Also, just to say - it's a bit fucking rich of the SNP to be doing the 'Labour will NEVER BE FORGIVEN for standing side-by-side with the Tories in the referendum!' line when the SNP minority government between 2007 and 2011 was literally propped up by Tory votes.

It's a ridiculous argument anyway. On that logic the SNP will never be forgiven for siding with Vladimir Putin on the issue.

North East Fife wasn't even on the 106 seat target list for Labour! Literally, that one's a fight for third with the Tories.

 

I almost went for the Tories winning that seat instead actually! A year ago, on paper it was looking like a really interesting 4-way marginal, though obviously now the SNP will take it if they surge anything like as much as the polls are indicating.

 

My bet on Labour ousting Clegg in Sheffield Hallam is also looking none too clever now, but on the plus side I got on UKIP winning Thurrock at the right time.

SIX MONTHS UNTIL ELECTION DAY NEARLY AAAAAGH

My bet on Labour ousting Clegg in Sheffield Hallam is also looking none too clever now, but on the plus side I got on UKIP winning Thurrock at the right time.

Hallam is almost completely non-dependent on national polls. It'll be close.

Oh great, another poll which will give the Progress Tendency in charge false comfort and allow them to keep deluding themselves about how their strategy is leading to glorious success:

 

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php...-on-to-3-seats/

 

As someone who canvassed in Wirral West until a couple of years ago, I flat-out don't believe Labour are on course to win that seat. Even back then, countless people there were saying that, although grudgingly admitting Labour might be the lesser of two evils, they really doubted whether they'd be bothered enough to vote since Labour didn't seem to be offering any policies and they didn't think a single thing would be any different if they got into power. And if anything Labour now have even less policies than they did then.

The Progress Tendency frankly wish they were in charge.

 

In any case, it's hardly the kind of result that would encourage complacency given most of those victories are within the margin of error.

And if anything Labour now have even less policies than they did then.

?!

 

We have literally more policy than any British opposition has ever had.

?!

 

We have literally more policy than any British opposition has ever had.

Only if you restrict it to the largest opposition party. In the 1980s and '90s the Alliance / Lib Dems had a huge amount of detailed policy. Unfortunately were no good at concentrating on a few key themed so almost none of it got through to the electorate.

?!

 

We have literally more policy than any British opposition has ever had.

 

LMAO, I've heard this line trotted out so much, and it's total nonsense. Most of what they describe as "policies" are not actually policies at all.

 

To take an example, that thing about "guaranteeing" people can see a GP within 48 hours, with no explanation of how that will be achieved -- that's not a policy. Similarly, in Miliband's comically awful speech last month, with all that waffle about "policy goals" and how Labour "wanted" more apprenticeships and "wanted" people to own their own homes, again with no explanations of how that would be made to happen -- they're not policies. A policy is when you say "this is definitely going to happen, and here's how we're going to make it happen, here's the people it will involve to make it happen, here's how much it will cost and here's where the money's going to come from".

 

And of the few actual, proper policies they've announced, they always seem to forget about most of them (didn't they even junk the energy price freeze this year when they inexplicably decided they needed to suck up to big-business fat cats? I haven't heard them mention it in ages).

Edited November 5, 201410 yr by Danny

I have literally no idea where you're getting 'Labour junked the energy price freeze' from, but you really need to stop with these absurd conspiracy theories.

 

And the GP guarantee was costed - it'll get £100m funding it by:

 

• Scrapping the Government’s rules which have led to spending of at least £78 million on unnecessary administration and legal fees because NHS services are now under threat from EU competition law.

• Cutting back the new bureaucracy created by this Government which has seen the costs of three sets of quangos – Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and Commissioning Support Units – spiral with their current spending just on consultants now totalling over £3 million a month.

 

Again, just because it isn't being fully reported doesn't mean the means to achieve the policy aren't there. The policy team are more than canny enough to realise that if they don't have something costed it'll get torn to shreds in seconds by a hostile press. And you probably ought to stop viewing everything Labour does with zero goodwill.

I think it's healthy to take any claims by any political party prior to a general election with a bit of cynicism. Labour created plenty of bureaucratic nightmares that still take up resources and money that could be better spent in areas that are woefully underfunded, such as today's topic mental health wellbeing in the young and old, which are as much life and death situations as anyone with cancer.

 

To be partisan, the current government also bungs tons of cash into it's little pet schemes, like cycling promotion and works, which takes priority locally at the moment over other things that have resources cut.

There's a difference between a bit of cynicism and claiming most of the 100+ policies Labour has are just 'goals without anything behind them'. Or assuming that a policy must definitely have been junked to appease big business just because you haven't heard it emphasised in a while.

:lol: Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe a sum as small as £100m would be enough to pay for that? To pay for the increased GP salaries and all the extra resources that would be needed? And don't get me started on them actually trying to use "cutting bureaucracy" as some kind of explanation. And it's the same story for most of their other so-called "policies", which are really just pious wishes with no feasible explanations of how they will be achieved (childcare, their pathetic "jobs guarantee", etc.). If this is what "credibility" looks like...

 

I stand corrected on the energy price freeze.

Edited November 6, 201410 yr by Danny

There's nothing better for setting off alarm bells than "efficiency savings", "cutting bureaucracy" or "reducing tax avoidance". They are all euphemisms for "No idea where the money will come from" unless parties (all of them) can come up with details of what they mean by those vacuous phrases.

:lol: Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe a sum as small as £100m would be enough to pay for that? To pay for the increased GP salaries and all the extra resources that would be needed? And don't get me started on them actually trying to use "cutting bureaucracy" as some kind of explanation. And it's the same story for most of their other so-called "policies", which are really just pious wishes with no feasible explanations of how they will be achieved (childcare, their pathetic "jobs guarantee", etc.). If this is what "credibility" looks like...

 

I stand corrected on the energy price freeze.

There's nothing better for setting off alarm bells than "efficiency savings", "cutting bureaucracy" or "reducing tax avoidance". They are all euphemisms for "No idea where the money will come from" unless parties (all of them) can come up with details of what they mean by those vacuous phrases.

The difference is most of the time the justification of 'efficiency savings'/'cutting bureaucracy' rarely states exactly what is going to be saved on or what is going to be cut. It states right there exactly what will be changed.

 

• Scrapping the Government’s rules which have led to spending of at least £78 million on unnecessary administration and legal fees because NHS services are now under threat from EU competition law.

• Cutting back the new bureaucracy created by this Government which has seen the costs of three sets of quangos – Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and Commissioning Support Units – spiral with their current spending just on consultants now totalling over £3 million a month.

 

And on the £100m issue - given the government have managed to fund an increase in opening times from 8am-8pm with just a £50m outlay, yeah, I do think £100m would probably be enough, given it's one of those niggling issues that isn't actually that hard to solve on paper - it's more a case of consistent backlogs of a day or two.

 

The increase in free childcare from 15 hours to 25 hours has been costed with an £800m increase in the banking levy - given it's been reduced by £2.7bn since 2010, yeah, I'd say that's achievable - and the jobs guarantee has been costed through both restoring the bankers' bonus tax scrapped by this government and removing the top rate pension relief, which is higher than it is for those on the basic rate. How exactly are these not feasible?

Banks are very good at creating ways around taxes. That's what they do. A banker's bonus scheme tax would take a bit of creative accounting, but I wouldn't bank on accurate figures based on it, except those still supported by the taxpayer.

 

I agree with Suedehead2, all parties rattle on about reducing bureacracy while actually they don't, they just shuffle it elsewhere and reduce core jobs hoping the public don't notice. Local government is in crisis, staffing-wise, and it's relying on staff goodwill and no other jobs to go to, standards across the board are dropping, and areas that need chopping are PR, FOI (the public/journalists/private companies use this to waste enormous amounts of staff time fishing for work or stories) and there are now incoming extra requirements on publishing data coming in - with no extra resources to do it. As older workers retire, they don't get replaced. Don't see any party addressing the reality of this, or jobs, pay, the economy, they are just looking for cheapish pet projects that will win a lot of votes, like extra free childcare.

The bankers' bonus tax managed to raise £3.5bn last time it was done. Admittedly now it's been done once it likely wouldn't be as high as that next time as they'll have figured out ways in retrospect to limit it if it comes up again, but we've accounted for that anyway with a guess that at a conservative estimate it would still generate at least £1.5bn.

From BBC News:

 

Some Labour MPs have told the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party that Ed Miliband should stand down, sources have told the BBC.

 

One backbencher said he had called for the leader to go, and had been told by a colleague that he had done likewise. Another said he was sure lots of MPs were making the same request of the PLP chair Dave Watts MP.

 

Amid increasingly vocal discontent, Mr Miliband intends to attempt a fightback today. It is understood his leadership was also openly questioned at a meeting of Labour MPs from the north west of England earlier this week.

 

Sources say they discussed moving to a defensive strategy in a bid to hold onto their seats, rather than fight an offensive one aimed winning the election.

According to what I heard on the news at 3, this is sounding quite serious now, as it's not just whispers and more and more Labour MP's want him to step down as they can't see the polls being any worse under another leader and could be much better. I still think it's too late to change leader. What does anyone else think? Now would be better than after Christmas though, with still 6 months to go. Would another leader see a bounce in the polls and give Labour a majority in May? From what I heard, Ed would have to resign and trigger a leadership contest, as it would take too long to force him out and is too difficult without a Conference. The process with the unions voting etc would still take weeks though.

Edited November 6, 201410 yr by Common Sense

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29934630

 

If this gimmicky nonsense counts as one of their "policies", then I suppose this partly explains how they could apparently have more policies than any other opposition in history yet still not have anything coherent or interesting to say on the things that actually matter.

Edited November 6, 201410 yr by Danny