,what they include)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... led-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's my understanding that if you quote a source, that source should be - well - sourceable.

Looking for "Disability Facts" only gets me an American self-publisher, and a few bullet points from various disability charities. If this is a government resource, surely it should be traceable?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 1:55 pm

Apologies for atrocious spelling and grammatical errors,not a happy bunny given Freud,Cameron comments-off to do the Private Eye Crossword which is very rude(which I belatedly found out some years ago whilst doing one with my mother-"member doesn't necessarily refer to MP-ahem"

JackPranker · Post by **JackPranker** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:01 pm

Rebecca wrote:
JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.

Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?
Frankly,to me,the election IS absolutely about Labour beating the coalition.If they don't there will be another 5 years of carnage.
If that's too 'tribal' for you,then tough.I fail to see why voicing my political opinions on a political blog should be described as 'waaaaay too tribal' and think you could maybe be a little less patronising and a little more polite.

No, but jumping on those who's positions differ risks this place becoming the echo chamber it has been accused of being in the past. I'm not sure who you think I'm being impolite or patronising to.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:02 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Jeremy Browne to stand down at the next election, and to avoid any doubt ''I won't be joining another party'' yet anyway?!
Wow - a genuine surprise, that.

Taunton a nailed on Tory gain now, shurely?

(though that could have arguably have been described as a shift to the left, before today )

I dunno; I think it could fall to a UKIP upset - those farmers love a bit of UKIP.

I live in another Coalition hot-spot; North Somerset for all you stalkers.

75% turnout, so a politically active area, but the long standing MP is Mr Liam Fox - a prominent Libertarian Eurosceptic who's remained incredibly quiet of late.

He had an 8k majority over his Lib Dem counterpart last time, so THAT's all gone, however even if every Lib Dem suddenly decided to go for Labour, there wouldn't be enough without UKIP sapping away at the Conservative support.

So I think he could be marked for a jump, especially if the "soft" Carswell brand of UKIPPery catches on.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:16 pm

I'm tribally anti-Tory*. Just so everyone knows like.

*or any other right-wing nutjobs that want to govern me. I.e. Kippers, Libdems, BNP etc.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:19 pm

I think it's been great to air what this place is for, who is welcome and so on again. Hopefully it gives us all food for thought.

Funnily enough I may be guilty of starting the tribal thing off yesterday with a suggestion that Sadiq Khan might look for accommodation with the Greens rather than dealing with them as a threat, as George Eaton was suggesting.

What I'd like is for people who see themselves as broadly on the left to seek common cause on some issues while leaving room for difference and even conflict on other issues. Above all, we should respect all posters' right to express their vote as they choose

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:28 pm

Does anyone think that UKIP are going to be able to accommodate any who would term themselves "The Left?"

I think that we have to look at (In recent memory) 1997 as being a high water mark, where the Labour vote was padded by Mondeo Man and 2010 as a low water mark, where much of the "Progressive" vote went to the Lib Dems by those who were still feeling betrayed by Iraq and had possibly bought into the idea that there was a need for change. So the total Labour turnout is unlikely to be any less than it was in 2010; Immigration was being blamed even then, but the Tories were the beneficiaries, rather than UKIP. I don't think that UKIP's proposition has changed a great deal, just their publicity, but what they have done is managed to galvanise those who stayed at home in 2010, who might have been part of Tony's 97 cohort.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 2:40 pm

Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:01 pm

Let's look at it again: in 1997, Labour managed to secure 13,518,184 votes on a 71% turnout.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/u ... tycand.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2010, Labour managed to get 8,606,517 on a 65% turnout.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/u ... tycand.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we scale this assuming a 100% turnout, this gives a maximum of 5.8 million "chancers" that Labour could potentially lose to UKIP. Of course, it depends on where they're based.

The total Lib Dem vote in 2010 was 6.8 million.

The total Green vote, although they didn't stand in all constituencies, was 285,000

Vote Lib Dem, get Farage.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:02 pm

JackPranker wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.

Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?
Frankly,to me,the election IS absolutely about Labour beating the coalition.If they don't there will be another 5 years of carnage.
If that's too 'tribal' for you,then tough.I fail to see why voicing my political opinions on a political blog should be described as 'waaaaay too tribal' and think you could maybe be a little less patronising and a little more polite.
No, but jumping on those who's positions differ risks this place becoming the echo chamber it has been accused of being in the past. I'm not sure who you think I'm being impolite or patronising to.

I think that you are being impolite and patronising to whichever people on this blog you are calling tribalists and whichever people on this blog you are 'reminding' what the election is about.
Because I haven't read a single post from a single poster here which bears any evidence that the person who wrote it has somehow forgotten what they are voting for.
Hope that's clear enough for you.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:07 pm

StephenDolan wrote:John Pienaar is a twat. That is all

He's another one who can go if the BBC needs to make economies. Dimbleby and Marr to be limited to making documentaries.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:09 pm

The thing about the Lord Freud comment that has struck me is it allegedly was an answer to a question from an individual who had made his disabled gardener a company director so that he could pay him less than the minimum wage. Surely that is against the law, its a deliberate attempt to circumvent minimum wage legislation so shouldnt Freud have actually reported this guy to the min wage commission?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:14 pm

Yep, I think those 1997 "Mondeo Man" votes were a one off. The Major Government was incredibly naive in terms of keeping hold of core support. I mean, if you're a rightwing politician don't bring in the fuel duty escalator.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:17 pm

Oops.

Exposed: fake doctorate of Ukip ‘professor’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 236914.ece

A senior Ukip spokesman has been exposed as claiming to hold a “fake” degree and a professorship at an unaccredited academic institution.

Andrew Charalambous, the party’s housing and environment spokesman, is listed on a Facebook page as holding a “PhD in the parallels between Plato’s Utopia and Spartan Society”. He was listed on his official website as being a “professor of environmental sciences”.

You'd have to be pretty dim to think that this was even a possibility.

Take a look at the picture...as someone on AS said he looks like a bouncer.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:20 pm

I suppose with Browne skiddaddling into the sunset it means the LibDems only have to fight ''56 Eastleigh's'' now?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:29 pm

Francis Ryan on Freud's comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nimum-wage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:32 pm

@jack
On the "tribalist" thing
A question was posted here last night on Green policies that went something like "will Labour do these things"?
I answered point by point saying either Labour were doing them, or why I (personally) did not want them to, or asking how some (good) policies would be paid for.
Having spent time reading the Green web site and seeing a few things I did not like, and some I felt totally unworkable (along with a lot of good stuff) and others I felt were heading towards dictatorial (words used are along the line of "persuade" but felt a bit more ominous) I was not persuaded that the Green's have the answers for me - personally - and that my preference still lay with Labour. I said so - without attempting to sway the original poster to "my side".
I thought I was involved in a debate, now it seems I was being tribalist for speaking my mind.
Why is that?

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:33 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oops.

Exposed: fake doctorate of Ukip ‘professor’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 236914.ece

A senior Ukip spokesman has been exposed as claiming to hold a “fake” degree and a professorship at an unaccredited academic institution.

Andrew Charalambous, the party’s housing and environment spokesman, is listed on a Facebook page as holding a “PhD in the parallels between Plato’s Utopia and Spartan Society”. He was listed on his official website as being a “professor of environmental sciences”.

You'd have to be pretty dim to think that this was even a possibility.

Take a look at the picture...as someone on AS said he looks like a bouncer.

Well I'd have failed him on the grounds that Utopia isn't a Platonic concept, it was coined by Sir Thomas More in the 16th Century - he was probably thinking of Republica, assuming he had room for any thoughts other than "Too many darkies around here."

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:38 pm

HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.

Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:41 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.
Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?

Thanks TE that was a laugh out loud moment for me

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 3:48 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.
Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?
Thanks TE that was a laugh out loud moment for me

Could be an alien, she changes her face often enough?

Sorry, i'll put my claws back in.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:13 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 14s15 seconds ago
My #PMQs review: Miliband rattles Cameron with passionate attack on Lord Freud's comments http://bit.ly/1runFm7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Umm...perhaps I should start with...

I am not now and have never been a member of the Labour Party
I am not now and have never been a member of the Green Party (or any other party come to that!)...I am, however, an old undeconstructed Marxist-collectivist grunt-futtock

Isn't this just another example of Ed Miliband leading the agenda and forcing Dodgy Dave and his MSM drones to talk about something they'd rather hide?

WRT the UKIP fake Doctor...he's got form on housing (warning - link contains a couple of disturbing photos)...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk ... ne-3175130

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:15 pm

"This attempt at an apology is not the end of the matter. Lord Freud claims he merely accepted ‘the premise of the question’ but it was he who said some disabled people are ‘not worth the full wage’ and it was he who suggested paying people just £2 an hour. In fact he said he would go away to look at this issue, suggesting that this government would consider it.

Someone holding these views shouldn’t be in government. Disability charities have already condemned Lord Freud’s comments in the strongest possible terms, senior Tories have called for Lord Freud to resign, a ministerial colleague has said these words will ‘haunt him’, yet David Cameron has so far failed to act.

If David Cameron continues to keep Lord Freud in his government we will have yet more proof of how he stands for just a privileged few at the top."

A decent comment to a governmental mistake (for a change?).
This feels like it has legs. Freud to resign Monday

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:19 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:And having looked at Freud's interview, I can see some sympathy with what he said; people who want to work and earn their own money, but for whom no amount of support can ever make them competitive with an able bodied person. As they already get an allowance for being unable to hold full time work, it should be possible to "top it up" meaning that they don't lose benefit, and are able to secure a small amount of work.

Unfortunately Cameron wasn't briefed and basically just cut Freud loose to avoid getting into a stand up fight.

Yes, I can see his point too. Not just for physically handicapped workers but eg workers with Down's Syndrome, who can learn and enjoy some fairly straightforward tasks.

It was very stupid to put it in terms of "wanting to work for £2" though.

Cameron may well have been briefed. He'd sell out anyone not in his clique.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:26 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:

1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense

2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.

I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.

Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.

My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.

Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:27 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:

1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense

2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.

I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.

Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.

My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.
Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.

Seconded

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:35 pm

When all is said and done it could be that Osborne and his economic bollocks miracle could be running out of time, not very encouraging data coming from the Chinese, Germany and the US, commentators have been hinting at things taking a downturn for months, it seems to be creeping in, this country thanks to incompetence by those at the Treasury is starting from a low base anyway, if things do go tits up how would the electorate judge it, how would Osborne, probably the opposite to the charges he levelled at Brown "global downturn, caught in the cross hairs" blah blah blah, ably abetted by the media of course.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:35 pm

Lonewolfie wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:

1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense

2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.

I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.

Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.

My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.
Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.
Seconded

Thirded. That's settled then, you're stuck here.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:39 pm

@Lonewolfie I can forgive a lot, my shoulders are little but they are strong, but some of those images you linked were hideous, I know you gave a warning, but please, no more?!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:46 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:When all is said and done it could be that Osborne and his economic bollocks miracle could be running out of time, not very encouraging data coming from the Chinese, Germany and the US, commentators have been hinting at things taking a downturn for months, it seems to be creeping in, this country thanks to incompetence by those at the Treasury is starting from a low base anyway, if things do go tits up how would the electorate judge it, how would Osborne, probably the opposite to the charges he levelled at Brown "global downturn, caught in the cross hairs" blah blah blah, ably abetted by the media of course.

I said the other day that an economic downturn in Europe which affects us may well be Osborne's worst nightmare.

People might be able to forgive the lack of real wage increases if they thought the economy was getting stronger and we had signs of growth but a slowdown of growth in the early part of next year will leave people thinking "hang on - we've made sacrifices but for what?"

Blaming the last recession on Labour may have worked for him before but I doubt if they'll buy the "But it's all the fault of the EU".

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:49 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:When all is said and done it could be that Osborne and his economic bollocks miracle could be running out of time, not very encouraging data coming from the Chinese, Germany and the US, commentators have been hinting at things taking a downturn for months, it seems to be creeping in, this country thanks to incompetence by those at the Treasury is starting from a low base anyway, if things do go tits up how would the electorate judge it, how would Osborne, probably the opposite to the charges he levelled at Brown "global downturn, caught in the cross hairs" blah blah blah, ably abetted by the media of course.
I said the other day that an economic downturn in Europe which affects us may well be Osborne's worst nightmare.

People might be able to forgive the lack of real wage increases if they thought the economy was getting stronger and we had signs of growth but a slowdown of growth in the early part of next year will leave people thinking "hang on - we've made sacrifices but for what?"

Blaming the last recession on Labour may have worked for him before but I doubt if they'll buy the "But it's all the fault of the EU".

Agreed; the corollary of blaming the EU this time around is basically them saying "But in 2010 we thought the EU would be recovered by now," which shows political naivety, and punctures their original argument that the only reason things were bad in the first place was Labour's policies.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:50 pm

Can I also just point out life would be very tedious if we agreed on everything. Despite the occasional acrimony of the discussion it has been enlightening.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:53 pm

I don't know "best economy in Europe" (as it will be in GDP terms) is a good card.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 4:59 pm

ESA numbers continue to rise,at current trends will be higher than when present Government came in.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2 ... er-running" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 5:00 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:@Lonewolfie I can forgive a lot, my shoulders are little but they are strong, but some of those images you linked were hideous, I know you gave a warning, but please, no more?!

Sorry Letsskip

Mind you - I'm sure he can't help looking a bit 'wierd'.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 5:07 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can I also just point out life would be very tedious if we agreed on everything. Despite the occasional acrimony of the discussion it has been enlightening.

I'm happy to discuss most issues, and I'm aware I won't agree with everyone here, perhaps half of the time or so. The essence is to keep it civil, and so it's best that everyone stops to reread their posts before they click 'submit'. I've frequently amended myself when I realise I'm just about to cause massive offence.

On the other hand, of course, once I've got a head of steam up, I do post the most appalling shite...

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 5:08 pm

Lonewolfie wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:@Lonewolfie I can forgive a lot, my shoulders are little but they are strong, but some of those images you linked were hideous, I know you gave a warning, but please, no more?!
Sorry Letsskip

Mind you - I'm sure he can't help looking a bit 'wierd'.

I'd watch his back if I was him, for a Kipper he looks a bit foreign?