Friday 17th April 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:16 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:22 am

Concern is mounting for the safety of the Cameron household after their nanny found nibbles from the corners of salmon and cucumber sandwiches and the tell-tale sign of mouse droppings. Samantha was later heard raising her voice to Larry the Cat saying his presence was no longer required if he would not perform his duties. A spokesman for the Camerons thanked the public for their interest but asked for no further questions at this very difficult time. Larry was last spotted leaving the building at 8pm dragging a chicken behind him.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:25 am

After DFH calls Cameron last night's winner, am pretty confident the G are going to urge us to back Sturgeon. (regardless of whether we can or not)

We are a strange and perplexing nation. If only we voted in our own interests.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:44 am

David Cameron ✔ @David_Cameron
Follow
Ed Miliband won't rule out a vote-by-vote deal with the SNP so he can be PM. It would mean more borrowing and more taxes and you would pay.

no shame at all.
we used to aspire to decency and now we just aspire to sociopathy. grim.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:59 am

graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.

With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:03 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:
David Cameron ✔ @David_Cameron
Follow
Ed Miliband won't rule out a vote-by-vote deal with the SNP so he can be PM. It would mean more borrowing and more taxes and you would pay.
no shame at all.
we used to aspire to decency and now we just aspire to sociopathy. grim.

Is it actually possible to rule out a vote-by-vote deal?
Does it have to be a formal deal.
I don't understand!
Wish my parents had bought me ladybird guide to politics,
instead of guide to batteries & bulbs, when I was smaller.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:09 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:
graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.
With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.

I do worry that the Tory 'coalition of chaos' slogan could resonate with voters.

And, I say this as a woman myself, the sight of [as they've been dubbed] the 'three witches', with the self satisified 'we're united against Labour' hugging at the end may jar with a lot of people too.
All you needed was a cauldron, an eye of newt and Wood to let out a throaty cackle and Bennett another shriek.

For a lot of people it isn't about budgets, detailed policies, it is about a gut response and that's what
the whole Tory psych ops battle is about. Wood & Bennett did the Tory work for them last night.
Sturgeon too, just a little more slickly.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:10 am

RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.

Fishy you say, Robert? Was Cameron in the background pointing?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:13 am

Sorry if my post was a bit forthright, am feeling nervous, three weeks time we'll know our fate.

But cheering to see that Survation poll showing Miliband at 45% for PM, Cameron only 40%.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:13 am

RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.

wikipedia wrote:A vegetarian, who rarely drinks alcohol,Lagarde's hobbies include regular trips to the gym, cycling, and swimming.

I think it must be empathy from another struggling to maintain human form.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:24 am

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 14m14 minutes ago
@David_Cameron has vacated debate, vacated centre ground, vacated economic credibilit, vacated leadership. The strategic nous of a gnat

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:28 am

I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:30 am

The Indie top of online front page story is a shocker.

The anti-Labour sisterhood was never going to embrace Ed, but the Indie ignore the pic where Sturgeon, with her wannabes, is shaking hands and smiling at Ed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:36 am

LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

That should feel reassuring, but it doesn't somehow.
In a way the Tories are right, the more parties involved in a bloc, each with their own self serving demands aimed at keeping up their core vote, the more difficult it is going to be to get things done.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:40 am

This is for Por Favor when she logs on.
(Have to admit a little sympathy with UKIP !)

An English teacher marked a UKIP leaflet.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:45 am

yahyah wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

That should feel reassuring, but it doesn't somehow.
In a way the Tories are right, the more parties involved in a bloc, each with their own self serving demands aimed at keeping up their core vote, the more difficult it is going to be to get things done.

Indeed. Look at Belgium 2010. Took them almost two years (589 days) to get a new government in place. And at the heart of it the separatist "new flemish alliance":

wikipedia wrote:Tensions had risen between the Flemish and the Walloons: Flanders accuses the Walloon region of being dependent on economic subsidies from the Flemish region; there is also reluctance by the Walloons to learn Dutch. The Walloon population accuses the Flemish of being segregationist with the language policy in the Flemish region.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:50 am

BBC Debate: Miliband scores and Farage misses

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... age-misses

As the only candidate with any chance of becoming prime minister, Miliband inevitably came under fire from all sides. But rather than crumbling as many predicted, Miliband remained calm, reasoned and persuasive throughout.

The conventional wisdom in politics is almost always wrong and so it proved last night. Most commentators predicted that the BBC leaders' debate would be a disaster for Miliband and an open goal for Nigel Farage. The opposite turned out to be the case.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:52 am

And don't forget that when when Labour was the biggest party, but short of a majority at the Senedd in 2007, Plaid went into discussions with the Tories to keep Labour out.

''Discussions between Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a "Rainbow" Coalition broke down, and a coalition was eventually agreed between Labour and Plaid Cymru.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... tion,_2007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:54 am

yahyah wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.
With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.
I do worry that the Tory 'coalition of chaos' slogan could resonate with voters.

And, I say this as a woman myself, the sight of [as they've been dubbed] the 'three witches', with the self satisified 'we're united against Labour' hugging at the end may jar with a lot of people too.
All you needed was a cauldron, an eye of newt and Wood to let out a throaty cackle and Bennett another shriek.

For a lot of people it isn't about budgets, detailed policies, it is about a gut response and that's what
the whole Tory psych ops battle is about. Wood & Bennett did the Tory work for them last night.
Sturgeon too, just a little more slickly.

Cameron's coalition an "Alliance of Lies"?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:59 am

tinybgoat wrote:
yahyah wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote: With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.
I do worry that the Tory 'coalition of chaos' slogan could resonate with voters.

And, I say this as a woman myself, the sight of [as they've been dubbed] the 'three witches', with the self satisified 'we're united against Labour' hugging at the end may jar with a lot of people too.
All you needed was a cauldron, an eye of newt and Wood to let out a throaty cackle and Bennett another shriek.

For a lot of people it isn't about budgets, detailed policies, it is about a gut response and that's what
the whole Tory psych ops battle is about. Wood & Bennett did the Tory work for them last night.
Sturgeon too, just a little more slickly.
Cameron's coalition an "Alliance of Lies"?

More a 'Concord of C***s' but that'd be disrespectful to lady parts.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:01 am

Morning folks. Bit bleary at present but ... re yahyah's post on the 'gut reaction' to the sight of the three women leaders hugging etc at the end of the debate. It can go in two opposite ways ... some will find that clearly collaborative approach refreshing ... regardless of what the collaborative effort is about. Others will, as you say, find it concerning both because of its departure from the sterotypical style of our politics - formal and don't let your guard down for a moment for the most part - and what it could represent for the future.

I'm left pondering and concerned about the deeply nationalistic trend we may have in parliament / influencing our politics. SNP clearly nationalist, Plaid clearly nationalist, Greens in Scotland want independence, - I don't know about the Greens in Wales and England, are they for independence for Wales and Scotland too? Plus we have Ukip wanting us out of Europe. It seems to me not so much anti-Tory as a pro nationalist alliance that might worry a lot of people who want the UK to remain as one entity - and produce any 'chaos' that might ensue if we get a very split outcome from the election.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:01 am

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:04 am

ohsocynical wrote:
BBC Debate: Miliband scores and Farage misses

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... age-misses

As the only candidate with any chance of becoming prime minister, Miliband inevitably came under fire from all sides. But rather than crumbling as many predicted, Miliband remained calm, reasoned and persuasive throughout.

The conventional wisdom in politics is almost always wrong and so it proved last night. Most commentators predicted that the BBC leaders' debate would be a disaster for Miliband and an open goal for Nigel Farage. The opposite turned out to be the case.

Whereas it was obvious to every single poster on FTN that Miliband would do well. The "conventional" lot are not so wise eh? They should get out more.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:08 am

The Tories have fallen for their own spin on Miliband
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... -miliband/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the Tories fail to make it back into government after this general election, one of the things they will have to come to terms with is that they fell for their own spin about Ed Miliband, without realising that the public might not. The Labour leader is not so desperately awful that he cannot string a sentence together. He’s not even so desperately awful that he can’t hold his own in a debate where three of the other participants have planned their attack on him beforehand, and the fifth participant is so canny that he makes insulting the audience part of his attack strategy.

Last night Miliband looked like someone who had a good chance of being Prime Minister. He was calm and collected. He leant against the lectern casually as he delivered the sort of unimpressed looks that teachers spend years perfecting for classes of unruly 14 year olds. Throughout these debates Miliband seems to have been perfecting his Nick Clegg look: in the last debate, he stared down the barrel of the camera, as Clegg had done in 2010 (and has Gordon Brown had, rather expensively, been told not to), and in this debate he appeared as relaxed about what was going on as the Deputy Prime Minister had managed to appear in Salford two weeks ago.

Well well. But I don't agree with the Nick Clegg comparison needless to say.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:10 am

Bookies showing a clear gain for Ed and Labour last night.

Ed and Dave now pretty much same odds for PM after next election (Dave was slightly ahead)

Labour Minority now seen as most likely outcome by bookies.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:15 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning folks. Bit bleary at present but ... re yahyah's post on the 'gut reaction' to the sight of the three women leaders hugging etc at the end of the debate. It can go in two opposite ways ... some will find that clearly collaborative approach refreshing ... regardless of what the collaborative effort is about. Others will, as you say, find it concerning both because of its departure from the sterotypical style of our politics - formal and don't let your guard down for a moment for the most part - and what it could represent for the future.

I'm left pondering and concerned about the deeply nationalistic trend we may have in parliament / influencing our politics. SNP clearly nationalist, Plaid clearly nationalist, Greens in Scotland want independence, - I don't know about the Greens in Wales and England, are they for independence for Wales and Scotland too? Plus we have Ukip wanting us out of Europe. It seems to me not so much anti-Tory as a pro nationalist alliance that might worry a lot of people who want the UK to remain as one entity - and produce any 'chaos' that might ensue if we get a very split outcome from the election.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the predominantly male politics we've had so far.
I am a huggy type of woman myself, but I found the lefty sisters group hug staged, and possibly pre-organised to appeal to women watching. They would have been aware of the photo op opportunity.

Nothing happens by accident.
These 'we're the new politics' women will be just as shifty, manipulative and mendacious, if it serves them, as the previous male lot.

Look how many [idiots] voted Tory because Thatcher was a woman and that she would do things differently.
I've known a few who admit it, and rue it now.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:16 am

yahyah wrote:And don't forget that when when Labour was the biggest party, but short of a majority at the Senedd in 2007, Plaid went into discussions with the Tories to keep Labour out.

''Discussions between Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a "Rainbow" Coalition broke down, and a coalition was eventually agreed between Labour and Plaid Cymru.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... tion,_2007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another attempt at a rainbow coalition was threatened before the last assembly elections too ... people said that that - along with their big mistakes in coalition with Labour (badger cull anyone?) - resulted in the reduced vote for Plaid. Last night a tweet poster was circulating with a quote from Leanne Wood saying they would talk and work with any party including the Tories - from 2013. I'm probably more worried about the possibility of this happening here in Wales than UK wide.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:20 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:And don't forget that when when Labour was the biggest party, but short of a majority at the Senedd in 2007, Plaid went into discussions with the Tories to keep Labour out.

''Discussions between Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a "Rainbow" Coalition broke down, and a coalition was eventually agreed between Labour and Plaid Cymru.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... tion,_2007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another attempt at a rainbow coalition was threatened before the last assembly elections too ... people said that that - along with their big mistakes in coalition with Labour (badger cull anyone?) - resulted in the reduced vote for Plaid. Last night a tweet poster was circulating with a quote from Leanne Wood saying they would talk and work with any party including the Tories - from 2013. I'm probably more worried about the possibility of this happening here in Wales than UK wide.

Depressing.
Whatever happens in three weeks we'll still have Wood & Plaid in our faces for the next year in the run up to Senedd 2016 elections.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:23 am

yahyah wrote:The Indie top of online front page story is a shocker.

The anti-Labour sisterhood was never going to embrace Ed, but the Indie ignore the pic where Sturgeon, with her wannabes, is shaking hands and smiling at Ed.

Sadly for the Indy it is the latter photo doing the rounds, the one where the ladies appear to be paying court to their anointed leader.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:24 am

You Gov poll, who do voters want to see hold the balance of power:

Liberal Democrats - 37%
Ukip - 26%
Not sure - 20%
SNP - 17%

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:37 am

yahyah wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

That should feel reassuring, but it doesn't somehow.
In a way the Tories are right, the more parties involved in a bloc, each with their own self serving demands aimed at keeping up their core vote, the more difficult it is going to be to get things done.

It depends. I think Sparrow called it right last night (even a stopped clock etc), Sturgeon doesn't have a strong enough hand and that became apparent last night. One thing I heard, to the point of nausea, during Indyref was the "we can't look after you lot any more, you need to stand on your own two feet now" narrative; but Sturgeon's strategy this time around (now she has had to back off from FFA) is that we can't stand on our own two feet, so we'd better let her show us how it is done.

Which is, of course, very patronizing and utter bollocks. She had her bluff called last night and she didn't have the cards to back it up; Miliband knows that on the votes that matter the SNP (which will not, of course, include Sturgeon and likely not Salmond) will have no option but to back him, because openly siding with the Tories will hurt them very badly in Holyrood 2016.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:40 am

I imagine Labour are fuming over Lagarde's intervention. £14bn isn't a potential rounding error.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:43 am

Britain under the Tories:

16 April

even in the mail - (SORRY) wrote:“It's a no I'm afraid": Ed Miliband rejects Sturgeon's plea for an election pact to 'kick Cameron out of Number 10' telling SNP leader 'it would be a disaster'

17 April

graun election live headline today wrote:Election 2015 live: Miliband did not rule out Labour-SNP pact in debate, says PM

Scum.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:47 am

Good morfternoon.

@ yahyah

Thank you for the Ukip guide on "How to Mangle the English Language"!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:47 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Britain under the Tories:

16 April
even in the mail - (SORRY) wrote:“It's a no I'm afraid": Ed Miliband rejects Sturgeon's plea for an election pact to 'kick Cameron out of Number 10' telling SNP leader 'it would be a disaster'
17 April
graun election live headline today wrote:Election 2015 live: Miliband did not rule out Labour-SNP pact in debate, says PM
Scum.

Clucking Cameron.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:50 am

Listened to 5Live's phone-in right up until about 00:45. I didn't hear one Labour supporter. Kippers galore, Nats aplenty, myriad Tories even one Libdum. Summat not right there unless Lab voters don't phone radio stations.

Morning all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:52 am

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 53m 53 minutes ago
With Labour’s having some momentum, Tories will throw kitchen sink at Miliband. Except they’ve already thrown the whole kitchen and missed

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:09 am

I didn't watch the debate last night (I was on the 'phone for the most part) but it was on with the sound turned down . I turned the sound on occasionally, and one of those occasions happened to coincide with Nigel Farage's rather strange (but amusing) attack on the audience.

However, I was kept abreast of (or should that be "across"?) the general thrust by reading your commentaries. Thanks again.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:10 am

PorFavor wrote:I didn't watch the debate last night (I was on the 'phone for the most part) but it was on with the sound turned down. I turned the sound on occasionally, and one of those occasions happened to coincide with Nigel Farage's rather strange (but amusing) attack on the audience.

However, I was kept abreast of (or should that be "across"?) the general thrust by reading your commentaries. Thanks again.

Edited to remove a space

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:13 am

Bumboils.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:14 am

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning folks. Bit bleary at present but ... re yahyah's post on the 'gut reaction' to the sight of the three women leaders hugging etc at the end of the debate. It can go in two opposite ways ... some will find that clearly collaborative approach refreshing ... regardless of what the collaborative effort is about. Others will, as you say, find it concerning both because of its departure from the sterotypical style of our politics - formal and don't let your guard down for a moment for the most part - and what it could represent for the future.

I'm left pondering and concerned about the deeply nationalistic trend we may have in parliament / influencing our politics. SNP clearly nationalist, Plaid clearly nationalist, Greens in Scotland want independence, - I don't know about the Greens in Wales and England, are they for independence for Wales and Scotland too? Plus we have Ukip wanting us out of Europe. It seems to me not so much anti-Tory as a pro nationalist alliance that might worry a lot of people who want the UK to remain as one entity - and produce any 'chaos' that might ensue if we get a very split outcome from the election.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the predominantly male politics we've had so far.
I am a huggy type of woman myself, but I found the lefty sisters group hug staged, and possibly pre-organised to appeal to women watching. They would have been aware of the photo op opportunity.

Nothing happens by accident.
These 'we're the new politics' women will be just as shifty, manipulative and mendacious, if it serves them, as the previous male lot.

Look how many [idiots] voted Tory because Thatcher was a woman and that she would do things differently.
I've known a few who admit it, and rue it now.

Totally agree.
Although women will be the deciding factor in Ed winning and we need a fairer slice of the cake I'm not comfortable with them as politicians.
Hard to explain; it's probably a generational thing [please you blokes don't be offended,] but instead of keeping to a feminine perspective they can end up being harder nosed and more masculine than the men they're working with.
They won't get anywhere flapping around and being 'I'm just a delicate woman' they have to be tough, but for me they often lose what made them eligible for the job in the first place.

I never looked at Maggie and thought her feminine. She always struck me as a hard nosed, pushy Conservative matron.

Look how she treated the men in her cabinet! Ambition is a fearful thing whether you wear a skirt or trousers.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:20 am

Truss replies: “This was the challengers’ debate, that was the whole premise of it, he wasn’t invited.”

I don't see the point of a democracy if politicians and the press are simply allowed to lie.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:46 am

PorFavor wrote:I didn't watch the debate last night (I was on the 'phone for the most part) but it was on with the sound turned down . I turned the sound on occasionally, and one of those occasions happened to coincide with Nigel Farage's rather strange (but amusing) attack on the audience.

However, I was kept abreast of (or should that be "across"?) the general thrust by reading your commentaries. Thanks again.

You're doing a sterling job with the phones PF.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:51 am

RobertSnozers wrote:I've read some barking Westminster seat projections recently, but but this takes the bloody biscuit. And pisses all over that biscuit and now I've got to eat it. Well, here's the news, Malcolm - I will not eat the pissy biscuit.*

http://moneyweek.com/election-2015-why- ... -minister/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under this scenario, Tories and the LibDems remain in coalition, with 302 seats and 31 respectively – a comfortable majority at 333. Although if necessary, they can add in Ukip and the DUP for another 11 seats, taking them to 344.

A Miliband-led opposition, composed of Labour (on 248 seats) and the SNP (on 40), would have 288 seats between them. Even if you add in SDLP, Plaid Cymru and others, that’s still only another 11 seats, for 299 (remember the Speaker and Sinn Fein do not use their votes).

So if the voting goes the way I expect it to, then only Cameron can form a government, even although it’s likely to be in coalition with the LibDems again. In no way can Miliband command a majority.
The 'projection' seems to be based on bookies' odds rather than constituency or even national polling. Just look at his projection for Tory seats in Scotland, for one thing...

Sam, no pissy biscuits.

*With apologies to The Thick Of It.

The seat spread from the bookies is

Take the latest odds, which come following the seven-way leadership debate. The ‘spread’ on seats has hardened to 284-88 (Tory) and softened to 269-73 (Labour). The SNP are marginally better (41-43), Ukip are unchanged (5-7), but the LibDems have weakened notably (23-25).

His 'analysis' seems to be what he wants to happen, there is no explanation for how he gets to his figures from the bookies figures. It's complete and utter bollocks.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:52 am

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 36m36 minutes ago
Rod Liddle on his decision to vote Labour http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... a-further-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you can make sense of his reasoning you're much better at comprehension that I am. He still manages to slate most of the Labour peeps whilst saying he'll vote for em.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:58 am

I was responding to a comment by SilverHoratio on the G, but I cannot find his post now, but thought I'd share here as well.

The flipside of the good employment numbers as you correctly identify are at the expense of the appallingly bad productivity figures, you also mention the claimant count, which the government can to some extent control. This leads one to question why this should be. Perhaps employment is not all that it was. Unfortunately I am not in a position to back my arguments up with any concrete data but shall repeat anecdotal evidence with some numbers that I may recall.

I have criticised businesses for constantly telling us that youth today are not up to the work they have available. If that be true they should be investing more in training and I don't mean spurious apprenticeships that have abounded in recent years (something else that could be checked but wouldn't necessarily identify which are real). Besides outside of London, which I can't speak of nowadays, far too many of the young are over-qualified for the work they find. Indeed many cannot even gain employment without being so; they are condemned to low paid work with little prospect of advancement. Even where there are management positions far too often they are on relatively low hourly rates with no variance for overtime, weekend, bank holidays or socially unacceptable hours and often come with no guaranteed hours from one week to the next.

Then there are varying reports of the number of zhc, I believe that 800, 000 is a good approximation. Many of these are employees of agencies, which frequently dismiss staff just before 13 weeks when they would qualify for better employment terms. Even those fortunate to be taken on by the parent or main company are still subject to shorter hours at no notice.

'And now we come to the claimant count, which does not include those who are on Workfare or other such schemes nor those who have disappeared from the records after sanctions. Sorry I don't remember the figures but they can be found. There has also been a significant increase in the nominally self-employed (1.4m I think but could be wrong) many of whom have been pushed toward the likes rather than claiming JSA to be tooped up with Tax Credits. If UC is ever fully rolled out they shall no longer be classed as such since they will not be earning enough, besides with or without UC, HMRC may soon be having to deal with the fallout.

When you also consider the numbers of public sector workers that have been replaced by the outsourced private sector with their reduced terms and conditions it does not paint a healthy picture.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:01 am

BBC debate: When did the Tories lose their sense of honour?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... -of-honour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Absolutely spot on dissection of the dirty tricks the Tories have played around the debates.

But the most dishonourable part of the Conservative response to yesterday evening came at the end, when the party took a screen grab of Miliband shaking the SNP leader's hand and tweeted it out as if it were a warning of things to come.

This is what the Conservative party has come to: attacking common courtesy. Perhaps they would have preferred it if Miliband spat on her and pulled her hair.

Politics is always full of cheap tricks. That is part of its currency. But the tweet spoke to something much deeper in the Conservative campaign, a lack of honour or basic decency in the way it is conducted.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:02 am

graun wrote:Cameron says we are living through “a jobs miracle”.

We're the job factory of Europe apparently. Cameron's found a magic jobs tree where it's not the case that 55-year-old men can get hired on zero hours contracts but effectively working full time at unpredictable hours for three months by a call centre and then kicked back out onto benefits (if they're lucky) for no reason.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:04 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.
And here's the BBC report on that story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Generally in any election year, the teams that provide the hypotheticals on which future deficits are forecast, err on the side of caution and assume that whatever is announced is not necessarily or inevitably going to happen," she said.

Ms Lagarde added that the UK authorities had managed to provide the right balance of spending cuts and revenue raising.

"It's clearly also delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.

She & Osborne could of course, tell the truth; that the reason the economy has recovered to this extent is because Osborne had to pull back from his plan & adopt Alistair Darling's plan.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:07 am

Cameron says last night’s debate was a challengers’ debate. That was an idea from the broadcasters. He was not invited.

He is disgusting.