One thing is for sure, It'll make for an interesting QT tomorrow!
I predict Cameron will be torn a new one.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
One thing is for sure, It'll make for an interesting QT tomorrow!
I predict Cameron will be torn a new one.
I think they're just trolling Crosby's hopeless failed campaign to paint Ed as a complete tool.
Even with the 7.5% of UKIP attendees supporting him, Cameron will have the majority of he audience opposing him. In a sense Farage was right to prioritise the viewer at home, but for the PM to achieve such he'll need to be more assertive than we've seen from him thus far. Forget the rabble if possible and try to act the statesman.
The last time all three of them were in a studio i actually thought that Clegg came out the victor, and he certainly does seem to take to these occasions.
Clegg can't come out the victor of any of these things in reality, he's political toast and everyone knows it.
I really hope Cameron sticks with that ridiculous 'I'm mad as well and I'm not going to take it anymore' quasi Man-of-the-people thing he's got going on at the moment. It cracks me up every time.
Complete with rolled-up sleeves, to show that he 'means business'. Unbelievable that anyone could've voted for this utter chancer.
He's annoying still a smooth operator in front of a camera (then the spell breaks and you think: 'You're that unprincipled cnut who kept the Tories in power for 5 years so you could be nominally deputy PM')
He is. Recently I saw him fronting his party's broadcast, and he was very smooth. However, I got the impression that he could've been selling used sofas and he'd still come across exactly the same. Perhaps, then, he's the quintessential modern politician.
Clegg's shine is gone for good. No matter how well he performs tomorrow it won't change public perception of him, it's too far gone.
That said, he's in the perfect slot, being last after the other two, who won't spend much/ any time criticising him.
That said, he's in the perfect slot, being last after the other two, who won't spend much/ any time criticising him.
Well they all went out to get a Blair-clone to win elections (Labour to their credit passed on Tony mkII). Unfortunately for the hard-Tories and the soft-Tories, Nick and Dave look like busted flushes.
If Clegg's on last there will be a lot of people changing the channel after the first two.
I just hope that it isn't an act, that he finally cracks and unleashes an AK-47 on Nick, Ed and Nicola. Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett would be spared under a 'waste of ammo' consideration.
Please tell me that Cameron wont win again. I hope you lot get out and vote.
Somewhere Crosby will be coming up with plausible reasons to get Cameron out of QT. 'Send Dave to Nepal' written on a napkin will be found years later
(Compared to Two Weeks ago)
323 seats needed to effectively hold a confidence vote. Based on the most recent projections,
Five Thirty Eight
Election Forecast
Seat Calculator - New Statesman
Electoral Calculus
Elections Etc
The Guardian
UK Elect
Telgraph/ Betfair
Main difference seems to be that the websites now completely buy the reality of the SNP 'wave'. Nothing else has really changed, a late upswing in the polls to the Tories was already factored into most of them, hence why that poll movement hasn't really changed their projections. As it did a month ago, it's hard to see the numbers working out in favour of the Tories, barring a huge late surge in support through England - and considering a 'slight' surge is expected, it would have to be something incredibly significant. Ed Miliband will be our next PM.
323 seats needed to effectively hold a confidence vote. Based on the most recent projections,
Five Thirty Eight
Election Forecast
Seat Calculator - New Statesman
Electoral Calculus
Elections Etc
The Guardian
UK Elect
Telgraph/ Betfair
Main difference seems to be that the websites now completely buy the reality of the SNP 'wave'. Nothing else has really changed, a late upswing in the polls to the Tories was already factored into most of them, hence why that poll movement hasn't really changed their projections. As it did a month ago, it's hard to see the numbers working out in favour of the Tories, barring a huge late surge in support through England - and considering a 'slight' surge is expected, it would have to be something incredibly significant. Ed Miliband will be our next PM.
It's just tap water anyway, it doesn't have a taste!I'm sadly a Sun+ subscriber. Just for Striker though... (not Page 3)
I used to get that from WH Smith with the water from time to time, I even think I read it once. They started doing Buxton with it and I don't like the taste so stopped.
The written press is just awful. They do all sort of promos just so people buy it and they can sell their ads.
After all the coverage of UK GDP growth falling from 0.6% to 0.3% in Q1, not seen any mention of the US GDP figures yesterday. Growth slumped to 0.2% compared to 2.2% in Q4. Obvious there is some seasonal adjustment in there, but consensus expectations were of 1% growth. Perhaps the economic slowdown is a global trend? See the eurozone, China and Japan...
WOAH WOAH WOAH
That's what my wife said one day when I said that I don't like the taste, so I spent a good part of my working day researching and making a comparison table to show that its not just water...
For your pleasure:
From that day forth my choice of Evain is never questioned again!
Your spelling of it might be though! Not sure I've noticed a discernible difference in the taste of different brands of bottled water but I hardly ever drink it and 20 years of smoking may have dulled my taste buds somewhat.WOAH WOAH WOAH
That's what my wife said one day when I said that I don't like the taste, so I spent a good part of my working day researching and making a comparison table to show that its not just water...
For your pleasure:
From that day forth my choice of Evain is never questioned again!
It was done on purpose so someone cannot come and tell me what Evian backwards is
Take a taste test, maybe not you since your buds are toasted but anyone else, Tesco Ashbeck, Evian, Buxton, and tap. I guarantee you will notice the difference between every single glass.
Actually thinking about it, water can taste quite different in different towns. The water is very hard in E.Yorks at my mum's house for example and tastes different to mine at home. Lovely London water that's been through eight people or whatever the figure is.
It was done on purpose so someone cannot come and tell me what Evian backwards is
Take a taste test, maybe not you since your buds are toasted but anyone else, Tesco Ashbeck, Evian, Buxton, and tap. I guarantee you will notice the difference between every single glass.
Evian tastes better tbf.
I've just been reading about the fire at Clandon Park and that was quite depressing enough thank you, so no need to sour the tea which i had just made for myself. *sigh* The country needs more than a five year holiday from Labour.
Sadly, there has been a sense of inevitability about the likely outcome for many weeks; the Tory campaign didn't possess much fizz to begin with and its only grown flatter.
Last edited:
That's funny, chief...I don't recall writing that Ed will be the next PM(?)
I'd be interested to see how this balances out with tax cuts for a range of people.
That's enough outta you Welshie.
No...you did not, please bear with me for just one moment while i transfer you to our corrections team.
ETA: If only a party would pledge to fix the customer support department at Vodafone.
Last edited:
Why wouldn't they be? Are children cheaper to raise if you're 19?
Where else in law or society is someone of 19-yrs considered to be a child? Many of that age are in employment of one form or another, paying bills and taking on the responsibilities of adulthood.
Infamy! Infamy! EtcOne of us is reading that wrong (it may well be me). I read it as him saying the parent was 16-19, not the child.
The Economist endorses Cameron (well, a Lib-Dem stifled Cameron/ Tory Party).
Not a huge shock, strange article though, there's not much in there that seems to 'endorse' or 'support' anything about Conservative policies or plans.
Not a huge shock, strange article though, there's not much in there that seems to 'endorse' or 'support' anything about Conservative policies or plans.
Who should govern Britain?
Despite the risk on Europe, the coalition led by David Cameron should have a second term
BRITAIN is a midsized island with outsized influence. Its parliamentary tradition, the City’s global role, the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, membership of the European Union and a history of leading revolutions in economic policy mean that British elections matter beyond Britain’s shores. But few have mattered more than the one on May 7th, when all these things are at stake.
UK ELECTION 2015
READ COVERAGE OF THE CAMPAIGNS
It is the strangest, closest general election for many years.
Though you would never know it from the campaigns’ petty squabbling, the country is heading for profound and potentially irrevocable change. The polls suggest that no combination of parties will win a stable majority—which could be the death knell for strong government (see article). May 7th could also mark the point of no return for the troubled union between England and Scotland, thanks to a surge in support for the secessionist Scottish National Party (SNP). The Tories have promised to renegotiate Britain’s relations with the EU and put the result to an in/out referendum on membership by the end of 2017. Meanwhile Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, wants to remake British capitalism in pursuit of a fairer society. If he had his way, he would be the most economically radical premier since Margaret Thatcher.
A balance of risks
If the stakes are high, the trade-offs are uncomfortable, at least for this newspaper. Our fealty is not to a political tribe, but to the liberal values that have guided us for 172 years. We believe in the radical centre: free markets, a limited state and an open, meritocratic society. These values led us to support Labour’s Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005. In 2010 we endorsed David Cameron, the Tory leader, seeing in him a willingness to tackle a yawning budget deficit and an ever-expanding state.
Five years on, the choice has become harder. The Tories’ Europhobia, which we regretted last time, could now do grave damage. A British exit from the EU would be a disaster, for both Britain and Europe. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are better on this score. But such is the suspicion many Britons feel towards Brussels that a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is probably inevitable at some point. And we believe that the argument can be won on its merits.
The Lib Dems share our welcoming attitude towards immigrants and are keen to reform the voting system. But they can at most hope to be the junior partner in a coalition. The electorate, and this newspaper, therefore face a choice between a Conservative-dominated government and a Labour-dominated one. Despite the risk on Europe, the better choice is Mr Cameron’s Conservatives.
Our decision is based on the economy, where the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition has a stronger record than many realise and where Labour poses a greater risk. Admittedly, the macroeconomic signals are mixed. The budget deficit, at 5% of GDP, is still the second-highest in the G7. As Britons consume more than they produce, the current-account deficit is a worrying 5.5% of GDP. And although employment is high, living standards have suffered and productivity is weak. Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen every year since 2009.
The Tories have made this squeeze on British living standards more painful, particularly for young people. They have protected pensioners from budget cuts and showered them with tax giveaways, forcing bigger sacrifices elsewhere. A failure to boost housing supply has led to soaring prices, also hitting the young. Some of the Tories’ election promises—to spare houses worth up to £1m ($1.5m) from inheritance tax and to sell social housing at a discount—are economically indefensible vote-buying gestures that will only add to the unfairness.
But three things count in the Tories’ favour. The coalition has cut the deficit more pragmatically than it admits and more progressively than its critics allow. When the economy weakened, the Tories eased the pace (although not by as much as this newspaper would have liked). Though the poorest Britons have been hit hard by spending cuts, the richest 10% have born the greatest burden of extra taxes. Full-time workers earning the minimum wage pay a third as much income tax as in 2010. Overall, inequality has not widened—in contrast to America.
The record on public services is good. Government spending has fallen from 45.7% of GDP in 2010 to 40.7%, yet public satisfaction with the police and other services has gone up. Although almost 1m public-sector jobs have been cut, Britain has a higher share of people in work than ever before. From extra competition in education (with new free schools and academies) to the overhaul of the benefits system, public services are being revitalised. Some innovations have failed, including a rejigging of the National Health Service (NHS), but Britain’s reform of the state has been energetic and promising.
And lastly, in the short term, Britain’s weak productivity is the corollary of a jobs-rich, squeezed-wage recovery. Wage stagnation, as our briefing explains (see article), is not an exclusively British malaise. It is also preferable, both in economic efficiency and social equity, to the French or Italian disease of mass joblessness. Better to recover from a financial crash and deep recession with a flexible labour market in which wages adjust than through unemployment. Britain will be a model for Europe if the Tories can boost productivity—and they aim to do so by improving schools and infrastructure, giving power and money to cities and investing in science.
Statism masquerading as progressivism
Labour has a different way to tackle what it calls the “crisis” in living standards. In fiscal terms, its agenda belongs to the moderate centre-left. Mr Miliband also promises deficit reduction, and at a pace that makes more macroeconomic sense than the Tories’ plan—though his numbers are vaguer, and Labour’s record makes them harder to believe. He proposes a bit more redistribution: Labour plans tax increases for the wealthy, including raising the top rate of tax back to 50%, from 45%, and imposing a “mansion tax” on houses worth more than £2m. Individually, many of these proposals are reasonable. (The annual mansion tax on a £3m London house would be only £3,000, a fraction of the levy on New York property.) But, taken together, these plans risk chasing away the most enterprising, particularly the footloose global talent that London attracts.
Labour’s greater threat lies not in redistribution, but in meddling. Mr Miliband believes that living standards are squeezed because markets are rigged—and that the government can step in to fix them. He would freeze prices while “reviewing” energy markets, clamp down on the most flexible “zero-hour” labour contracts and limit rent rises. Along with this suspicion of private markets is an aversion to competition in the public sector, leading to proposals for, say, a cap on profit margins when private companies contract to provide services for the NHS.
Mr Miliband is fond of comparing his progressivism to that of Teddy Roosevelt, America’s trustbusting president. But the comparison is false. Rather than using the state to boost competition, Mr Miliband wants a heavier state hand in markets—which betrays an ill-founded faith in the ingenuity and wisdom of government. Even a brief, limited intervention can cast a lasting pall over investment and enterprise—witness the 75% income-tax rate of France’s president, François Hollande. The danger is all the greater because a Labour government looks fated to depend on the SNP, which leans strongly to the left.
On May 7th voters must weigh the certainty of economic damage under Labour against the possibility of a costly EU exit under the Tories. With Labour, the likely partnership with the SNP increases the risk. For the Tories, a coalition with the Lib Dems would reduce it. On that calculus, the best hope for Britain is with a continuation of a Conservative-led coalition. That’s why our vote is for Mr Cameron.
Not sure what to make of some of those comments. NHS & Police satisfaction levels have fallen under this Government, not gone up, so its a bit odd they're claiming the opposite. Claiming that the laughing stock that is Universal Credit is a good thing is also pretty dubious.
Interesting that they point out that the Tories eased up on austerity when they realised the economy was slowing down, and consider that a good thing, when the Tories largely brush over that fact and would publicly call the easing of austerity a bad thing.
You'd think that the discussion would end right there, never mind endorsing Miliband's opponent, FGS.
It is odd from the economist. I'm sick of reading the financial services magazines and wealth management sites ******* to the Tories right now. Several are really pushing that a Tory vote will allow an IHT loophole and save its readers money. Another that Labour will damage the market and thus investments as sterling and bonds crash. Reversing the pension 'freedoms' seems to be another one.