Voters' choice
"True, our candidate's winning", a Labour minder tells me today in Crewe. When I looked surprised, he clarifies that he means winning the most hugs. A moment spent with Tamsin Dunwoody and you sensed she really is her mother's daughter, feisty and outspoken, and you sense too that the people of Crewe really did admire the woman whose death has triggered this by-election.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
However a moment spent talking to voters here and you sense too, real anger with the government. Some raised the 10p tax rate, some immigration. An influx of Poles has alienated many. Others raise simply their dissatisfaction with Gordon Brown.
One woman ran up to me in the street to ask me to film the queues in the local post office after the closure of other local post offices. She was angry she'd spent 35 minutes in a queue. What's more, she'd lost out as a result of the 10p tax rate being scrapped. She would though, despite all of this, still, she insisted, be voting Labour for Gwyneth's sake.
That's the choice many voters are pondering here, whether to hug Gwyneth Dunwoody's grieving daughter or to kick Gordon Brown hard.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Some complained about the Poles coming to UK. Is that what they said Nick?
Well, to whoever said those words may they be reminded that the Poles are in the EU.
The Toreis would never stop them from coming here.
Complain about this comment
My view is that misunderstanding the intent of policy and being influenced by a Tory guerrilla campaign of negativity from the petrol strike onwards is at the root of this. Certainly, the government could improve their approach but the Tory campaign has blood all over its hands. I'm not keen on clutter or disharmony but Labour continue to have the better fundamentals.
When people obsess or get caught up in the mood their ego is effectively hijacked. This single campaign may result in a kicking but, I suspect, the constituents will regret that when they've sobered up. The alternative is to take a step back, clear your head, and take another run at it. If Labour can encourage that, I suspect, they’ll produce a satisfying win.
Labour can suffer from town hall meeting syndrome, just as the Tories can be nasty and self-serving, and the Liberals can be too air-headed and judgemental. It may be a close thing but Labour is better placed for government and the opposition parties haven't had enough time to work through deep internal changes. People may benefit from remembering that.
Complain about this comment
The next lazy Pole I meet will be the first.
We have a lot living around our way and a lot have been here since the end of WW2, they are all reknown as hard workers
Gwyneth Dunwoody is going to be a hard act to follow. Somehow or other I cannot see the people of Crewe kicking her daughter in the teeth.
But human nature being human nature we will wait and see.
How sad to lose something like this constituency for the sake of a stupid 10p mistake. How shortsighted can these people get and what short memories they all have.
Still they have the say I do not. That is what is called democracy and we must live with it as it beats the hell out of anything else on offer.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that your blog mentioned the Post Office and associated closures of such.
The people tasked with managing the Post Office, Leighton and young Adam Crozier, came up with a plan that I thought was perfect for the PO.
Namely, that it be turned into a 'partnership', after the model of the highly successful John Lewis Partnership.
This is something that would really empower and energise all of the workers in the enterprise.
But the majority owner, the Government turned them down.
I do not know why the Government decided to block this - but my late fathers words come echoing back down the decades - we do not vote Labour because they just want to keep us working people down.
Complain about this comment
I've found that to be true of the Poles and Asian's I've known. The Prime Minister favours positive effort and consensus, and both Poles and Japanese can help remind people of these things. Plus, any money sent home and cultural ties helps develop foreign markets.
Poor confidence and insularity of the British has strongly retarded growth while increasing crime. If the Prime Minister can help people develop their inner potential for success this position will begin to reverse. So, anger management lessons and group hugs all round.
Here cames the sun, doo-da-doo-doo.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Perhaps there is hope for Labour after all. Maybe people saw Cameron's speech in Birmingham saying what his strategy on public spending would be. It appears that he thinks he can 'make room' for tax cuts by a series of measures such as school reform (not specified), welfare reform (not specified), and action to strengthen families (not specified). He would introduce 'careful housekeeping' and reduce waste (now there's a couple of new ideas), and cut expenditure on unemployment ( which he must not have noticed is at a historically low level).
As Cable put it, his "attempts to make a virtue of having no policies won't convince anyone" - well, not for long anyway. As it is he (Cameron) reminds me of the supporters I used to see on the Western Terrace at Headingley giving Boycott the advice to hit the bowler over the top; a worthy objective maybe, but like Cameron the spectator had no idea how to achieve it.
Complain about this comment
Giving away a few billions of shareholder value might have had something to do with it. The plan looks sound enough but a large constituency would kick up a stink if the government handed over assets like that for nothing. Simply, it's not theirs to give away.
I would agree, too many people in leadership positions can become counter-productive and exist to keep other people down. This is true of all parties, charities, and private business. This can be explained by fear of loss and lack of social glue and is a strategic British problem.
As I write, big companies cheat law and are pulling back on investment. This is in spite of law and government encouragement. Perhaps, that's why the Prime Minister is trying to drive peoples success at a more personal level. Quit blaming him. Discover your innah winnah.
Complain about this comment
Chuck E Hogwash @2, you say you're "not keen on clutter or disharmony". You sure seem keen on bovine excrement.
Kiwilegs @3: No-one wants to kick Gwyneth Dunwoody's daughter in the teeth. Lot's of voters do, however, want to kick Nu Labour in the teeth. Ms Dunwoody (until recently Dunwoody-Kneafsey) should not have opted for the hereditary principle if she wanted to avoid being tarred with the brush of Nu Labour's despicable campaign.
I agree with you about the Poles (and other East European workers). We have Labour to blame for our benefits culture (moving unemployed to 'disability' benefits) without which we'd have our own nationals to do the work.
I also agree with your last sentence. As WSC noted, "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Complain about this comment
Re #3. If it had only been “a stupid 10p mistake” and Gordon Brown had apologised as soon as it became clear, and he had then gone on to rectfy his “stupid mistake” Gordon Brown and his cabinet colleagues could have been forgiven. But the denials, the obfuscation, the ridiculous half baked solution to that particular self induced problem still leaves me and many others who remain worse off, very angry.
The trouble with Gordon Brown’s metaphorical moral compass is that, like the real compass needle, it doesn’t point to true north so we don’t get the truth from him. His compass needle, and therefore his judgements, is being affected by all the changing magnetic forces of the prevailing circumstances and his spin doctors so you don’t know where he’s going from one minute to the next.
Add to that the fact that neither he nor his cabinet members can ever explain why so many mistakes and bad judgements have been made during this government’s period of office without harping back to 12 or more years ago gives the impression that NuLabour is only intent on diverting the questioner away from the issue without giving any rational reason for their bad/late decisions. Is it any wonder we are not only angry but sick and tired of this irresponsible government who refuse to accept any responsibility for any errors?
Complain about this comment
Nick, I am very surprised that, following the comments by OfSTED today that education of school pupils has "stalled", that these young people have all been educated under a "New" Labour Government. That 20%, 1 in 5, cannot read and write to an acceptable standard. The 16 YOs who are taking their GCSE exams now started school at the age of 5 after Tony came to power. What was the slogan again, "Education, Education, Education"!!!! OFSTED comment is rather telling, surely they should have the power to put the Government in Special Measures! "New" Labour have let down young people badly and they and they alone are responsible.
Complain about this comment
This is mostly a perception issue. People and vested interests have been caught up in themselves but a more humble and relaxed approach will help the Prime Minister sail through this one. Really, it's quite, quite easy.
A more simple and happy message, and generally going out and about is quite sufficient. I strongly recommend the Prime Minister get a Hollywood script writer on team and buy a dog so he can take it for walks down the embankment.
Put it this way. Does anyone have a better plan?
Complain about this comment
Nick
Your implication is that - "If the people of Crewe vote for Tamsin, it will be for reasons of fond memories of Gwyneth and/or sympathy for her daughter. On that basis, I guess your question could be put another way ie "Will be the people of Crewe vote logically, with their heads, or sentimentally, with their hearts"
I think it could go either way. So, maybe Labour's decision to call the by-election so soon after Gywneth's death could prove to be inspired tactics rather than obscene haste, as opined by some friends and foes alike ?
Digressing slightly, a genuine question for Charles E Hardwidge, the answer to which might be of interest to the logical tendency in Crewe or elsewhere.
On Labour "having the best fundamentals" can you speculate as to how it can ever be credible for Gordon Brown to take all the credit for the performance of the UK economy during the past decade of favourable global conditions but for the current unfavourable global conditions to take all the blame for UK's current economic ills ?
ie All the good stuff was down to Grodon, unaided by the global conditions, and all the bad stuff is down to the global conditions unaffected by any acts or omissions on Gordon's part ? Or am I missing something ?
Complain about this comment
#12
Charles
I like the idea of Gordon getting himself a Holwyood scriptwriter.
One from the Disney Studios, perhaps, to shape past fairytales and sell future dreams for the consumption of starry-eyed innocents.
Re walking the dog - another good idea. If it fails to do the trick you have in mind, there is always plan B. Walking the dog - a favourite pastime for many retired people.
Complain about this comment
Charles E Hardwidge said "Put it this way. Does anyone have a better plan?"
Maybe not, but when the current plan does not work then you may as well try something completely different.
As for the "Labour Lovies" hoping that the voters won't "kick a Dunwoody" - are you seriously proposing that as a reason to vote for someone? "Vote for our candidate - she's a Dunwoody". For goodness sake, she's the daughter not the mother nor a reincarnation of Gwynneth. What's her POLICIES???
If you can't come up with solid *policy* reasons to vote for your candidate then she does not deserve to be elected. From where I'm standing the Labour campaign is just one big ad-hominem attack and the tories and lib-dems actually have policies and local issues. On those alone they deserve to win and labour deserves to lose.
Note: For the avoidance of doubt I am NOT affiliated to any political party nor have I ever been a member of one.
Complain about this comment
#8
I do not think that the plan that Leighton and young Crozier put together for Royal Mail/Post Office involved the taxpayer, via HMG, 'giving' away billions of shareholder value.
I have never seen a public explaination for the Governments refusal to countenance their plans.
I do not blame Gordon Brown for anything whatsoever.
I simply want the Government (Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem) to get out, and stay out of my life, my family and my businesses.
On the basis that they usually turn to dust anything they touch.
I do not want, in any way shape or form to be a member of their 'client group'.
I tend to think that this is the natural inclination for many English people - I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Complain about this comment
Voting for an MP as a tribute to a deceased MP (related or not) defies belief. There is something very unsavory about this whole by-election: desperation, fear, over emotive - anything to avoid facts or meaningful discourse.
Complain about this comment
So, what exactly did I say that means my posting has not been shown?
If you don't have enough people to moderate, just tell us.
If not, just let things through or be accused of a biased approach to input.
Good God, I have voted for all main parties for different reasons under different circumstances.
What makes it so difficult to read and approve a comment?
Complain about this comment
14
Forget the dog. Even the dog would bite Gordon. ;)
Complain about this comment
The woman complaining about the Post Office and the closing of the Sub-Post Offices.
This is the inevitable outcome due to the continual interference and cutting of it's services over the years.
Anything that was profitable was separated and sold off, namely the telephones, the parcel delivery, television licences / car taxing, and recently payment of pensions and benefits.
With the advent of emails instead of posting letters, what future has been left for the village / small post office.
They have taken the heart out of communities over the past (almost) 30 years, all in the name of progress.
Complain about this comment
I just had a quick look at the website of Ms Dunwoody and would be interested in anyone who can answer the following...
She was born in Devon, schooled in London and Kent, worked in the NHS in Londo and lives in west wales - how is she being promoted as 'one of us' - to the people of Crewe?
Complain about this comment
"An influx of Poles has alienated many."
Why on earth would an influx of Poles alienate anyone? The English truly are a peculiar people. You seem not to be satisfied with anyone except yourselves. Such a self-satisfied and self-absorbed people.
What have the Poles done to the good citizens of Crewe, then, apart from failing to be English? A failing to which I would confess myself if I regarded it as a failing, which I most certainly do not.
Go on. Vote Tory. Then vote Tory at the general election to get that beastly workaholic Scotchman out of Downing Street, where he has no business to be on account of failing to be English. He probably doesn't even play cricket, like those dreadful workaholic Poles.
Go on. Vote Tory. Then vote Tory at the general election, when Scotland will certainly not do so. We shall be poles apart, but then we already are.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it rather sad that the only Labour comment about the Tory is that he is a "toff" because he went to Uppingham School. At the same time they nominate the daughter of a deceased MP as best qualified to stand as their candidate then allow her to use her mothers name.
So much for selection; is that the best that they could find or did they really believe that a Dunwoody had the best chance of winning in Crewe.
How long is it before Euan Blair finds himself nominated as the MP for his father's seat. They look more and more like the United States and their fixation with the ruling classes.
What a reflection on a moribund political party.
Complain about this comment
One question - is McBroon going to don a bullet proof vest and visit Crewe and Nantwich?
Now that would be worth watching!
Complain about this comment
#11 pimpernelsmith - your comments are misplaced. What has happened is that the improvement that has taken place over the past 10 years has now levelled off. But the level of achievement is much better than it was in 1997, not worse. So your waspish criticism is not justified. Youngsters are being better served by the government ("New Labour"); they may have been let down on a broader view of the situation, but the OFSTED comments are not evidence for it.
Complain about this comment
Maybe I'm biased but I think Northern Rock did huge damage.
Almost anything can be seen in a good or bad light and voters are now in bad light mood.
Even if sketchy on the details, everyone knows Northern Rock was chaos.
A bank run in the 21st century is testament to nothing less than mindblowing incompetence.
And it occurred only in the UK, leaving banana republics looking good in comparison.
Ok, I had my shares nicked so i am biased.
But even if you think us small shareholders should have done a better job than the FSA despite having no powers, you can still concur that the bank run was the defining moment.
Some of us lost a packet because of the bank run but I think the bank run affected a much greater number of opinions.
I hope so because I dont like the idea that the same incompetent authorities who were responsible for the bank run get rewarded by stealing my assets.
Complain about this comment
Bank runs only occurred in the UK?
What about Bear Sterns in the United States?
Complain about this comment
Ofsted chief Christine Gilbert says it is "unacceptable that 20% of pupils go from primary to secondary not fully functional in literacy and numeracy".
Concerns about the administration of this year's school tests in England have prompted a call for payment to be withheld from the test contractor, ETS.
1 in 5 University graduates drop out before year 2.
Nearly a third of schools in England and Wales have been disrupted, and one in 10 closed completely during the biggest teachers' strike in 21 years.
Call me cynical, you can put as much gloss and spin on the current education shambles, but this will not disguise the mess our educational system is in.
We have gone from an education system envied by the world to one of the worst in the world.
Complain about this comment
Quite honestly, what happens in Crewe and Nantwich isn't really that important.
A Labour victory would keep Brown in power which would be positive for the Conservatives.
A Labour loss would spread doom and despondency through the Labour party ande lead to further erosion of support.
My best guess is that Labour supporters who can't bring themselves to vote Conservative will vote for the Liberals or abstain.
In the end today's polls suggest that the Conservatives are 14% ahead and those polled rate Brown lower than John Major!!!
Fun, isn't it.
Complain about this comment
peteholly
There wasn't a run on Bear Stearns. They announced (much like Northern Rock) that they were having liquidity problems due to limited availability of credit and being heavily into the sub-prime market, at which point the authorities stepped in, guaranteed savings and arranged a quick sell off to one of the bigger banks. They even managed to renegotiate a higher price when it became clear that they had undervalued Bear Stearns.
Contrast that with the situation here where the government rejected a quick sale (to Lloyds) and then took days to announce they would guarantee savings, in fact only doing so after the spectacle of people queueing for hours to get their money out.
America, swift action, no run.
Britain, no action, run.
Complain about this comment
Post Offices closing; Universities turning away students 'non' qualifications; knife crime rising, welcome to another day in the dystopian life of Britain under NuLabour.
Never mind the evidence we've shredded all the documents. Now pay us some more tax please because we have more barmpot ways to waste your money.
Ding, ding, hold tight please. Another day another banks rights issue in the great tripartite collapse that is Gordon's perfect world.
Apparently there's no alternative to our crazy policies! Vote NuLabour while you can.
I beg to differ.
Complain about this comment
Nick: come off it. You can't seriously suggest that people should elect their MP because "mummy was your MP and I'm sad that she died". If Conservatives tried this you would laugh them to scorn. The solution is clear: hug Tamsin and kick Gordon. Which, the polls suggest is what Crewe will do - exacerbated by an appalling campaign that has even the Guardian calling Labour the "nasty party"
Complain about this comment
The good thing about Crewe is it may signal the end of Brown and later the end of New Labour. Will he jump or be pushed? World bank?
As for Poles and 10p I think the thing with New Labour is if you aren't an investment banker they don't care what you think.
The bad thing about Crewe is that then that regrettably means the start of a Tory era. Worse, just as with Blair after Major, Cameron will look like a God when compared to Brown and possibly Blair. Then he loses control of Boris and interest in the electorate and round we go again....
The Lib Dems will do respectably well and the knives will probably come out for Nick Clegg as part of the annual sacrifice.
Also in my world this all probably means the UK will start to disintegrate after 2010 and at present I have zero confidence in our being well prepared for the departure of the Scots and probably the Welsh later. What will NI do and will that impact on Scotland?
Complain about this comment
Nice to see the Tories supporting local businesses such as Asda. And is it too much to ask for Timpson to actually say something?
Complain about this comment
I do feel slightly sorry for Tamsin Dunwoody, in that if her mother had died at any other time it would have been a shoe in for her. Unfortunately it is not, and maybe her true colours are shining through in the tactics that Labour are using must have been confirmed by her, but also the fact she is an unemployed single mother. She had probably waited for years to get this job, only to potentially have it nicked from her.
I should think Gwyneth is spinning in her grave!
Complain about this comment
peteholly.
Theres a world of difference between a few hedge funds calling in their funds and scenes of tens of thousands of the ordinary public queuing up to get their life savings.
And just as Grawth says, Bear Stearns was resolved very fast. There are plenty of bank failures round the world but you do not get scenes like Northern Rock.
I still maintain, the key difference is mindblowing incompetence.
Complain about this comment
Nice for the Cameron and the decent hard working business man( Is that ok? wouldn't want to upset the Conservatives, its almost like racism you know!) anyway nice of them include that advert for a loaf of bread. 45p eh a bargain probably a supermarket loss leader. to wipe out local shops, Newsagents and POST OFFICES. Did they think that was a high price? He didn't seem to know that it is about £1 elsewhere. and the conservatives can and would do nothing to reduce that, before you start. I would like to say how much I love those chats with the public to camera because I am a nice person, But I can't because they are just phoney cringe-making PR stunts. See video above.
Complain about this comment
RE: gthebounceranddavincimaster
Tamsin Dunwoody’s comment about being, “just a single, unemployed mother of five, fighting hard for a job” [source BBC Article – Labour’s toff campaign defended] just about sums up New Labour to me.
Factually her statement may be correct; but the sentiment underpinning it i.e. that she is a struggling single parent, like many of us, is highly misleading. After all, Tamsin’s home is almost as grand as her Tory opponents. Moreover, she was a Welsh Assembly member (on a good wage) before being rejected by the voters and her family are long standing members of the political elite. Add in the fact that she will no doubt inherit a reasonable sum from mother’s estate and it is clear that Tamsin is unlikely to be feeling the pinch any time soon. She is not a typical, single, unemployed mum of five.
Complain about this comment
I don't see why anyone should "hug" Gwyneth Dunwoody's "grieving daughter" Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey by giving her a seat to on the Westminster gravy train just because her mother was an OK MP.
We have done away with hereditary peerages, now we need to do the same for MPs.
And the Labour campaign has been disgraceful...
In any case, many Labour cabinet members are just as much "toffs" as the Tory candidate, Edward Timpson who was at least born locally and whose parents worked to build up their business....
But far more worrying that the Crewe by-election is the warning of George Soros today, that the UK was worse-placed than America to weather the coming economic storm, because it had such a large financial sector and has had the biggest increase in house prices.
Complain about this comment
The Daily Mirror reports that David Cameron compared himself to Margaret Thatcher yesterday and that he is on a mission to "revive our society just as Lady Thatcher revived our economy".
I don't think this line will be a big vote winner at Crew - or anywhere else. If you have a body burried under the patio, surely it's best not to mention it?
Complain about this comment
#39
Yes, the Soros warning does put this by-election into some perspective i.e. not very important in the great scheme of things and just another nail in NL's coffin.
The UK economy has become rather unbalanced over the last decade-and-a-half, with an unhealthy weighting towards the financial sector.
You would think that the Government would, as a consequence, tread extremely carefully where 'the City' is concerned.
But recently, HMG seem to have 'lost the plot' here, as elsewhere, so that businesses, like people, are thinking of emigrating to friendlier places such as Ireland.
It is such a pity that we have to stagger through the next two years with this shower ... before the political cycle repeats with 'Dave's' shower.
At least the Scots will really shake things up ... I can't wait .. come on you Scots .. just do it ... the English can't be bothered but will be forced to once you become properly independent.
Complain about this comment
Here's a piece of useful campaigning detail for la Dunwoody - Gordon Brown has manged to collapse sterling 17% against the Euro since stepping into number 10...that's nearly twice the fall when sterling exited the ERM in 92. Membership of the ERM, by the way, was something Gordon Brown supported at the time.
It seems like Gordon has been even more successful than the Tories at trashing the currency and our gold and the opinion polls.
Complain about this comment
Earlier on, in a previous debate, I stated - Looks like the NuLabour dirty tricks brigade are out in force.
Well I must hold my hands up, I got it wrong. It should have read - Looks like the NuLabour Rent-A-Mob are out in force.
And what a desperate gang they look. If this is the best they can do, NuLabour really are doomed! It does look like the Party is coming to an end!
The legacy McBroon will most be remembered for - The man who presided over the break up of the Union.
Another point to note is that the Labour party is virtually bankrupt. In recent years we have seen them sell Millbank, that infamous NuLabour bunker, and have had to reschedule their loans so frequently their bank must be dizzy.
Do we really want a party that cannot even look after its own economy running GB?
Northern Rock - Ironic really. For 10 years NuLabour has been selling off council housing estates across Britain. To so called Private Social Landlords.
Now they have NATIONALISED a Building Society/Bank for the private property it owns. Says it all!
Just one question - When are they going to nationalise the NuLabour party so that the taxpayer can bale them out of their current malaise?
With regards Crewe and Nantwich I look forward to watching the news on Friday and the NuLabours spin-doctors responses to the beginning of their demise!
Complain about this comment
A Labour spin-doctor (CEH) wrote here: "This is mostly a perception issue. ... more humble and relaxed approach will help the Prime Minister sail through this one. Really, it's quite, quite easy.
A more simple and happy message, and generally going out and about is quite sufficient. I strongly recommend the Prime Minister get a Hollywood script writer on team and buy a dog so he can take it for walks down the embankment.
Put it this way. Does anyone have a better plan?"
I have a plan - call a general election and get this wasteful government out. Are you listening Charles ?
Complain about this comment
Labour has kicked every voter they have, beld them with tax, ignored their plight and spent ALL the money on pet projects.
The interference in private lives is insulting and spiteful.
I will vote for anyone but Labour.
Complain about this comment
Dear Member,
It is an honour to have been chosen to lead the party at such an exciting time.
The Government have lost the nation's trust, and it is now up to us to earn that trust, and to show how our party can succeed in government.
Many people could be forgiven for thinking that the above could be penned by David Cameron when he took leadership of the Tory party. It was in fact Teflon Tony’s address to the NuLabour membership in 1994.
He also wrote, later in that document, Labour's strength is in its membership. At the turn of the new millennium I was one of those 50% that walked away from NuLabour. It is little wonder that NuLabour are virtually bankrupt.
Included in that address was the following diatribe:
In the coming year our campaigning concerns must include stepping up our fight against 17.5% VAT on fuel and the growing poverty among the low paid and the unemployed as well as highlighting a new agenda for fairness and greater equality;
Wonder if anyone can guess who penned the above. I will give you a clue!
70% Tax on fuel - does that help.
Yep - our good old friend Mr Bean. Think this really beggars belief!
Cue dhwilkinson.
Complain about this comment
#22 I am English and think the Poles are hard working decent people.
I live in Scotland and have witnessed Scots expressing concern about the quantities of Poles over here. Therefore I don't think that in practice there is much difference between the two soon to be separated nations.
I am all for the separation and ideally an English Republic!
I think the issue is where you are in the social spectrum which leads to anxiety over the extra competition for jobs and housing. In a recession that will get worse.
I don't think the Germans are racist in setting limits on how many people can come in. It makes sense from a planning and stability point of view. NL said we should expect 16000 and we got more like 1.6 million - but thats NL for you!
Allegedly the Poles are now departing for more economically stable countries, that will destabilize business planning. But I'm not sure I believe government figures - or the government.
Complain about this comment
Cameron was asked, what would he do to alleviate the pressures of the hike of Oil and food prices in the face of this unique global problem. His reply was. " This has got nothing to do with a global problem etc."
What a hypocrite! What a liar! Is this the way to win elections?
What would you do chicken? Give us the numbers!
Would you reduce tax on fuel for example?
Would he give us another September 1992 if he is in Govt?
The Tories promise a lot, they deliver very little and when things go wrong they always have a plausible excuse for their past failures!
One thing Dave phoney never mentions is the interest rates which under Labour have never reached 16%. Lest we not forget!
Complain about this comment
So Commissar Brown is looking at monitoring our every phone call, email and internet page. All in the cause of cutting crime. This ia the BBC's report on the web
"Ministers are to consider plans for a database of electronic information holding details of every phone call and e-mail sent in the UK, it has emerged.
The plans, reported in the Times, are at an early stage and may be included in the draft Communications Bill later this year, the Home Office confirmed.
A Home Office spokesman said the data was a "crucial tool" for protecting national security and preventing crime. ......"
That will be the final straw for this government. As if we are not monitored and instructed at every turn. This would be worse than Russia, or Roumania which was terrible (I worked there in the 1980s).
I for one will be very happy to make calls, send emails and access internet pages that will keep them on their toes. I have enough politically incorrect opinions to keep a whole department going starting with Gordon Brown!!!
Complain about this comment
Only wayup
I have no idea how old you are but it is 16 years since 1992. In the intervening years I have changed as have my opinions and experience.
There is a saying that "you learn from your mistakes" and I expect that David cameron has done so and is much wiser and has a more rounded character than in 1992.
In ths country, unlike many others, we tend to look to the past than the future. The next Conservative goverment, when it comes, will be different to that past. It has to be, just as New Labour was different to Labour.
I imagine we ALL want to be judged on what we do now rather than on what we did in the past. I know I am embarrassed by some of my "achievements" of the past.
None of us know how a Conservative government will perform. This blog seems to judge people on the past. It is not a good trait. We should all look to the future.
New Labour has had its day. We should celebrate its achievements and criticise its manifest failings. Them move on and look to the future.
Complain about this comment
#48 - no, but Labour did manage to get inflation up to 25% in the mid seventies (lest we forget).
Complain about this comment
I don't know who this mikepko person is, but his postings make a lot of sense on this blog topic.
I also think that voting (or not voting) for someone for purely historic reasons is spurious. It makes me very depressed when people say things like "oooh, I'd always vote labour, even if they had a monkey in charge; it's in my blood".
The main point is to look at what they think/say/do now and ask yourself who makes the most sense and who do you trust at the moment.
At the moment labour don't make any sense (their logical arguments are totally flawed on vritually every topic), and their leader is a proven liar on virtually every topic up to the present day.
At the moment David Cameron's arguments do make more logical sense but nobody knows for sure if he'll do what he says if/when he gets in power.
Given the choice between an unknown (Cameron) who make sense but who you're not 100% sure about when it comes to trust, and an idiot proven liar (brown), I'd choose Cameron at the moment.
But that might change during the next 2 years; I'll just keep an eye on how they do and then make up my mind when it comes to the general election (if indeed Gordon Brown doesn't ban general elections by 2010).
Complain about this comment
Listen to this Nick:-
In ths country, unlike many others, we tend to look to the past than the future. The next Conservative goverment, when it comes, will be different to that past. It has to be, just as New Labour was different to Labour.
Ha ha haj! Is that so? Then why does not Cameron admit in public that what the Tories ( and he himself), did in the past was wrong and apologise for the mirery brought on us in them days? They mismanaged the economy to benefit the filthy rich and the filthy rich only, and that might include myself!
The last time someone mentioned the September 1992 fiasco to Cameron, not only did he not admit gross incompetence, but the excuse was that the situation was circumstantial and seasonal! he has to start somewhere, sometime!
The first thing Tony Blair did when he was elected leader of the Labour Party was that he admitted that in some years past Labour Govts. did not manage the country as they should have done and that not all that Thatcher stood for was wrong, in fact he publicly said that thanks to her she also cleaned Labour from the looney lefties! He even made a joke of the time when we had Dennis Healy as chancellor!
Come on now. Tell us!
Do you now agree with the minimum wage?
Do you agree with an independent BOE?
Will you sustain the help for families with children?
Do you admit that the economy has grown for 11 years with the lowest interest rates ever on record? With all those billions required and invested to build our health service. schools, and railways.
Do you want us to forget the railway shambles that you left behind?
Would you bring back the fuel escalator?Would you increase VAT to be the highest in the EU as you did when last in Govt?
A couple of years ago the Tories defended those policies. What are you on about man?
Oh, and if one should forget the past, let us forget all that Labour did in these last 11 years and look to the future eh! Is that your wish? Do you wish we forget that we left from Hell? I can now have a hip operation within 3 months, when before I had to wait for 3 years? Is that what you want us to forget?
You have to start somewhere, sometime!
Let Cameron start with the apologies first!
Complain about this comment
Remember, "Things can only get better"? It's hard to see how they can get worse, as Labour goes into meltdown with its supporters and the public deserting it in droves.
Some interesting statistics in today's Guardian on Labour's criminal justice system - the proportion of the population in prison has risen by 20% since the Tories left office. Today Britain locks up 151 out of every 100,000 people. The Chinese 119 people per 100,000; Burma 120; Saudi Arabia 132.
I can't wait to see the back of this lot.
Lib Dems anyone?
Complain about this comment
To Charles E,
If the Tories have exhibited a 'guerilla campaign of negativity', what does that make the Labour campaign? Have they not attempted to stoke up class war hatred with their 'Tory toffs' slogans? (One of the chaps in the Top hat went to private school by the way)
Wasn't Tony Blair a toff?
Can't remember NuLab dissing his background or implying that he was in some way less worthy because he was born into priviledge?
Complain about this comment
Is it only MY computer that has now interposed a Springwatch blog between Nick's last 2 blog postings?
Is somebody trying to remind me of my schooldays? It appears to be all in Latin.
It does say there was an error opening this page. Hasn't anybody else NOTICED?
Complain about this comment
#51
#48 - no, but Labour did manage to get inflation up to 25% in the mid seventies (lest we forget).
I to remember those times well.
Ever heard of the winter of discontent - 3 day working, could not even bury our dead! - Yep surprise surprise - Labour
Also remember 25% inflation and 11% interest rates under - Yep surprise surprise - Labour.
People in Britain, recently voted for change - even in the valleys, Yes Wales, once a lifelong Labour stronghold. By the way is this not the place were NuLabours prospective candidate for Crewe and Nantwich got ousted by the Tories!
Complain about this comment
#56
I have had that problem over the last two days or so. Appears to be a glitche in the BBC servers for this blog site, it will pass.
Complain about this comment
OnThePeripheral:-
In the coming year our campaigning concerns must include stepping up our fight against 17.5% VAT on fuel and the growing poverty among the low paid and the unemployed as well as highlighting a new agenda for fairness and greater equality.
That is exactly the rate of tax we were paying on heating fuel, and not on Petrol.
VAT on heating fuel is now 5%!
Is this the way forward?
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with #50 and 52. Spot on…
Oh and #53, If we are talking about apologies, how about we start with Tony or Gordon.
1) I sold our gold too cheap - Sorry
2) I destroyed our pensions - Sorry
3) I spent every penny we have left - Sorry
4) I destroyed the education system - Sorry
5) I moved more poor people into poverty over the last 11 years - Sorry
6) I lied to parliament about knowing the source of our donations - Sorry
7) I caused the only run in a bank in over a hundred years - Sorry
I could go on...
My point is as I think as #50 said, it's very easy to judge everything that happened in the past but just to point blankly refuse to see that there is another way is just frankly stupid and naive.
Imagine if we had all ignored Tony when he said "Things can only get better" and "Education Education Education" we gave him a chance, now lets see what else is out there.
Don't be so blinkered you have a free vote. Vote with your head and heart and not just "cos, thats the way I've always voted and I'm not gonna change for anyone!"
Wait! Is that Kiwilegs I hear bashing away at the keyboard….
Complain about this comment
#54 bryanjames "it is hard to see how (things) can get worse."
That really is just silly. It is very easy to see how things could get a lot worse, quite apart from party politics! But for example I live in a small town in the East Midlands - we have a brand new Community Hospital, the schools have been refurbished and no longer let in the rain, I see many more police on patrol and we have dedicated community policing units, nurses and doctors are no longer flooding out of the country for better pay, and I get some sort of satisfaction from knowing that my country is making a relatively respectable contribution to international developmnt and world peace. These among many other things, all of which have improved since 1997. So I can imagine things being worse just by remembering how they were 10 years ago.
I do not know what you think your figures on the number of people in prison mean. Do you think that fewer criminals should be incarcerated? Do you think that they show that the greater numbers of police are being more successful in getting criminals sent to gaol, and are more successful than in the other countries you name? Do you think that there are too many prisons? I guess we would all agree that it would be nice if there were fewer criminals, but what exactly would you do to achieve that objective? It is always very easy to quote this sort of data without understanding what it really means.
Complain about this comment
#60 secondSpanners - it isn't often even on this site that you see a list if statements that are all at least questionable, and in most cases just plain wrong.
No, on more careful consideration, that are ALL plain wrong.
Complain about this comment
Hi Onlywayup,
You pose a number of questions in the mistaken belief that the Tory position on these issues is somehow unknown. I’ll answer them for you.
a)Do you now agree with the minimum wage? The Tory party have supported the minimum wage for a number of years now i.e. even before Cameron
b)Do you agree with an independent BOE? As above, the Tory position changed prior to Cameron’s elevation. The Tories support an independent BOE.
c)Will you sustain the help for families with children? If you are referring to the family tax credit system, the Tories are committed to maintaining it; although they say it needs reform. Given this systems susceptibility to fraud and overpayment [Billions lost to the Taxpayer every year since its introduction]; the low take-up rate and the number of families pushed into poverty by demands for repayment – this seems a reasonable proposition.
d)Do you admit that the economy has grown for 11 years with the lowest interest rates ever on record? Actually the economy has been consecutively growing for more than 14 years. That’s because the Tories left the economy in a healthy state. Do you think Gordon will be so generous in two years time? I doubt it. As for interest rates – yes, the last ten years have seen historically low levels of global interest rates and this has been reflected in Britain. Now if Labour wants to take the domestic credit for this global phenomenon, then they can’t now use the global credit crunch, to excuse their current difficulties. You can’t have it both ways.
e)With all those billions required and invested to build our health service, schools, and railways. Yes Labour’s investment record in public services has been excellent. Although the extended use of PPI (introduced under the Tories – a mistake) has been a disaster. But remember, our political masters are investing public money, not their own. As such, taxpayers have the right to demand value for money. Given the sums invested, it is not enough to say that some things are better. The NHS budget for instance has doubled, in such circumstances; even a Monkey could have improved some aspects of the service. So it’s a value judgment? Has Labour spent the money wisely? Most people it would seem - think they have not, and given the fiasco over GP contracts, the NHS It system etc… it is easy to see why!
f)Do you want us to forget the railway shambles that you left behind? Labour’s transport policy has been a disaster – according to GVN statistics, train service reliability whilst improving of late, has still not returned to 1997 levels. At the current rate, Labour will achieve this benchmark in 2010.
g)Would you bring back the fuel escalator? The shadow energy secretary has hinted strongly that they would. An unpopular policy to be sure – but a Green policy nonetheless.
h)Would you increase VAT to be the highest in the EU as you did when last in Govt? In David Cameron’s speech yesterday he intimated that Taxes were already too high and that a future Conservative GVN would seek to reduce, not increase the tax burden on the average citizen.
You see Onlywayup – the Tories position on most of these subjects is pretty clear and in the public domain. Have they changed their mind on some of these issues – well yes? But then all political parties change/adapt their policies over time. Remember the Labour Party manifesto in 1983 – Anti-Nuclear, Anti-EU, Pro- Nationalization, Repeal of Thatcher’s Trade Union Laws etc…. I do, because I canvassed on behalf of my local Labour candidate.
Nice talking to you…..
Complain about this comment
Seriously... why do people vote labour because "they always have"! Have they no brains at all.
I work with a guy who votes labour for that exact same reason and yes I can confirm, he's as thick as sh......
Complain about this comment
#64 - I don't think the "it's what I've always done" disease is specific to Labour voters. I'm sure the Conservative party has its fair share of these as well.
Complain about this comment
#61 Let's remember two things: the legacy bequeathed to Gordon was of falling inflation, falling interest rates, falling unemployment and growing GDP. Gordon even adopted Ken Clarke's Tory budget. They adopted the Tories PFI idea, and even the idea circulating in Tory Government about BOE independence. Ken Clarke even said that he was not implacably opposed to BOE independence only that he wanted more time to consider and debate its implications; you know, he was actually quite sensible about things like that. And just like Labour didn't repeal any of the Tories Trade Union legislation, because actually they quite liked it, then the Tories will not unwind the minimum wage as they appreciate that too.
#63 refers to railway privatisation in answer to an earlier blog. I've actually read the Parliamentary report into the privatisation of the rolling stock companies. There were mistakes (as there have been subsequently, as most recently we had with QinetiQ which was massively undersold by Gordon as revealed in an NAO report) and one thing stands out: the political uncertainty created by Labour at the time effectively nobbled the sale. It meant that only the management could be realistic purchasers and they had their own agenda to serve. After that, it could never have been right. Should the sale have still gone ahead? Who knows? You never know, we could have still been left with British Snail.
Complain about this comment
#62,
In this free country you are entitled to your opinion and perhaps you truly believe that those statements are wrong but by just saying they are doesn’t make them so.
Again I reiterate my main point...
You shouldn't judge someone just because they are Tory or Labour, listen to each argument and make an informed decision rather than a emotional one.
eg: Vote for Tamsin because you really believe her policy ideas and what she stands for not because she's not a "toff" or just because she's not a "Tory"
Perhaps Politics is like religion, it polarised you're either believe one doctrine or another and there never seems to be any middle ground. How sad!
Complain about this comment
The Labour party has made some presentation errors while the Tories have run a stealth negative campaign. That's a pretty balanced comment.
The dominant mood of the moment is irrational and hysterical. People are just venting or caught up in themselves. I'm not giving it much attention.
Proper form and attitude is more important than speed or winning. Polly Toynbee makes a good comment that echoes this. People should give it some attention.
Complain about this comment
#65,
Too true.. The affliction effects people on all sides.
Complain about this comment
CaptainJuJu wrote:
Seriously... why do people vote labour because "they always have"! Have they no brains at all.
I work with a guy who votes labour for that exact same reason and yes I can confirm, he's as thick as sh......
I cannot understand how Nick accepts people to write in this way.
If you and your friend are stupid, I am an ex Tory voter and an ex Bank Manager and an ex Medcial Liaison Officer. If that makes one stupid, then no wonder some are wanting to vote Tory again!
Is that your point?
Respect please, and one would say that your friend has his own opinion in a democracy, not thick!
I hope you have a nice evening.
Complain about this comment
#54 byranjames
They (libdems) get my vote... I'm nothing to do with them but lots of people in this blog seem to be wuite openly labour or tory and happy to say why they support them so I thought I should offer my views. Plus, the LDs get about two thirds of the vote that the two 'main' parties get but about 1/20th of the coverage!
There seems to be two main complaints over Brown and HMG that consistently crop up in this blog:
1) the 10p tax row
- it was the LDs NOT Cameron who spotted this within hours of the pre-budget. It took Labour and Tory MPs until the last recess to figure out lower earners would lose out! I just cannot believe the Tories now suddenly care about low earners!
- they've argued for years that tax should be FAIRER. The rich should pay more, who can disagree?
2) surveillance society/erosion of civil liberties
-against ID cards, cctv, detension without trial, banning protests outside parliament.
The LDs have also led the green agenda, voted against higher education plans that have left me and my siblings in thousands of pounds of debt (when all MPs in their time got grants), have warned about the debt bubble, and support (admittedly for electorally strategic reasons) electoral reform.
I'm interested to see if labour support thus goes to the tories, who are just as bad, or to the LDs, who seem to offer me a better alternative.
Complain about this comment
#54.
I can't wait to see the back of this lot.
Lib Dems anyone?
Bryan. As a previous lifelong Labour supporter and activist I was really drawn to the LibDems when they opposed the illegal war in Iraq.
If the LibDems had carried through there initial response to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and not retreated I would have taken them as a serious alternative to NuLabour.
But hey I do not support any party, even though it may appear otherwise.
On the bright side I have voted LibDems locally for the last 3 years. They now have control of my local authority, and I must say they are doing so much better than previous NuLabour councillors who were in control for many years.
Another consolation, next year we have the EU elections. I cant wait to show my disgust for NuLabour at that time. Hey I may even vote LibDem!
Complain about this comment
#63 ngodinhdiem:
Nice to see a relatively thoughtful and reasoned contribution!
I have no reason to argue with your a, b, and c - but there is some room for disagreement with the rest I think.
(d) there is something in what you say, but you ignore the fact that the UK's economic performance has improved relative to other similar economies over the period. That normalises for changes in the general global environment I would have thought. In the argot of party politics, we were the sick man of Europe, and are now one of (if not the) strongest.
(e) Unfortunately most people believe what they read in the papers, even when (as is overwhelmingly the case) their own experience of the NHS has improved dramatically. In any event, you have to ask what the situation would have been like if the investment had NOT gone in, and compare the present situation with that. As you say, it is a value judgement, and undoubtedly mistakes have been made (and always will be) - but you have to make the judgement on the appropriate basis.
(f) I think you have to look a bit deeper than just the raw reliability data, and ask why there has been a period of poorer performance. The reason is fairly clear - the need to upgrade the track and signalling system after the various crashes in the late 90's, which were probably largely down to previous underinvestment. The recent problems at Rugby for example made a very large dent in reliability stats, but will make for significant improvements in the longer term.
(g) and (h) The problem for the Tories is in your comments - they have 'hinted' and 'intimated', but not actually said anything. Cameron's recent speech in Birmingham was typical - a lot of talk about objectives most of which would be shared by the government. But while the government has (and has to have) policies to meet those objectives, Cameron is silent on what he would actually do.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant - I meant, and I thought it was obvious, that it's hard to see how things can get worse for Labour.
Re locking people up. I think prison should be reserved for dangerous and/or serious criminals. There are other ways of dealing with people who break the law but do not present a danger to society - if the will is there.
Some of the biggest crooks have passed through the political system (Maxwell, for example). Take the recent case of the MP who paid his son, £25,970 a year for (not) working for him. What happened to him? Suspended for 10 days on full pay. That must have really hurt.
Meanwhile, poor people are being sent to prison because they have gotten into debt and young people are being criminalised because many have nowhere to go, nothing to do and end up getting into trouble.
But I don't want to get into point scoring with you. If you are happy to see more and more people locked up without the underline causes being addressed, that's up to you. I see them as crime universities - judging by the re-offending levels reported - they are too crowded to allow prisoners to be rehabilitated and after a year or so they are back on the streets - smarter than before.
Complain about this comment
And, Jim, with respect, don't be so bloody patronising.
Complain about this comment
Someone earlier asked if anyone else had noticed the Springwatch blog.
I checked with the BBC and Nick was on "Gardening leave" (only joking).
His Latin wasn't bad either.
Complain about this comment
Gosh, I'm a little surprised how Nick's musings on the thoughts of potential labour voters has generated so much friction between posters.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes I saw the Gardeners World piece and wandered if it might be a cyber attack from......
Complain about this comment
We are asked to look forward rather than back.
Ok.
May 2010 - UK General Election results:
England - Tory majority.
Scotland - SNP majority.
Wales - Plaid majority.
July 2010 - Scottish Independence Referendum - SNP majority.
2011/12 - Scots leave 'union'. Plaid submit independence referendum to Welsh people.
2012/3 - English wake up and realise that they are in a union of one.
Complain about this comment
nick; can you start a blog topic about the pending email/phone snooping law? I'm sure it'd be pretty popular!
Complain about this comment
#50 - "New Labour has had its day. We should celebrate its achievements and criticise its manifest failings. Them move on and look to the future."
I agree entirely. Let's celebrate New Labour's achievements. There's - er - well, um, there's - ah - erm - um.... ah... come on, someone help me out here.
Complain about this comment
Ah yes, I remember.
They sold gold at a long term low.
They reduced unemployment by shifting people into public sector non-jobs or incapacity benefit
They stitched up the low paid with the doubling of the 10% tax rate, then spent billions solving the wrong problem.
They presided over the first bank run in over 100 years.
They presided over an education system where more kids get more qualifications but still can't add up.
They caused tax to rise by more than 50% while public services are constantly cut due to a lack of funding.
Shall I continue?
Complain about this comment
Calm down on the prison figures everybody (*54) - remember that all the three countries Monbiot quotes have the death penalty, and use it rather liberally - so prison is only for quite minor offences. If it were the same here, we'd have a much lower prison population and a much higher death rate, so the statistics are meaningless.
On the subject of Crewe - interesting to hear that Tamsin Dunwoody has gone down well, even at a time when Labour is in such difficulty. Maybe it shows the importance of at least some sort of local link to a constituency for a candidate (even if it is only hereditary). It does of course beg the question - how much worse would Labour be doing without her?
Complain about this comment
#63 ngodinhdiem
I'm not sure about some of your arguments.
a) re minimum wage - I'm fairly sure Cameron and the Conservatives do not support the minimum wage. Pragmatically, they may keep it for a while until such time as they can abolish it such as a period of rising unemployment when it can be blamed for causing unemployment (as their argument I think still is).
b) independent BOE - There seems no reason why the Conservatives would want to abolish this. Cameron is on record as saying he wants to also take other major areas outside public accountability (e.g. an independent NHS)
c) help for families with children - I think (though no policy as yet - surprise, surprise) that the WFTC will go - Conservatives are on record as saying what a disaster it is (difficult administration and allegedly encourages benefit fraud and single parenthood). Again, trying to get to what their core values are (a major difficulty) I think they would replace this with a transferable tax allowance to married couples - it's not the children from poor families that matter but getting the top-rate tax breaks out to their core support in the shires. I think Cameron is also on record as claiming that relative poverty is not important in determining outcomes and they will swap the Labour 60% of the median poverty definition for a (less generous) absolute 'breadline' amount based on some sense of how much the Government believes it costs someone to achieve a minimum standard of living.
d) The jury is out on that one - several of the economic reforms have helped, as has the recent influx of economic migrants (which the Conservatives will restrict more heavily). The Conservatives can take some credit for abandoning their disastorous economic policies of the 1980s and early 1990s before Labour came to power
e) Interesting points. Labour have had difficulties in getting the Civil Service to administer many of the policies they have introduced correctly, despite getting many private sector 'experts' in to help with this. They under-estimated the delivery difficulty during their first two terms, and Blair began to address this in the 3rd. About Brown, we still do not know.
f) While as a Londoner I cannot appreciate the difficulties that I know are faced in other parts of the country, public transport for me appears to have improved massively, whether travelling locally or on the main routes out of the capital
g) The Conservatives like to talk green and then completely contradict that by criticising all the Government's good environmental intentions e.g. high fuel tax, waste taxes etc are all things that Conservatives try and make political capital out of
h) I think it is quite clear where tax cuts will be directed - inheritance tax and stamp duty are the 2 they mention (the latter will merely provide further stimulus to over-inflated houses rather than benefitting first time buyers in the slightest - look at the impact of the tax rather than who actually pays it). Raising the personal allowance is another stated ambition (ie benefitting higher rate payers at 40% and basic rate payers at 20%). Transferable tax allowances another (again benefitting 40% tax rate payers in one-earner families - who can afford to be a one-earner family these days anyway).
Also, Conservatives are very optimistic about the power of asking the private sector to do things for the greater good. To do so would be illegal for them - they have clear responsibilities to shareholders. There will also be far more reliance on philanthropy - sounds like a return to the workhouse and the 'deserving poor' determined by the super-rich rather than the population as a whole through the democratic process to me!
Cameron is just a lot of hot air - the core values are as they always have been. I have to admit he is a great salesman - his Eton education has certainly had benefits.
Complain about this comment
#74 and 75 bryanjames: "I meant, and I thought it was obvious, that it's hard to see how things can get worse for Labour."
Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding. But you did link your statement to the slogan 'Things can only get better', which certainly did refer to the country and not the party, so I don't agree that your meaning was obvious. Even limiting the idea to the party, it's not that difficult to imagine a worse position - remember Michael Foot?
As for the rest, I actually largely agree with what you say now that you have explained what you meant. But that doesn't mean that your original comment and comparison made much sense.
As for being patronising, I can only remind you of the old saying "It's hard to be humble etc"
Complain about this comment
Thank you, Jim - I'll take it we are friends again! :)
With your reservation "But that doesn't mean that your original comment and comparison made much sense."
You mean all the others do?!
On the LibDems - I know it's hard to get excited about them but where else can an armchair socialist go? I like to think I still have a few principles left, even after 12 (?) years of Nouveau Labour so there is no way I could vote for Mr C. But I watch with interest. It's not that Cameron deserves to lead the country but Labour deserves to be kicked out.
I'm more afraid of The Madness of King Gordon - he's bad enough now but if he had a 'mandate' there would be no stopping him. Mr Bean would morph back into Stalin.
Complain about this comment
#86bryanjames: "even after 12 (?) years of Nouveau Labour so there is no way I could vote for Mr C."
I couldn't vote for either of the Mr C's as things stand now. I thought (still think) that Blair was the greatest PM we've had for a century or more, so I do not naturally warm to Brown in view of his antics . But I think you may be being a bit hard on him; I suspect that his principles at least are solid and honourable, though whether he can make himself into any sort of leader is now questionable.
I like your Madness of KG metaphor!
Complain about this comment
Yes, I am being 'terribly hard' on Brown. I almost feel guilty - poor man, part of me thinks, it's not all his fault. But it's not just recent events - it's just the whole sorry saga of wasted opportunities despite all the promises.
We've had wars, lies, spin, more lies, more spin, the rich getting richer, toped by incompetience and more promises. It's like a man who beats his wife and vows never to do it again.
But I guess Brown is the easy target for people who are completely fed up with what has happened - but he did 'volunteer' for the job.
Complain about this comment
No52
getridofgordonnow
Thanks for your vote of confidence. Just for your information, I'm not a member of any political party, just a pragmatic voter. Half Polish/Ukrainian - my mother was taken to Germany for forced labour in 1942 and has been here since 1947.
Being pragmatic and weighing-up the facts as they occur is something I would like to see in posters, but unfortunately too many people have their politics ingrained and no argument will persuade them to look at things in a balanced way.
One thing I have learned in my 56 years is that I can be wrong, and often am. To be right all of the time must be very wearing on all around, and sets such a high standard to live up to so that when a fall comes it really hurts. Gordon Brown must be feeling that at the moment, although whatever he says in public I don't for an instant believe that thinks he has made even a small mistake.
Anyway, as entertaining as it is I'm sure that what we say here has no bearing on the result of the Crewe election or the General Election. Both are just a "weighing machine" of public, biased and un-balanced opinions. In the end just a few votes, one way or another, will seal the outcomes. It is these few votes that the dreadful Labour team are trying to gain by foul means.
Good night.
Complain about this comment
Dumping 'our dear leader'(c.f. N. Korea) GB may satisfy our need for vengeance, but should we perhaps pause and ask, who's policies has he been implementing?
Perhaps it is the same Civil Servants at the Treasury that gave us the same policies under Thatcher.
Perhaps we need to make sure that whoever comes next flushes the dead wood out of the Treasury just as Mrs T did when she came to power - you will all recall the 'is he one of us question?'
Complain about this comment
It is much easier from the 'outside' looking in.
In my opinion, the problems are systemic, in that HMG are struggling to operate a system of Government that is totally outmoded.
A key factor is that the existing system of Government suffers greatly from 'lag' (hysteresis).
That is the 'democratic' inputs produce an eventual output but often too late i.e. correcting something that no longer exists or is no longer relevant to the circumstances pertaining when the inputs were significant.
Just a tiny amount of Information Technology at the interface between the people and Government could provide a superb example of direct democracy.
However, as I have mentioned elsewhere, virtually everything Government touches seems to turn to dust, especially IT projects.
You want an answer and my interim solution is to start electing genuinely independent people.
You'd be surprised how much better Government would start to be.
Complain about this comment
A general commentary really.
I've only been looking at this blog for 10 days or so. Glad to see some considered opinion is available to read. The constant personal attacks on the Prime Minister appear to have subsided a touch as well.
I am not a Labour Party member and I can tell you that my family's finances are being squeezed. What I can't do is defect to the Tories. They got the "nasty party" tag for a reason and their ardent supporters on this blog embody the same spirit. The country is not going down the toilet and everything that has happened in the last 11 years is not the result of a golden legacy bequeathed by Ken Clarke. The Labour And Lib-Dem opinions (on the whole) just seem more balanced. Again I suspect there is a reason for this!
Complain about this comment
If Labour win Crewe, they will say it is an endorsement of their policies.
If they lose, then it will be put down to "mid term blues". But if that is the case, to lose a 7,000+ majority is more that "mid term blues": it is a disaster.
I think they might win it, but at a greatly reduced majority.
They must be praying for a 3,000+ majority which would be damaging to David Cameron.
Friday morning should be interesting.
Complain about this comment
92: peteholly
I am not a Labour Party member and I can tell you that my family's finances are being squeezed. What I can't do is defect to the Tories. They got the "nasty party" tag for a reason and their ardent supporters on this blog embody the same spirit. The country is not going down the toilet and everything that has happened in the last 11 years is not the result of a golden legacy bequeathed by Ken Clarke. The Labour And Lib-Dem opinions (on the whole) just seem more balanced. Again I suspect there is a reason for this!
-------------------------------------------------
I am not a Labour Party member and Tory "nasty party” all in one breath. Yep Peter and pigs may fly!
Hate to rain on your parade Peter:
Iraq war
ID cards
EU membership withdrawal referendum.
To name but a few concrete differences. By any stretch of the imagination I doubt you could call it balanced.
And after all it was a LibDem who christened the Prime Minister Mr Bean! Again I suspect there is a reason for this!
I am not a NuLabour Party member either, but on the three issues above, in the absence of a Lisbon Treaty referendum, I may even vote LibDem at the next election.
Question for you Peter, If Ken Clarkes legacy was that bad. Why did NuLabour run with their budget for two years?
I have read a number of your other postings. You seem very keen on NuLabour, the cause of your woes, why not join them? They are really strapped for members, or is it liquidity - 20mil if I remember correctly!
Complain about this comment
This was a major election committment Labour made to counter the Tory accusation of tax and spend. In reality, years of underinvestment and an unrealistically low Tory tax promise (later confirmed by the Tories) was meant that Labour had to hold back against their better judgement.
People can make their own judgements about tax levels and services but the basic realities can't be ducked. You get what you pay for and no amount of rhetoric or wishful thinking will change that. The fact that this even has to be raised is a sign how poor the quality of national politics is.
For all their sins Labour have invested and helped prevent the very worst screwing of people at the bottom. Real growth is hard. Very hard. The Tory alternative is to cut from the weakest and provide an illusion of growth. How is that a better alternative? I can't see that it is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
92# Pete I could swallow the fallacy about the Clarke's golden legacy had the economy went down the pan, say after 5 years of Labour. But it certainly has not.
We are still not up the Khyber after 10 years although people are feeling the squeeze I am in no doubt about that. However most do not know what a sqeeze really is, one had to live and suffer under Thatcher and Major to know that fact first hand.
Sometimes I think that a spell of the Tory in again running the government would do some in this Country a power of good and help to concentrate the mind. A lot have very short memories and a few Tory lesson on what belt tightening is really like under a Tory administration would help.
I think a lot in this Country do not realise what they have and will not until they have lost it. Some people will never learn that grass is not always greener at the other side, they need to learn lessons the hard way.
Complain about this comment
kiwilegs wrote:
,1 do not for one minute think that most of the hoped for Tory majority is a vote FOR Cameron I think it is more a vote AGAINST Brown.'
I've seen this argument used quite a lot over the past few months. As Cameron is the only conceivable alternative it matters little that it is a vote against Gordon Brown. Unless he can turn around people's perceptions of him the fact that they are voting against him as opposed to for The Opposition will not be too comforting for him in the final analysis if he fails to turn things around. If Cameron or Clegg are not viable alternatives there is still the option of spoiling ballot papers or not voting at all.
Complain about this comment
kiwilegs wrote:
'I think a lot in this Country do not realise what they have and will not until they have lost it. Some people will never learn that grass is not always greener at the other side, they need to learn lessons the hard way.'
I think you give people less credit for their voting decisions and judgements than they deserve. You could say that many of the people who deserted The Conservative Party and voted Labour 11 years ago because they believed the grass was greener on the other side of the fence are now also beginning to reassess their loyalties.
Complain about this comment
97 Belt tightening is a natural occurrence after profligacy.
Labour have overspent massively, the national debt repayment costs are greater than the entire defence budget. It is unsustainable.
Borrowing money to pay for tax bribes (the 2.7billion) just adds to the picture of financial mismanagement.
Cameron has said that every area of expenditure will be looked at to see if its really necessary, and quite right he is too. Its what any CEO would expect of a business when times are hard
Complain about this comment
99 #No people voted in droves to remove the Tory in 1997 because they had suffered so badly under them.
They also watched Hospitals and Schools go into such a level of disrepair I doubt if any one person knew exactly where to start to try and salvage the wreck.
Waiting lists were so long that people died before they even seen a specialist. Hospital suffered a bed crisis every single year under them.
Unlike Mrs Thatcher most people could not afford to see a Doctor of their choice at a time of their choosing for the simple reason we had dole figures at over 3 million, benefits were a joke as was club money. People could simply not afford it. They had no alternative but to accept the status quo.
As for schools, children had to go outside to crumbling loos and had leaking classroom roofs, not to mention that it was the norm in a lot of state schools for two children to share one book.
Is this what you wish to see return so as the rich can get their tax cuts?
If so vote Tory, I learned the hard way, I only committed that error once never again.
We suffered far too badly under them.
Now we hear the old chestnut coming back to haunt us once again, they are going to be looking at expenditure to see if all the expenditure is neccessary, the first time I heard that was was from Harold Mc Millan.
I have been there done it and got the scars to prove it ,how about you, does your memory extend that far back?
I know what every CEO would do but then they have a profit to make, governments first duty and priority is to the people they are not a commodity they are flesh and blood.
Complain about this comment
I do find it amusing that the same old trite sound bites get rolled out....
The Tories hit the poorest... Under Thatcher .... For goodness sake that was over 10 years ago ... Parties and policies change..
For example I can remember in the 70's Unilateral disarmerment was oft heard from the Labour Grandees (were Gordon and Tony memers of CND?). Times change, parties change policies change. That is true for both Labour, the Tories and the LibDems.
For those that run with the view that the tories will hit the poorest in society, please help me understand this.
Some of the poorest people in the country are pensioners. One day we will all be pensioners. So did Uncle Gordons raids on the pension plans make the said current and future pensioners any better off. With the stock market crash, leaving many pension schemes under funded, leading to the closing of many final salary schemes just how have pensioners (both current and future) been helped by his grab?
Then you have Gordons complicated Tax Credits system.... Families not getting the full amount of tax credit, some familes getting too much due to a change in circumstances, and them having to pay back the overpaid amount the next year making them poorer..... its a nightmare.
If you want to help the poor, then raise the tax AND NI threshold to 10,000 and drop the 40% threshold to 30,000. Use the money from the tax credits system to fund THAT....
Complain about this comment
kiwilegs:
'Now we hear the old chestnut coming back to haunt us once again, they are going to be looking at expenditure to see if all the expenditure is neccessary, the first time I heard that was was from Harold Mc Millan.'
Can you honestly say 'hand on heart' that if you were to form a new Governnment you would not look at expenditure to ensure that it is going where it is intended? The money that has been allocated to The Public Services is extremely laudable and I acknowledge it because I used to work in it but are you sure it has all been channelled properly and that not any of it has been wasted. In a recent report on tax credits for example it was discovered that over 10 billion pounds had been overpaid to claimants in the last 3 years equivalent to 3p off the standard rate of income tax.
Complain about this comment
I wonder why Tamsin Dunwoody changed her name prior to this campaign from Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey?
Why does she go on about Tory Toffs having been born in the rather well to do totnes area of Devon herself.
She was born to the obviously very poor surgeon/MP John Dunwoody and MP Gwyneth Dunwoody.
Her Grandmother, BARONESS Phillips is the former Lord Lieutenant of Greater London.
She lives on a healthy 6 acres in lovely Wales and has worked as a Member of the Welsh Assembly.
So, it really does seem that, as her website claims, she is "one of us". One of all of us folk from well off backgrounds with big country homes and stacks of cash!
Complain about this comment
Before talking about destroying the country it may be sensible to look at what I posted previously about quangos.
There are now over 1000 quangos handling over 100 BILLION POUNDS. Many are competing against one another and many are doing the same thing in the same sectors.
My wife is a consultant specialising in local government. She constantly tells me about the lack of management and huge waste in the public sector. As she says this is her income tax and council tax being frittered away and she resents it.
Now, any goverment should be ensuring that OUR money is not wastedm but in my opinion this goverment just throws money at provlems, makes policy on the hoof which is notoriously wastful, and has no real strategy.
To kiwilegs et al I say. Yes Labour has done lots of good in all sorts of areas but it appears to have run out of ideas and now can only throw more money at problems in an attempt to stay in power. Again in my opinion this is NOT good government.
Finallyback to quangos. Quangos exist to put a barrier between government and problems. They exist so that politicians can say that they have funded areas with all this money but it is not their fault that things haven't improved. They supplied the funds and others have failed. Am I right or am I right.
If Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had been so good all of the many millions would not have been wasted.
And correctly any new government, of whatever politiacl persuasion MUST, I say MUST, root out waste so that ALL OF US get good services.
Comments please!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
105:
Nail on the head!
Complain about this comment
# 105
Quangos - author and commentator Jonathan Freedland, pointed out years ago that the USA has not really got any significant quangos.
Because quangos are essentially undemocratic organisations, and ever since America split from us, they have been very keen to have a democracy that works.
Unlike here in England, which is effectively stuck in a political time-warp.
We have barely advanced politically for hundreds of years - no wonder English people are utterly disillusioned.
'A bonfire of the quangos' - yeah, right, he said bitterly.
Complain about this comment
Re: 94
What I said was everything that has been achieved in the last 11 years is not the result of Ken Clarke's chancellorship.
The country's infrastructure/public services have largely been transformed. We have also seen continued growth, low interest rates and low inflation. The current government obviously has no right to claim any of the credit for this!
I ask people to look at performance of the last 11 years and try and take a balanced view.
Some ardent Tories on here seem incapable of doing this. Worse they can't resist in indulging in personal attacks on the Prime Minister. I am not a Labour Party member but I will say this - I respect Gordon Brown. Maybe I am the only person in the country who is put off by Cameron's constant retort to personal attacks. Perhaps however I am not. We will see.
Complain about this comment
109
Don't disagree but I think the current government could and should have done better with the huge cashpot it has had at its disposal.
My main criticsm is that it has no real long-term plan. Take the NHS. How many reorganisations have there been to the detriment of staff moral.
Unfortunately GB has wasted a lot of money by not "project managing" much better and now is constantly taking more and more from YOU and ME instead of really going after wste. Why? First it would lead to unemployment of people who are not doing even an adequate job. And second it would get the unions up in arms - that is more than they are already.
The moral for the next government is to get costs under control from day one, cut out waste, and spend money both wisely and effectively. Just throwing money at problems is both ineffectice and very poor management.
By the way, so is off balance sheet items like Northern Rock and PFI.
Its ok saying that Labour has done really well but its also YOUR money that they have and continue to waste. Can you afford it?
Complain about this comment
peteholly wrote:
'The country's infrastructure/public services have largely been transformed. We have also seen continued growth, low interest rates and low inflation. The current government obviously has no right to claim any of the credit for this!
I ask people to look at performance of the last 11 years and try and take a balanced view.
I don't think anyone is disputing the positive apects of the above. It is however the taxpayer's money that has achieved it as well as a commitment to massive borrowing. The queston to ask is 'Will this gamble pay off in the long run?' The recent decline in the Global Economy may well have put an enormous spoke into the scenario. We will wait to see if it has been worth it. The 10p measure was also well intentioned although flawed in certain respects but also scuppered by the present economic conditions.
Complain about this comment
106 on the subject of 96:
An abusive comment was made by KL about The Conservative MP Nicholas Soames. I merely asked if John Prescott should be viewed in the same terms. The mistake I suppose was to mention in my post what had been stated in hers because both have now been referred to the moderators.
Complain about this comment
Im sure many of us remember the trickle down effect and the long term 5 year/10 year/15 year/18 year economic strategy. That suddenly started working when the Conservatives left office. They then try to claim the credit for the past 11 years. If they do get into government I would suggest they start helping the country while they're in office. Instead of selling of public assets to fund tax cuts while fobbing off the general public with the famous trickle down effect myth. We skeptics might then take them seriously.
How many times did we also hear that money can be saved for tax cuts by cutting waste in public services. This has been talked about for years. and it has never happened. No wonder the Conservatives are telling us to forget about history.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Where in earth do people get the idea that 'The country's infrastrucure has been largely transformed'?
What piffle.
It's precisely because nothing has happened to the country's infrastructure that people are so jaded about all this money being spent with mothing to show.
NuLabour have wilfully neglected the transport infrastructure for a decade. A few more buses is not the same as building roads and maintaining the rail network.
They've sold off playing fields and lowered educational standards to such a level that the universities are not accepting the qualifications as bona fide. aA few city academies do not rectify this. Record numbers of parents taking their children out of the state system does not argue for a transformation of the infrastructure.
The NHS has had three times the budget than under the Tories and eleven reviews yet staff are utterly demoralised and there are record numbers of superbugs. Waiting lists have come down because you're not allowed to go on a waiting list.
Where is this wonderful infrastructure transformation? It's not in my country. They paid surgeons and GPs more to work shorter hours; that's bribery not transformation.
The PFI system has lead to record levels of off balance sheet debt on busted companies - Metronet.
None of this is transformational most of it is bribery and pressing on with this agenda is living in a fools paradise.
Complain about this comment
Either Kiwilegs is extremely disingenuous or is very silly. Probably a mix of both. Onlywayup isn't too far behind.
According to people like you, in 1979 Labour handed over to the Conservatives a veritable paradise, a country with no social, economic or political problems whatsoever. The sun always shone. People had money overfilling their pockets. No-one was ill, everyone had a 2:1 and everyone had a brilliant, well-paid job. Then along came Thatcher and she destroyed everything - just for the hell of it.
It is you who has the highly selective memory, Kiwilegs. *I* remember three-day weeks, rubbish in the streets and Red Robbo and his cronies destroying British industry years before the Conservatives took over. I remember the IMF telling us when we could change interest rates. I remember inflation at 25%. I remember the dead going unburied. Do you?
And if all the major reforms from 1979-97 were so bad, why did New Labour either adopt them or refuse to change them? Seen any repealing of trade union laws lately? Any nationalisation of water, electricity and rail (despite Prescott promising to do the latter just before the 97 election)? Christ, Brown even got the idea of MPC independence from Clarke. And he escalated PFI and NHS privitisation to a point the Conservatives wouldn't even have dreamed of doing.
(Just wait in 20 years when all those PFI bills come in. Two executives from Enron went to prison for exactly the same type of "off balance sheet" accounting that Brown started using ten years ago.)
As for can politicians change, well, 25 years ago Blair was a member of CND, opposed anti-terrorism laws, opposed privitisation of anything, supported powerful trades unions, opposed the use of British troops in conflicts and events abroad.........
Complain about this comment
116#
You have either not read all I have written or you have picked selective pieces out willy nilly.
Now just in case you missed this the first time around.
I was absolutely ashamed of the way this Country was going in 1979 so much so I voted Tory to oust Labour I was sick and tired of the stranglehold the Union Barons had over them, Capiche?
I did not like Unions trying to either out a democratically voted in government or holding this Country to ransome.
Get to know my opinions then criticise.
Hope you got that loud and clear.
Complain about this comment
The PFI bills roll in from now on ... it is, in essence, a form of hire-purchase.
As one of the tough businessmen involved in financing PFI deals told me "Where else can we get a guaranteed 25%-30% pa for the next 25/30 years?".
Where else indeed, apart from the biggest-mug-of-all-time, the English PAYE taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
JohnConstable re 118
Quite right. PFI is a very costly was of financing over the long term, but its great benefit to governments is that it is off-balance sheet and thus Brown can claim that he has kept the UK finances within his rules.
Can anyone tell me what tyhe real figures are if Northen Rock and PFI are included in the public finances. I very much fear that the true figures will be very frightening indeed.
Complain about this comment
At the weekend I was thinking of putting a quid on the Tories, but at 8-1 on it was not good value. Now 20-1 on for a Tory win here. Labour have run a really inept campaign with the 'toff' line showing a complete lack of ideas.
Complain about this comment
117: Please take note of these comments by others on the word 'capiche'.
"capiche" (spelling?) is a slang way of saying "Understood?" "Got it?" Some people take offence if you say it, but I'm hearing the word more and more in films and TV.
Yes, I guess we took it from the US TV series involving mafia and Italian gangsters...
For me, it has a rather threatening sense, but I'm not very good in "Djeunes" language (djeunes = jeunes pronounced with a fake english accent, it is an ironical way to mean I feel sometimes old...).
Complain about this comment
It occurs to me that one big advantage the "rich Tory toffs" have is experience of dealing with large amounts of money.
In contrast we currently have billions of taxpayers' money being (mis)managed by a bunch of intellectually-challenged Labour figures who would struggle to balance a chequebook.
No wonder the country has problems!
Complain about this comment
megatool - you're right. That's why we should be ruled over by Etonian Oxbridge graduates - they can save the population from itself. Ruling class.
Which front-bench Conservative members have had practical day-to-day experience of running large organisations and which ones?
And Labour MPs intellectually challenged? Who in particular are you thinking of?
Complain about this comment
If the voters of crewe want another reason to vote against labour, take a look at a posting on guido's blog; I can't take credit for this because someone else posted it; I'm just adding a copy of it here because it was extremely relevant and scary. Hat's off and credit to "tax lawyer" who posted it. It basically explains that Gordon Brown has deliberately targeted the poor who have no children in order to improve his official "poverty" stats:
No, there was another reason behind the 10p tax band fiasco.
Labour have a target to reduce the number of children in poverty, which they are about to fail to meet.
"Poverty" is defined as "relative poverty", so there are 2 ways to achieve the target - make poor people with children better off, or make people without children worse off.
To measure poverty they take after-tax income. Hence the 10p idea - increase taxes on low earners, but give the money back to people with children through tax credits. Families with children aren't any better off, but since everyone else is worse off, their relative position has improved. So your target is met.
Complain about this comment
getridofgordonnow - I don't think that's really the case.
Gordon wanted something that proved that he was on the side of the middle-classes, as he (partly through his own fault due to sniping at Blair) was portrayed as an unreconstructed left-winger. This was a cut in the basic rate of tax from 22p to 20p. Surprisingly he has been slated for this, often by the same people who would cheer the same tax policies coming from the Conservative party. C'est la vie.
Unfortunately, the public finances are tight due to the pre-commitments made by the Labour Party to responsible fiscal management (through their golden rules).
Therefore the money had to be found from somewhere. Gordon made a poor political calculation in thinking that abolishing the 10p rate was the way to go (though the policy has been poorly communicated).
I don't think that it was deliberately engineered to fiddle the poverty target - you're too conspiritorial.
Complain about this comment
i have to agree with the last comment. Brown and New Labour may not try to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, but to say that they would make poor people poorer to meet their child poverty target - that is absolute nonsense. the efforts made by this government to help the poor and unemployed - tax credits, minimum wage, new deal and so forth - its almost offensive to me as a labour member to hear such tripe.
Complain about this comment
No doubt about it, the abolition of the 10p rate was wrong. What the rabid right can't sell is that they "care" more about the poor than Gordon Brown. The notion is frankly ridiculous. Is Cameron going to re-instate the 10p rate?
Does anybody truly believe that ex Bullingdon club members like Cameron and Osborne give a stuff about anybody who is under-privileged. These two are not going to fool anyone into thinking they are Harold Macmillan or Rab Butler. Persuading the electorate that they are both re-constructed "One Nation" Tories would be the biggest political con trick of all time.
Fortunately, there are still 2 years for people to wake up.
Complain about this comment
re the last comment that the 10p tax cut was wrong, I'm not sure I would fully agree with that.
A big problem is it has been very poorly communicated by the Government (and the media).
The Government raised personal allowances in the budget at the same time as abolishing the 10p rate - therefore net maximum losses were of the order of £150/year (and don't forget the Government has increased personal allowances still further to compensate in the panic budget of a week ago).
But who loses? All the people the media have rolled out to demonstrate how unfair the new policy is actually gained from the full income tax changes in the budget. Those with children gain from the increase in the WFTC. It's part-time workers who are childless in the main who would lose out.
I don't believe there would have been such a fuss made over this if it had been communicated properly. Admittedly difficult for the Government to get a fair hearing (especially on something that is quite complex when many adults, and it seems many journalists, lack simple numeracy skills), but still.
Complain about this comment
It's not about "communication" balhamu. It's about right and wrong. No 10p rate tax payers should have been made worse off. The devil is not in the detail. This is about principles.
I admire Brown (see my other blogs) but what you propose is a step to far for me.
Complain about this comment
Hold on a minute #128. At one stage it was clearly apparent that a serious number of Labour MPs were throwing up over the withdrawal of the 10p tax rate, thereby causing the government to go into reverse gear. If it wasn't so serious and was a simple problem of communication then the reversal would not have happened. Would you include those MPs - and senior Trades Unionists - in your description of people who misunderstood because they "lack simple numeracy skills"?
At the same time, you say that the abolition of the 10p rate of tax should be netted off against the increase in personal allowances, when in fact the increase in personal allowances is to take account of the effect of inflation - without it, the tax raise would have been higher. When the Tories didn't raise personal allowances that was labelled as a tax "raise" by Gordon when in opposition, so I'm supported in that argument at least by some very fine company.
Complain about this comment
But look again at who loses - and specifically at their household income.
I suspect you may come to rather different conclusions about the winners and losers (£3 per week) from the policy.
The Government should have published more analysis about winners and losers. Maybe the beeb should do an FOI request. Undoubtedly HMT have done this.
Complain about this comment
Kiwilegs,
You are still being disingenuous: you have intimated that we should not replace Labour with the Conservatives because of what the latter did before. So, Labour are forgiven their past (and current!) mistakes but the Conservatives are not? How convenient. How silly.
And anyway, as I proved, parties and politicians change - sometimes radically. Labour did so why can you not accept the Conservatives have too?
Understand the point of someone's post before complaining about it please.
Complain about this comment
Core Conservative values are the same.
a) Cameron and Osborne often talk about the need to cut taxes. Which taxes will be priorities for reducing? Inheritance tax, stamp duty (in effect would benefit middle class home owners - basic economics says it would increase house prices), introducing transferable tax allowances for married couples (benefitting higher earners with stay-at-home mums the most) etc. I could go on. It is clear where they're instincts are.
b) Cameron has often talked about encouraging business to be more socially responsible. An admirable aim. He also talks of 'crippling' regulation on business, and the need to remove regulations. His solution to this dilemma - ask business nicely to be socially responsible. Ridiculous argument - the responsibility of business is to their shareholders and maximise medium-term profits. Not done by being socially responsible - maybe by giving the appearance to 'ethical' consumers of being so, but not by doing it if it imposes a cost.
c) Cameron talks passionately about the need to encourage charity and philanthropy to replace state spending. To me this sounds like code for allowing the super-rich and charities to determine who the 'deserving poor' are, rather than the general population through the democratic process. A return to the days of Oliver Twist in my opinion
d) The minimum wage and a lot of labour regulation will go. The former is believed by Tories to cause unemployment, both are believed to be too onerous for business. What do you think will happen to working conditions and pay if this is the case? Will they improve?
I could go on. The core values and policies that will be followed are the same. Give it a smiley face, don't talk about content enough and you may get elected. And they are still the nasty party. Take for example the continued comments about 'that strange man in number 10' and other undesirable comments playing on the disability of the PM (his loss of an eye and loss of control of some facial muscles in a rugby accident). And criticisms about his difficulties smiling. These are really low blows.
Complain about this comment
@133. Can you say "strawman"?
Complain about this comment
not a strawman at all.
where do you think i am wrong?
Complain about this comment
The idea that the minimum wage will go under a Tory Government is untrue. #133 must know it to be untrue, since Cameron's conversion to the idea of a minimum wage is used by some Labour MPs to criticise him! While the Tories were unconvinced of it at first, it has clearly worked and therefore will be retained. #133 ruined his whole piece by reducing the debate to scaremongering of the lowest sort.
Complain about this comment
So the Tories believe in the minimum wage now? In legislation? When did Cameron say this - I'm surprised. What ambition do they have for sustaining its level, or is it just pragmatic - similar to Labour commitments to keep to Tory spending plans pre-1997?
Complain about this comment
136:
firstly, the conservative party voted against the minimum wage when it was introduced at £3.60 an hour. forgetting whether cameron is what he says he is, his party certainly isnt.
secondly, at the tory party conference, Cameron said that the 17 pence increase, from £5.35 to £5.52, was too much. im not making it up.
thirdly, to add to the point raised in 133, it would be great if private charity and philanthropy replaced state spending. however, it will never happen. Thatcher once said there is no such thing as society, and i broadly agree. socially repsonsible government has to legislate for it, hence the measures taken by this government. Cameron is trying to appease the right of his party with saying things like these, whilst also trying to appeal to centre left voters. it wouldnt happen.
Complain about this comment
#138. Yes, we all know the Tories voted against the minimum wage. No-one said they didn't. And yes, the minimum wage is already in legislation. And yes, Cameron said the minimum wage had turned out much better than expected (Observer, 18th December 2005).
But we all ought to be thankful that Parties - both Labour and Conservative - do change their minds on policy. After all - and this is only one , but quite tragic example - for years the Labour Party voted against the renewal of anti-terror legislation, eventhough the IRA were bombing their way around the UK at the time.
Complain about this comment
cameron didnt just say that, he said a 17p increase was too much. at the last party conference. inheritance tax cuts, poorest not getting antoehr 17p- compassionate conservatism eh?
Complain about this comment
Balhamu
I think this whole "10p tax" debate is missing one of the key points. That point being that the tax bands, credits, and levels of NIC were played around with so that Gordon Brown could stand up at his last budget and annouce a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax. Otherwise, why focus just on the 2p cut and not spend time explaining the changes to the 10p band (answer - that doesn't get you headlines as a "tax cutting" chancellor in the year you're considering holding a snap election).
It was an example of how the Government messed around with something simply to score some political points. It backfired spectacularly. I think Mr Brown got exactly what he deserved on that one.
Complain about this comment
So, Cameron doesn't believe in the minimum wage, doesn't believe in an increase and would abolish it, would he?
This is what he said in a speech given on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006:
"Like the minimum wage ... We'll keep it and, when we can, we'll increase it."
So, he recently said that a 17p increase in the min wage was too much did he?
Complain about this comment
132 revolution blues, the reason that no one in their right senses can believe that the Tories have changed is because they have'nt.When Labour changed it was because they removed the old guard well out of the way, many of them, strangely the ones the Tories love to follow are the Labour so called rebels. the tories have changed very few faces on the front bench except perhaps for the temporarily installed Dave and Gidion, the old guard are sitting on the back benches just waiting. why do you think that they tried to get Michael Howard elected. The leopard does'nt change its spots not the Tory leopard anyway.
Complain about this comment
142 thats not what i said. ive read that quote before. good research. perhaps if you had paid attention to your own party conference you would have heard him saying 17p is too much. yes he did say that. your response doesnt really answer that; you just repeated what I said. gordon brown announced that the minimum wage would go up to 5.52 and old bullingdon said it was too much. fact.
Complain about this comment
Ok 144 Thanks. If you can post the reference on here (which conference, date etc) then I'll take a read of the words myself. By the way, I did find Cameron's full conference speech of October 2007 from an independent source on Google, but found no mention of what you say was there (even the Gurdian hasn't mentioned it!). So if you can just verify your source, that'll be helpful. Otherwise I'm afraid it can't be believed.
Complain about this comment
#144 - Here's a BBC link to Cameron's conference speech in October 2007 and still no mention of disagreeing with a 17p increase in the minimum wage I'm afraid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7026435.stm
Complain about this comment
i dont read the guardian, i read the times. for you though i will try and find some evidence for my audicious claims
Complain about this comment
cant find a quote, i may be wrong, but i dont think so. however, ill give you a few classic cameron quotes on the minimum wage:
Labour’s plans for minimum wages, the Social Chapter and large increases in spending and taxes would send unemployment straight back up.’
The Chronicle (Stafford), 21 February 1996
‘The Labour Party opposed each and every one of our reforms. Even today they would burden business with the minimum wage, the Social Chapter, and trade union privileges.’
Stafford Post, 24 April 1997
‘Labour would spend and tax, restore union privileges and burden business with the minimum wage and the Social Chapter. Mortgage rates, prices and unemployment would rise – as they have under every previous Labour Government.’
Staffordshire Newsletter, 25 April 1997
takes real political committment to support something once its turned into a vote-winner!
Complain about this comment
Thanks, #148, but we call play that game, as I've said.
The Labour Party has changed from its last spell in Government; this includes how some Labour Government Ministers used to think and what they believed in. After all, if M15 thought it necessary to have to spy on some of them, I guess those Labour Ministers had to change the way they think otherwise they would have been unelectable.
Complain about this comment
The experience of long queues in Post Offices (mentioned by that lady to Nick Robinson) is not uncommon: not nearly as bad, we have typically 15 minutes queues. Why don't we complain vociferouisly about it - because the PO will just ignore you. Meanwhile there is a priority counter for foreign exchange. Why? Beacuse there is competition!
Let's privatise the PO; it couldn't be any worse.
Complain about this comment
Just the mere fact that some of you think that the Conservative party of 1997 (let alone today) was the same party of 1989 tells me a lot about you.
As for "the party hasn't changed because they have the old guard/same people/people who were in the background, waiting", well I repeat that INDIVIDUALS CHANGE TOO! Can't you get it? Does it take words of one syllable?
25 years ago Tony Blair was a CND member, supported militant unions, voted against anti-terrorism legislation, supported nationalisation, opposed private financing of goverment work, opposed UK involvement in military operations overseas ..... the list goes on and on. Is that the Blair we had in Number 10? No. My point proven 100% perfectly.
So give this ridiculous "it's the same people!" rubbish a break. And learn some political history.
Complain about this comment
#151 It's not a question of going back to 1989 and claiming the Conservatives are unchanged.
If you read my posts on this thread #84 and #133, I have tried to distil what the instincts of the current-Cameron-led Conservative party are and what their likely policies on key issues are. It is also based on more pragmatic needs of the Conservative party to meet the needs of their core south-eastern shire voters.
Getting towards their instincts is not difficult - Cameron does talk a lot in the abstract about what kind of society he would like to see. Getting to the policies is more so, as understandably Conservative strategy is to play on the current world economic climate, mid-term unpopularity of the Government, and the more introverted personality of "that strange man in number 10".
I think I have done a fairly good job. Where do you think this thinking is wrong? It is certainly not based on the Conservative party of Thatcher, and I agree that Cameron has dragged parts of the neo-Thatcherite wing of the party into 21st century. I admire the sense of discipline he has managed to instil in his party - Labour's difficulties stem in part from their inability to create this.
Maybe Cameron may come up with more concrete policies given time. However, Brown's strategy in cancelling the election last year was to expose this and it's not working. I'm not convinced it well. Maybe the only way it will is if some in the Conservative Party begin to believe they have an unassailable lead in the polls and begin pushing for the party to be more ambitious in what it is able to do during the first term. That could be their downfall
Complain about this comment
PeteHolly wrote: Bank runs only occurred in the UK?
What about Bear Sterns in the United States?
Actually there was no run on the bank, because the Fed stepped in and made sure that it did not happen. Whether you agree with their solution (JPMorgan bought it!), it certainly avoided the chaos and uncertainty orchestrated by Gordon and Alistair!
Complain about this comment
Re #152:
Perhaps the Tory party is unwilling to espouse many of their policies because every time the do talk them, the NuLabour party steals them.... Look at the Darling debacle after the last Tory conference regarding inheritance tax...
Keep the powder dry till the next General election....
I say this as a former Labour supporter, who grew up in a family with strong Labour party links. I have been sickened by the last 10 years of a supposedly socialist government. I hope that NuLabour do get a sound kicking in the next General Election in the vane hope that they will rediscover their roots and policies that will help the low paid and disadvantaged. Does anyone actually understand TAX CREDITS… in my family it brings back nasty memories of means testing…. And rather than being proud of being the brains behind such a complex and sly (we will take tax from you and then give you back your money that we see fit) system Brown should be ashamed.
Complain about this comment
i can understand your labour frustration - i try to stay positive. there have been some problems with that particular policy; but i find it hard to understand why you couldnt support a system which helps low paid people. trust me, having been in a family which claimed it, it can make a huge difference. means testing is a difficult one, but the only effective way of supporting low income groups is by doing so; personal allowances benefit everyone, and so are too expensive
Complain about this comment
#155
I disagree.
Any system that takes away money (in tax - both income and NI), which can then be claimed back - is so wrong. It is means testing and it is wrong and there are better solutions.
The 10p tax thing- just how did that help the low paid. The fudge only lasts for 1 year - so what about the poor next year?
From 1997, If the Tax and NI allowance (and NI has increased hugely in the last 10 years) increased to allow for people on the minumum wage to pay little or no tax, but freezing the 40% threshold to the 1997 limit, and leaving tax at 22% or 23% - work the figures and see how many people that would have helped. Or increase the amount that 10% allowance, but reduce the 40%
However I do not think that the Tories would take such bold moves either - but then they at least do not claim to be socalists!
The problem with NuLabour is that they are neither fish nor fowl (niether Socalist or Tory). They have lied (Iraq), spun constantly and have basically lost the trust of the majority of the electorate. They have pandered to the middle classes to keep in power, but through devious means have increased the tax burden on everybody - actually the poor and the not so rich - the rich have continued to get richer.
A term or two in the wilderness for Labour will hopefully make them realize their core values again - and perhaps NuNuLabour will regain their roots.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS