Support NeoGAF

[Billy_Pilgrim]

http://politicalscrapbook.net/

Very good chance that odious mega spiv Grant Schapps is going to be forced to resign.

I do love a good resignation scandal and he's my most hated Tory so it's looking like a grand day for me.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://politicalscrapbook.net/

Very good chance that odious mega spiv Grant Schapps is going to be forced to resign.

I do love a good resignation scandal and he's my most hated Tory so it's looking like a grand day for me.

Your grand day is going to be a damp squib.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://politicalscrapbook.net/

Very good chance that odious mega spiv Grant Schapps is going to be forced to resign.

I do love a good resignation scandal and he's my most hated Tory so it's looking like a grand day for me.

Shapps is like Teflon, nothing sticks. I highly doubt he will have to resign over this.

 

[kmag]

UK polling report's rolling average has finally edged over to a one point Tory lead (33 / 32 / 7).

Ironically that tip has came at point where 5 out of 7 polls published since Thursday show Labour leads. Ultimately, it's probably still status quo. Perhaps the budget will change that, but I think the vast majority sides are pretty entrenched at this point and it'll depend on who can siphon off support from the likes of UKIP, SNP and the Greens and even then I'm not sure how many seats that would actually affect.

The YouGov daily polling is weird, it's now consistently showing a small Con lead Monday to Wednesday but a small Labour lead on Thursdays. And it's been repeating that pattern for a while now.

 

[kmag]

Shapps is like Teflon, nothing sticks. I highly doubt he will have to resign over this.

He lied about having a second job. Fine, it's so relatively minor who gives a toss.
He had lawyers silence a constituent for calling him on it, and forced said constituent to publish a retraction and apology for something we now know to be true. Not so fine and frankly he shouldn't survive it if there's any decency in the Conservative party, and he'd resign if he had any sense of shame which we know from his prior career as a get rich quick guru/spiv he hasn't.

If he survives it's because Dave doesn't have the backbone to get rid of him.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Ironically that tip has came at point where 5 out of 7 polls published since Thursday show Labour leads. Ultimately, it's probably still status quo. Perhaps the budget will change that, but I think the vast majority sides are pretty entrenched at this point and it'll depend on who can siphon off support from the likes of UKIP, SNP and the Greens and even then I'm not sure how many seats that would actually affect.

The YouGov daily polling is weird, it's now consistently showing a small Con lead Monday to Wednesday but a small Labour lead on Thursdays. And it's been repeating that pattern for a while now.

Well, I wouldn't read too much into it. All of these 'leads' are on the order of background noise aren't they? I mainly look at the average because at least you can read some sort of trend or narrative into it. When the daily polls are going back and forth every day, you can wear yourself out trying to figure out what it all means.

This election is weird. I'm really looking forward to 7 May to see where the chips land, but as far as my personal vote goes I really couldn't care less. I don't feel 'inspired' by any of the parties or their leaders at the moment. Plus, not being in a marginal constituency just adds another layer to the apathy.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

He lied about having a second job. Fine, it's so relatively minor who gives a toss.
He had lawyers silence a constituent for calling him on it, and forced said constituent to publish a retraction and apology for something we now know to be true. Not so fine and frankly he shouldn't survive it if there's any decency in the Conservative party, and he'd resign if he had any sense of shame which we know from his prior career as a get rich quick guru/spiv he hasn't.

If he survives it's because Dave doesn't have the backbone to get rid of him.

He's already been given a vote of confidence.

Resignation incoming...

 

[Mindwipe]

If he survives it's because Dave doesn't have the backbone to get rid of him.

This close to an election nobody has any backbone whatsoever.

 

[Jezbollah]

andthereitis.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31906463

Miliband rules out coalition with the SNP. Interesting.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

andthereitis.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31906463

Miliband rules out coalition with the SNP. Interesting.

Meaningless because the SNP aren't interested in a coalition. He needs to rule out any "deal" with the SNP, which unsurprisingly he didn't.

 

[kmag]

andthereitis.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31906463

Miliband rules out coalition with the SNP. Interesting.

There was never going to be a coalition with the SNP. Sturgeon has been consistently clear on that, they do not want to govern the UK with Labour. Hell she even said it in front of 14,000 SNP members during one of the post referendum SNP rallies. I know it's the done thing for English politicians to just ignore what goes on up here but they've been making a mountain out of a molehill for months now. It suits the SNP though, as watching the English suddenly forget the love bomb and collectively lose their shit about the prospect of a truly decisive Scottish influence on 'their' elections.

Max Hastings ramblings last week is manna from God for the SNP.

The door is still open for a confidence and supply arrangement between Labour and the SNP, although I'm not sure it'll ever be as formal as an explicit pre-arranged deal at most it'll be on a case by case basis.

Sturgeon's speech to the LSE today was essentially about some of the failures of the Westminster system to handle minority government. It's almost as if she's preparing for it or something.

 

[kmag]

Meaningless because the SNP aren't interested in a coalition. He needs to rule out any "deal" with the SNP, which unsurprisingly he didn't.

Why? I must have missed the bit where they passed the law to make Scottish MP's some sort of parliamentary untermensch. A confidence and supply deal where the SNP continue their stated policy of not voting on matters which do not affect Scotland or Scottish funding isn't a particularly great recipe for stable Government but it's not totally unworkable, even if it's unpalatable to the South-East of England. I understand that a potential loose deal with the SNP might not play well with some of the electorate in England but from Ed's point of view it's better to get in by hook or by crook as he wouldn't survive as leader if he's not in power even as a minority government. And frankly the SNP aren't going to vote for Tory queen's speech and wouldn't sink a Labour government without giving Ed a chance to run it on the rocks himself.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/europe/britain-elections-cameron-austerity.html?\

In depth article about how Dave and Gideon want to obliterate the state. They even want to cut military and policing (they'll find money for water cannons though) meaning their Stalinist nature doesn't extend beyond surpressing free speech and peaceful protests.

They want to return Britain to pre-war living standards, it's so blatant I can't see how anyone who isn't in the aristocracy can vote for the Tories.

 

[kitch9]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/europe/britain-elections-cameron-austerity.html?

In depth article about how Dave and Gideon want to obliterate the state. They even want to cut military and policing (they'll find money for water cannons though) meaning their Stalinist nature doesn't extend beyond surpressing free speech and peaceful protests.

They want to return Britain to pre-war living standards, it's so blatant I can't see how anyone who isn't in the aristocracy can vote for the Tories.

The shops near me have already set bread queues up in anticipation.

They did argue that they were seeing a growth in demand and thinking of employing more staff but after showing them your post they quickly changed their mind.

 

[Ding-Ding]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/europe/britain-elections-cameron-austerity.html?

In depth article about how Dave and Gideon want to obliterate the state. They even want to cut military and policing (they'll find money for water cannons though) meaning their Stalinist nature doesn't extend beyond surpressing free speech and peaceful protests.

They want to return Britain to pre-war living standards, it's so blatant I can't see how anyone who isn't in the aristocracy can vote for the Tories.

Ah yes, the cuts that will send us back to the 1930's. Well, thats if you base it on a share of national income.

Base it against GDP though, which every half decent economist does, it goes back to about 2001. Which is when Miliband and Balls were both working in the treasury with that idiot Gordon 'No more boom or bust' Brown.

I think that just goes to show just how much public spending escalated in following years. Also explains why the deficit became fucking eye watering

 

[Jezbollah]

Where do you actually live, WayneMorse?

 

[kmag]

Polls today/yesterday just adding to the general tighter than a gnat's arse direction. Both Labour and the Tories look a million miles away from a majority, never mind a workable one.

Ashcroft’s weekly poll has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 29%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%. The Conservatives remain ahead, but not by as much as in the last two Ashcroft polls
ICM show a similar picture (though, as usual with these two pollsters, there are higher shares for Con and Lab from ICM than from Ashcroft): a Tory lead, but a smaller lead than the unusually large one they recorded last month. Topline voting intention figures with changes from a month ago are CON 36%(nc), LAB 35%(+3), LDEM 8%(-2), UKIP 9%(nc), GRN 4%(-3).
The movement in Populus is in the other direction – their recent polls have been showing a Labour lead, today’s topline figures are neck and neck: CON 34%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
Lab lead at 2 - Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th Mar - Con 33%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7%

 

[Nicktendo86]

Where do you actually live, WayneMorse?

Away with the fairies I think

 

[CyclopsRock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/europe/britain-elections-cameron-austerity.html?

In depth article about how Dave and Gideon want to obliterate the state. They even want to cut military and policing (they'll find money for water cannons though) meaning their Stalinist nature doesn't extend beyond surpressing free speech and peaceful protests.

They want to return Britain to pre-war living standards, it's so blatant I can't see how anyone who isn't in the aristocracy can vote for the Tories.

What pantomime shit.

Back to the SNP, Sturgeon has said that the SNP would vote on England-only legislation if it helped secure a better deal for Scotland, didn't she?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobil...n-english-matters-sturgeon-confirms.116654001

Which is understandable, because MPs are there to get the best for their constituents. But surely it's clear why a lot of English people don't want that to happen, right? Call it supply and demand or mutual back scratching, it still amounts to a government without a national or even England-wide majority potentially passing legislation in England thanks to votes from those whose constituents won't be affected, with the SNP getting "paid off" for the benefit of doing so. Again, it's understandable why they do it and I don't blame them, but I also don't want to see the SNP in any form of control for that reason, be it official or otherwise.

 

[kmag]

What pantomime shit.

Back to the SNP, Sturgeon has said that the SNP would vote on England-only legislation if it helped secure a better deal for Scotland, didn't she?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobil...n-english-matters-sturgeon-confirms.116654001

Which is understandable, because MPs are there to get the best for their constituents. But surely it's clear why a lot of English people don't want that to happen, right? Call it supply and demand or mutual back scratching, it still amounts to a government without a national or even England-wide majority potentially passing legislation in England thanks to votes from those whose constituents won't be affected, with the SNP getting "paid off" for the benefit of doing so. Again, it's understandable why they do it and I don't blame them, but I also don't want to see the SNP in any form of control for that reason, be it official or otherwise.

The SNP position has never really changed, they'll vote on any Westminster legislation which has a knock on effect on Scotlands budget which most ostensibly "English only" votes do via the Barnett Formula. The block grant is directly affected by the amount of money spent on health in England,

The important part of the interview which gives this context

"The current Westminster agenda of austerity, privatisation and patient charging in the NHS in England threatens to harm Scotland's budget, on which our NHS depends."

To prove this is nothing new, take a look at the Tuition Fees vote in 2010

The Tory proposals, backed by the Lib Dems, will not only leave students in English universities facing severe debts but will have a direct impact on the future of higher education in Scotland as the 80% cuts being made to the Higher Education teaching grant in England have a Barnett consequential.

SNP MP Pete Wishart has called on all Scottish MPs to vote against the damaging fee hike proposed by the Tories. Mr Wishart warned that unless Liberal Democrat MPs ‘put country before party’, the consequences for the university sector north and south of the border could be very damaging.
Mr Wishart said:
“The SNP will be voting against this proposal in the Scottish interest and we challenge all Scottish MPs to do likewise. Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs know how potentially damaging to our universities this tuition fee hike can be and they must put country before party. If Scottish Liberals support this their MSP colleagues will pay a very heavy price at the polls next May.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2010/dec/snp-mps-vote-against-student-fee-hike

 

[kharma45]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/europe/britain-elections-cameron-austerity.html?

In depth article about how Dave and Gideon want to obliterate the state. They even want to cut military and policing (they'll find money for water cannons though) meaning their Stalinist nature doesn't extend beyond surpressing free speech and peaceful protests.

They want to return Britain to pre-war living standards, it's so blatant I can't see how anyone who isn't in the aristocracy can vote for the Tories.

I might set up a workhouse in anticipation.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Labour won't let a Conservative coalition sit if they're a minority, because a minority Conservative administration would absolutely aim to get an early election passed and Labour can't afford one. The SNP won't let a Conservative coalition sit if they're a minority, because the last time they did that it reduced them to political irrelevance for almost two decades. The Greens won't let a Conservative coalition sit because they're constitutionally bound to vote against them if possible as a result of the last conference. Plaid Cymru won't let a Conservative coalition sit for basically the same reason as the SNP.

For there to be a Conservative Prime Minister after the next election, David Cameron therefore needs to command more seats than Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens put together. It is highly probable but not certain that George Galloway and the SDLP would also vote against a Conservative government, but we'll exclude them for the moment.

If David Cameron commands more seats than that bloc but still would be operating as a minority, or if he controls more seats than that bloc but only has a very small majority, there will probably be a second election - the Conservatives are confident they can win it because nobody else has the funds.

If David Cameron commands a relatively strong majority of seats in his bloc, that's him home safe and dry, although he'd probably be Prime Minister for only half the term at best given that the right of the party will go nuts at the fact he didn't win an outright majority and they have to work with the Liberal Democrats again. The odds of an absolute Conservative majority are so small at this point I'm not bothering considering it.

At the moment, amongst the different predictions, we have the following outcomes:

May2015 has C+LD+UKIP at 307, plus DUP would be 315. L+SNP+G+PC at 324.
ElectionForecast has C+LD+UKIP at 312, plus DUP would be 320. L+SNP+G+PC at 319.
ElectionsEtc has C+LD+UKIP at 310, plus DUP would be 318. L+SNP+G+PC at 323.
Guardian has C+LD+UKIP at 310, plus DUP would be 318. L+SNP+G+PC at 322.

So, at the moment, the most likely prediction seems to be a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP, and the second most likely a second election favouring the Conservatives.

Don't you just love multi-party politics?

 

[Mr Git]

The graun published a pretty depressing article on Lynton Crosby yesterday, it's definitely worth a read. I constantly envisage him as being The Fucker from The Thick of It.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/lynton-crosby-win-election-conservatives-tories-political-strategist

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A friend of mine worked for him once. Said the guy was unbelievably driven, had an incredible ability just to go straight to the throat of a problem.

 

[JonathanEx]

TV debates get potentially even messier. Broadcasters have a new proposal, basically caving a bit to No 10.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...tories-agree-to-broadcasters-debate-proposal/

I look forward to the proposed Paxman one, the idea that Cameron will show up but refuse to be on the stage at the same time as Miliband will fly well. But, Cam probably can come out of this alright.

 

[pulsemyne]

TV debates get potentially even messier. Broadcasters have a new proposal, basically caving a bit to No 10.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...tories-agree-to-broadcasters-debate-proposal/

I look forward to the proposed Paxman one, the idea that Cameron will show up but refuse to be on the stage at the same time as Miliband will fly well. But, Cam probably can come out of this alright.

Cameron has agreed to one debate (7 way) at the beginning of april. Everyone should just gang up on him and tear him to pieces for this causing this clusterfuck.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Labour won't let a Conservative coalition sit if they're a minority, because a minority Conservative administration would absolutely aim to get an early election passed and Labour can't afford one. The SNP won't let a Conservative coalition sit if they're a minority, because the last time they did that it reduced them to political irrelevance for almost two decades. The Greens won't let a Conservative coalition sit because they're constitutionally bound to vote against them if possible as a result of the last conference. Plaid Cymru won't let a Conservative coalition sit for basically the same reason as the SNP.

For there to be a Conservative Prime Minister after the next election, David Cameron therefore needs to command more seats than Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens put together. It is highly probable but not certain that George Galloway and the SDLP would also vote against a Conservative government, but we'll exclude them for the moment.

If David Cameron commands more seats than that bloc but still would be operating as a minority, or if he controls more seats than that bloc but only has a very small majority, there will probably be a second election - the Conservatives are confident they can win it because nobody else has the funds.

If David Cameron commands a relatively strong majority of seats in his bloc, that's him home safe and dry, although he'd probably be Prime Minister for only half the term at best given that the right of the party will go nuts at the fact he didn't win an outright majority and they have to work with the Liberal Democrats again. The odds of an absolute Conservative majority are so small at this point I'm not bothering considering it.

At the moment, amongst the different predictions, we have the following outcomes:

May2015 has C+LD+UKIP at 307, plus DUP would be 315. L+SNP+G+PC at 324.
ElectionForecast has C+LD+UKIP at 312, plus DUP would be 320. L+SNP+G+PC at 319.
ElectionsEtc has C+LD+UKIP at 310, plus DUP would be 318. L+SNP+G+PC at 323.
Guardian has C+LD+UKIP at 310, plus DUP would be 318. L+SNP+G+PC at 322.

So, at the moment, the most likely prediction seems to be a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP, and the second most likely a second election favouring the Conservatives.

Don't you just love multi-party politics?

Really? ElectionsEtc has this nifty graphic:

I don't think that 10% Con Maj is quite that small, although of course there are much more likely outcomes.

Edit:

TV debates get potentially even messier. Broadcasters have a new proposal, basically caving a bit to No 10.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...tories-agree-to-broadcasters-debate-proposal/

I look forward to the proposed Paxman one, the idea that Cameron will show up but refuse to be on the stage at the same time as Miliband will fly well. But, Cam probably can come out of this alright.

Then, on 16 April there would be a challengers special involving the SNP, Ukip, Plaid and the Greens.

This sounds like it could be entertaining.

 

[twobear]

Also explains why the deficit became fucking eye watering

y'all tories still believe this? ridiculous that this lie has been allowed to fester for so long.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Really? ElectionsEtc has this nifty graphic:

I don't think that 10% Con Maj is quite that small, although of course there are much more likely outcomes.

ElectionsEtc is very bullish about it compared to most of the other predictors. ElectionForecast has it down at 4%, for example.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

ElectionsEtc is very bullish about it compared to most of the other predictors. ElectionForecast has it down at 4%, for example.

Fair enough, I'd agree that 4% isn't really worth considering.

 

[tomtom94]

If Cameron accepting this deal means we won't get a head-to-head I'll be ecstatic, there never should have been a head-to-head in the first place let alone one where the best opposition to that smug bastard was Milibland. However, I do think there should be more than one debate, and definitely one post-manifestos, but there's no way Cameron will agree to that because he's worked out the Conservatives can starve the other parties into submission if they have to campaign for longer.

 

[Ding-Ding]

y'all tories still believe this? ridiculous that this lie has been allowed to fester for so long.

And you have to laugh at Labour supporters who are completely pig ignorant to Labour's part it played

Simple truth is that governments bring the deficit down during boom years. Labour though did the opposite, including breaking the stability pact a number of times in exceeding deficit limits.

So when the shit hit the fan we were already in an awful position, when we should have had a healthy surplus after the boom years. Hell, if they did what any half decent government would have done, the deficit we have today would have been close to where we should have been in 2010.

Thats before we even talk about quantitative easing at the wrong yield in 2009 causing economic stagnation (funnily it really only helped the rich). PFI's that have only just hit the treasury today, and that god awful fuck up of putting people who were breaking banking regulation in charge of the FSA (the FSA was always a disaster waiting to happen)

 

[Nicktendo86]

I know she PROBABLY meant that labour are not the party of people who don't work because they don't want to, but for a labour shadow work and pensions minister to utter the words 'labour are not the party of those out of work' is quite staggering. She has never been one for details though, seeing as she didn't know the basic state pension rate.

http://order-order.com/2015/03/17/labour-supporters-despair-at-nasty-rachel-reeves/

 

[kmag]

And you have to laugh at Labour supporters who are completely pig ignorant to Labour's part it played

Simple truth is that governments bring the deficit down during boom years. Labour though did the opposite, including breaking the stability pact a number of times in exceeding deficit limits.

So when the shit hit the fan we were already in an awful position, when we should have had a healthy surplus after the boom years. Hell, if they did what any half decent government would have done, the deficit we have today would have been close to where we should have been in 2010.

Thats before we even talk about quantitative easing at the wrong yield in 2009 causing economic stagnation (funnily it really only helped the rich). PFI's that have only just hit the treasury today, and that god awful fuck up of putting people who were breaking banking regulation in charge of the FSA (the FSA was always a disaster waiting to happen)

And you have to laugh at the Tory supporters who blatantly refuse to even acknowledge that at every point from the early 2000's the Tories were promising to match spending and were complaining about too much regulation of the banking sector and the city in general. Hell in 2006 Osborne was railing on about Browns clunking fist in comparison to his light touch.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I know it is a complete rag of a paper blah blah but LOL

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/11-thing...ditorial-TWITTER-SunNation-20150317-SunNation

 

[Ding-Ding]

And you have to laugh at the Tory supporters who blatantly refuse to even acknowledge that at every point from the early 2000's the Tories were promising to match spending and were complaining about too much regulation of the banking sector and the city in general. Hell in 2006 Osborne was railing on about Browns clunking fist in comparison to his light touch.

Yep, the tories did say that they would match public sector spending. However, its easy to say shit like that when you are on the outside looking in (like Labours current day promises). As the tories tend not to like the idea of big goverment, I doubt very much if they would ever match match Labour on spending beyond a year or two (hence why they always pretty much put a caveat in pledges like that)

The whole Tories and banking regulations though is pretty stupid. Deregulation was never really an issue, it was enforcement of regulation that was key and Brown's lovechild, the FSA, totally fucked that up. Guess what, the Tories were dead against the FSA idea. Hell, they came up with a whole range of reasons why it was complete shit , the vast majority of which came to pass (if memory is correct I think Lilley gave the Tories standpoint on the FSA)

So when the whole banking regulation subject arises and Labour politicians/supporters try to make out the same would of happened if the tories were in power, its quite pathetic really

I know it is a complete rag of a paper blah blah but LOL

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/11-thing...ditorial-TWITTER-SunNation-20150317-SunNation

Its just the latest Labour money tree (its planted in cloud cuckoo land if anyone's interested)

They are up to about 5 pledges so far with the mansion tax

 

[CyclopsRock]

I dont want debates. Does anyone really think they were illuminating last time?

Also, before the manifestos is better IMO, otherwise it's even MORE likely to become a segmented party political broadcast.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The SNP position has never really changed, they'll vote on any Westminster legislation which has a knock on effect on Scotlands budget which most ostensibly "English only" votes do via the Barnett Formula. The block grant is directly affected by the amount of money spent on health in England,

The important part of the interview which gives this context


To prove this is nothing new, take a look at the Tuition Fees vote in 2010



http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2010/dec/snp-mps-vote-against-student-fee-hike

I don't doubt this is the case, but the wording is such that it allows for more indirect voting. Or, to put it another way, if they were only voting in things that directly affected Scotland's budget (inc via Barnett) then, well, it's not really supply and confidence, it's just them voting. Whoever they were propping up or otherwise bounding with to oppose a Tory minority government on a given bit of legislation wouldn't need to "give" them anything.


But a situation wherein the SNP are offered the passing of legislation that'd otherwise not get passed in exchange for their vote on an issue which does not affect them, what would they do? They'd be failing their electorate if they didnt.

I dont think the SNP's position has changed, but their (probable) Larger group of MPs mean that this position will be ... Tested in a way that hasn't been relevant before.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Another set of strong employment figures today

 

[kmag]

Yep, the tories did say that they would match public sector spending. However, its easy to say shit like that when you are on the outside looking in (like Labours current day promises). As the tories tend not to like the idea of big goverment, I doubt very much if they would ever match match Labour on spending beyond a year or two (hence why they always pretty much put a caveat in pledges like that)

The whole Tories and banking regulations though is pretty stupid. Deregulation was never really an issue, it was enforcement of regulation that was key and Brown's lovechild, the FSA, totally fucked that up. Guess what, the Tories were dead against the FSA idea. Hell, they came up with a whole range of reasons why it was complete shit , the vast majority of which came to pass (if memory is correct I think Lilley gave the Tories standpoint on the FSA)

So when the whole banking regulation subject arises and Labour politicians/supporters try to make out the same would of happened if the tories were in power, its quite pathetic really



Its just the latest Labour money tree (its planted in cloud cuckoo land if anyone's interested)

They are up to about 5 pledges so far with the mansion tax

I'm just going with what Osborne said at the time. Since they weren't in power that's really all we've got to go on.

If he was dead set on clamping down on the banks, the FSA et al he did a fucking brilliant job of hiding it, while simultaneously taking every opportunity to talk about Labours red tape.

Remember their lovely report by the mentalist Redwood "Freeing Britain to Compete" (the one they've purged from their website?) which Cameron espoused and endorsed.

“We recommend deregulating venture capital fund raising, and investment for professional investors”

“The government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money”

“We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk”

 

[Nicktendo86]

So, predictions for today's events? My nailed on one is Miliband's response will be "the chancellor spoke for an hour but failed to mention ________" not sure what the blank will be yet, probably TV debates.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

So, predictions for today's events? My nailed on one is Miliband's response will be "the chancellor spoke for an hour but failed to mention ________" not sure what the blank will be yet, probably TV debates.

The tories weaknesses are the NHS and wages, so I assume milliband will probably try to weave a narrative around that. It's milliband though I assume he'll screw it up somehow

I'm hoping for an increase in the personal allowance as rumoured. More money is always welcome

 

[kharma45]

On course for the minimum wage to be over £8 by 2020.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Gov seem to be neutralising a lot of Labour attack lines today... bank levy up, pensions, seems a bit tax the rich.

 

[Anth1888]

Gov seem to be neutralising a lot of Labour attack lines today... bank levy up, pensions, seems a bit tax the rich.

Budget has hit Labour for sure. Although Teresa May is looking more like Emperor Palpatine

 

[pulsemyne]

Budget has hit Labour for sure. Although Teresa May is looking more like Emperor Palpatine

lol she really does.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Robert Peston reckons the spending difference between Labour and Conservative commitments is now down to only £20bn, looks like the Conservatives are trying to muscle Labour out of the centre ground by adopting similar spending commitments.

 

[Nicktendo86]

And we're done, nothing really big today, bit surprised at that. Will probably frame it as a responsible budget I suppose.

 

[pulsemyne]

Good God milliband is tearing him to pieces.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Miliband going on the bullingdon club again *groan* he has nothing else to say does he? Pathetic. I thought he wanted an end to punch and Judy, hypocritical twat