2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[leicsmac]

 

Oh, we're doing angled and generalised cartoon satire today then?

 

OK....

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the modern Conservative party logo.

 

Lifted from some Midwestern US conservative sheet (Colorado Springs GT) with the names of the parties photoshopped in. Hilarious.

[Guest MattP]

With the modern Conservative party logo.

 

It's an American cartoon from 94' with the Logos added - bottom right hand corner.

[bovril]

Yeah I got it.

[Rincewind]

[Alf Bentley]

Over the next week, the Conservatives need to focus on Miliband saying that the last Labour government didnt spend too much and Ed Balls calling the note a joke. Miliband has served it on a plate for them and now they have to take advantage and also shut up about the SNP

 

 

Didn't see the interviews but saw a clip of this bit and found it a surprising response at this stage. I presume that it had been thought through in advance, as he'd have anticipated a question about this.

 

As discussed ad infinitum, Labour does have a strong case for this argument: most of the deficit/debt was racked up bailing out the banks, a minority was racked up providing tax credits for the low paid and investing public services, the Tories publicly committed to supporing Labour's spending plans at the time, and would surely have also bailed out the banks (or are they saying they wouldn't have done so?).

 

The problem is that Labour has failed to make that argument properly ever since 2010, and the Tory lie that the deficit/debt is all down to profligate Labour spending has won the day. Most people believe it, and Miliband won't change their minds in the final week of an election campaign.

 

Tactically, I think he'd have been better advised to give a more nuanced response: yes, point out that most the deficit was caused by fall-out from the crash / bailing out the banks and that Labour spent money on important things that the Tories would dismantle, but admit that some spending was wasted (and it was: e.g. PFI schemes) but say that they've learned from that, as they have from the Iraq War fiasco.

 

I'm sure the Tories will indeed take advantage of that response over the coming days and it might just be enough to swing it for them (though an overall majority still seems unlikely). But Labour will also take advantage of Cameron's continued refusal to say where most of his cuts will come from (£13bn across unspecified departments, £12bn from welfare, of which only £2bn has been identified, the rest probably mainly coming from cuts to working/child tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit, including for those in low-paid work) or how he's going to fund an extra £8bn for the NHS....or did he answer that? 

 

From recollection of past elections, I assume we're now in for about 4 days of negative campaigning (maybe with the odd smear story thrown in), then for the last 2 days the parties will suddenly come over all noble and visionary.

 

I'm now expecting a slight swing towards the Tories in the polls and am psychologically preparing myself for an exit poll putting them ahead. It'll then be all about whether Labour teams on the ground in marginal seats have offset that disadvantage by being more effective than the Tories at getting their vote out.

[Guest MattP]

 

Didn't see the interviews but saw a clip of this bit and found it a surprising response at this stage. I presume that it had been thought through in advance, as he'd have anticipated a question about this.

 

As discussed ad infinitum, Labour does have a strong case for this argument: most of the deficit/debt was racked up bailing out the banks, a minority was racked up providing tax credits for the low paid and investing public services, the Tories publicly committed to supporing Labour's spending plans at the time, and would surely have also bailed out the banks (or are they saying they wouldn't have done so?).

 

The problem is that Labour has failed to make that argument properly ever since 2010, and the Tory lie that the deficit/debt is all down to profligate Labour spending has won the day. Most people believe it, and Miliband won't change their minds in the final week of an election campaign.

 

Tactically, I think he'd have been better advised to give a more nuanced response: yes, point out that most the deficit was caused by fall-out from the crash / bailing out the banks and that Labour spent money on important things that the Tories would dismantle, but admit that some spending was wasted (and it was: e.g. PFI schemes) but say that they've learned from that, as they have from the Iraq War fiasco.

 

I'm sure the Tories will indeed take advantage of that response over the coming days and it might just be enough to swing it for them (though an overall majority still seems unlikely). But Labour will also take advantage of Cameron's continued refusal to say where most of his cuts will come from (£13bn across unspecified departments, £12bn from welfare, of which only £2bn has been identified, the rest probably mainly coming from cuts to working/child tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit, including for those in low-paid work) or how he's going to fund an extra £8bn for the NHS....or did he answer that? 

 

From recollection of past elections, I assume we're now in for about 4 days of negative campaigning (maybe with the odd smear story thrown in), then for the last 2 days the parties will suddenly come over all noble and visionary.

 

I'm now expecting a slight swing towards the Tories in the polls and am psychologically preparing myself for an exit poll putting them ahead. It'll then be all about whether Labour teams on the ground in marginal seats have offset that disadvantage by being more effective than the Tories at getting their vote out.

 

He tried, basically more from the welfare budget, combating more tax avoidance and saving in government departments that are still overrun with bureaucracy.

 

Whatever the situation of it massive blunder by Miliband to say he didn't think the last government spent too much, they clearly did and everyone knows it, Ed Balls was taking the brunt of abuse from the people as well and he had a hard time defending him, must be regretting not changing that position before the election, Balls is to Labour what Gove is to the Tories, Cameron got rid of his ulcer though.

 

Btw Has anyone watched Ballot Monkeys on Channel 4? I watched the first two episodes last night, very very good political comedy - satire based on the political buses of the four main parties with up to the minute humour. Three more episodes next week.
 

[Alf Bentley]

 

 

 

He tried, basically more from the welfare budget, combating more tax avoidance and saving in government departments that are still overrun with bureaucracy.

 

Whatever the situation of it massive blunder by Miliband to say he didn't think the last government spent too much, they clearly did and everyone knows it, Ed Balls was taking the brunt of abuse from the people as well and he had a hard time defending him, must be regretting not changing that position before the election, Balls is to Labour what Gove is to the Tories, Cameron got rid of his ulcer though.

 

Btw Has anyone watched Ballot Monkeys on Channel 4? I watched the first two episodes last night, very very good political comedy - satire based on the political buses of the four main parties with up to the minute humour. Three more episodes next week.

 

 

 

Sounds like Cameron still didn't explain where the cuts and NHS funding are coming from, then. He'd already said £12bn of welfare cuts (only £2bn identified) and £13bn cuts across unidentified departments.

 

Sounds easy, doesn't it? But only a small fraction of the welfare cuts could come from "dole scroungers", they'd also have to hit some of working/child tax credits for the low-paid, child benefit, housing benefit (including for the low-paid), disability/sickness benefits (and not all of those go to fraudulent idlers, as the tabloids would have us believe). Any mention of where the extra £8bn for the NHS is supposedly coming from?

 

As for the cross-departmental cuts, which departments? He's already ruled out health, schools & overseas aid, hasn't he? Social security is dealt with in the separate welfare cuts....and £13bn is more than eliminating a bit of bureaucracy.

So, he plans to make massive, but unspecified cuts to several of the following: defence, police/border control, local council funding, employment, business support, colleges & universities, transport etc.

 

I tend to agree with you about Miliband's response, though. Only to a limited extent on the substance, but about it being a tactical blunder, for the reasons I've explained. The audience response suggested that was the case. Yet, I assume that it was a calculated decision, not off-the-cuff....

[MiniFox]

A mythical ladder that will never reach the bottom.

[Rincewind]

This is good. How  can they be trusted if they do not answer a straightforward question? Same old drivel  repeat hundreds of  times.  Who was  that shaking his head?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/30/liz-truss-refuses-to-answer-andrew-neils-questions_n_7179052.html

[Guest MattP]

Sounds like Cameron still didn't explain where the cuts and NHS funding are coming from, then. He'd already said £12bn of welfare cuts (only £2bn identified) and £13bn cuts across unidentified departments.

 

Sounds easy, doesn't it? But only a small fraction of the welfare cuts could come from "dole scroungers", they'd also have to hit some of working/child tax credits for the low-paid, child benefit, housing benefit (including for the low-paid), disability/sickness benefits (and not all of those go to fraudulent idlers, as the tabloids would have us believe). Any mention of where the extra £8bn for the NHS is supposedly coming from?

 

As for the cross-departmental cuts, which departments? He's already ruled out health, schools & overseas aid, hasn't he? Social security is dealt with in the separate welfare cuts....and £13bn is more than eliminating a bit of bureaucracy.

So, he plans to make massive, but unspecified cuts to several of the following: defence, police/border control, local council funding, employment, business support, colleges & universities, transport etc.

 

I tend to agree with you about Miliband's response, though. Only to a limited extent on the substance, but about it being a tactical blunder, for the reasons I've explained. The audience response suggested that was the case. Yet, I assume that it was a calculated decision, not off-the-cuff....

 

Don't think Cameron has ever ruled out cutting from foreign aid from what I've watched but he wouldn't want to come across as UKIP mk2 at the minute. The welfare bill in total is about 140billion isn't it? (Sorry I'm on mobile so can't google that) so if he really wanted to find 12million I'm sure he could, he can go a bit further on the under occupancy charge, I'm sure working tax credits will be intended as part of this if wages do continue to rise as they have (albeit very recent) lately.

 

I'm not sure on Ed, he hasn't actually been ask the question about it for a while and it seemed a bit off the cuff to me, as the audience started to snigger (and this was an audience the beeb openly told us was only 25% Tory at the start as well) you felt he realised he had made a mistake.

 

Andrew Neil has just taken Hilary Benn to task on this as well regarding Labour public spending in and around 2005, if a country is still running at a deficit after 16 years of growth then when are you going to run at a surplus, he went off on a totally different line as per usual and tried to link it to neccessary public spending on hospitals which again he was rightly pulled up on as that was connected to PFI. I thought Labour were looking good to win the most seats a few weeks back but they simply can't nail this economic incompetence they are seen to have.

 

A mythical ladder that will never reach the bottom.

 

It's not supposed to reach the bottom, it's supposed to reach just as far so someone at the bottom can jump onto it if they try and work hard enough too.

[Rincewind]

A mythical ladder that will never reach the bottom.

That's because they add more to the pit making the distance  from  the ones at the top and  ones at the bottom further.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Didn't see the interviews but saw a clip of this bit and found it a surprising response at this stage. I presume that it had been thought through in advance, as he'd have anticipated a question about this.

 

As discussed ad infinitum, Labour does have a strong case for this argument: most of the deficit/debt was racked up bailing out the banks, a minority was racked up providing tax credits for the low paid and investing public services, the Tories publicly committed to supporing Labour's spending plans at the time, and would surely have also bailed out the banks (or are they saying they wouldn't have done so?).

 

It would have been more advisable to point out that the Conservatives would have matched their spending commitments but that they did spend too much during the boom years. He therefore looks fiscally responsible and shows the Conservatives up without Cameron being able to defend himself because he went first.

You bang on about Keynesian economics so even you can't defend Brown running a deficit in the 'boom' whilst also proclaiming to have stopped boom and bust

[Buce]

A mythical ladder that will never reach the bottom.

That's if it was being lowered in the first place: I see that picture as pulling-up the ladder.

[Bobby Hundreds]

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/

 

More plants than a garden centre,

[MiniFox]

 

It's not supposed to reach the bottom, it's supposed to reach just as far so someone at the bottom can jump onto it if they try and work hard enough too.

Whilst some start at the top, the rest of us must keep on trying to reach this ladder on the off chance we may be able to latch on some day. 

 

That's because they add more to the pit making the distance  from  the ones at the top and  ones at the bottom further.

The Eton boys can take the elevator up, the rest of you, try reach up and grab this.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing that we have exceptional schools and colleges, where leaders and politicians come from, but is it really fair that the family you're born into can almost determine how easy your life will be?

 

That's if it was being lowered in the first place: I see that picture as pulling-up the ladder.

Personally, to me it just looks like a dangling carrot, with the myth that some day, you'll have the freedom they have.

[Jimothy]

Will you do a deal with the SNP Ed?

 

No.

 

Will you really?

Ugh... no.

 

Are you sure you won't do a deal with the SNP Ed?

We won't do a deal with the SNP.

 

x1000

 

Getting bored now.

 

Got boring ages ago. The questions been asked, and it's been answered. If people don't believe Milliband, fair enough, don't believe him, he'll soon get it in the neck if it turns out he was lying. The whole tactic of repeatedly asking the same question over and over is like asking someone to pick a random card to decide something for you and when they pick one you don't like asking them to put it back and pick again, or playing best of 3 pool against a mate until you go 2-0 down and declaring it's now best of 5, until you're losing 3-2 and you declare it's best of 7 etc. It's just ridiculous. Just accept the no answer and move on.

[Guest MattP]

Got boring ages ago. The questions been asked, and it's been answered. If people don't believe Milliband, fair enough, don't believe him, he'll soon get it in the neck if it turns out he was lying. The whole tactic of repeatedly asking the same question over and over is like asking someone to pick a random card to decide something for you and when they pick one you don't like asking them to put it back and pick again, or playing best of 3 pool against a mate until you go 2-0 down and declaring it's now best of 5, until you're losing 3-2 and you declare it's best of 7 etc. It's just ridiculous. Just accept the no answer and move on.

We actually got a different answer last night though didn't we? For the first time he actually ruled out any sort of supply and confidence deal rather than just ruling out a coalition and saying no SNP ministers would be in his cabinet.

[Jimothy]

We actually got a different answer last night though didn't we? For the first time he actually ruled out any sort of supply and confidence deal rather than just ruling out a coalition and saying no SNP ministers would be in his cabinet.

 

He ruled out everything a couple of weeks ago. Don't ask me to tell you what program he was on at the time, I honestly can't remember, but he certainly declared there would be no agreement whatsoever with the SNP. But like Mark said, it's not enough to say no, the question will still be constantly asked, as thought repeatedly asking will force him to fall to his knees in tears begging them to stop and finally admitting he was lying all along. It's as though the think they can torture him into submission, when in reality they're just torturing the general public.

[Rincewind]

I thought he was saying he would not go against any of the manefesto  pledges  just to satisfy  the SNP.  Although there are a few things that they agree or partly agree upon  so can rely  on support in some  votes.

[Guest MattP]

He ruled out everything a couple of weeks ago. Don't ask me to tell you what program he was on at the time, I honestly can't remember, but he certainly declared there would be no agreement whatsoever with the SNP. But like Mark said, it's not enough to say no, the question will still be constantly asked, as thought repeatedly asking will force him to fall to his knees in tears begging them to stop and finally admitting he was lying all along. It's as though the think they can torture him into submission, when in reality they're just torturing the general public.

 

I missed that, if it was a couple of weeks ago though it's bizarre as Angela Eagle on the Daily Politics just last week was saying if they were in a position of being in a minority givernment then they would be talking to all other parties capable of giving a minority government support before they were drafting a Queen's speech, I presume now that isn't going to happen given recent developments.

 

If different people in the party seem are giving different answers I can see why the question still is being asked but anyway - it ends now as he himself rules it out as leader in front of the nation, he now has to stick by that.

[Guest MattP]

And almost right on cue......a Labour shadow minister comes out again and says they will be talking to the SNP - this is why the question is still being asked. Unbelievable, just be honest with us for crying out loud.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/election-2015-shadow-health-secretary-says-labour-minority-would-seek-snps-support-10218239.html
 

Andy Burnham today confirmed that a minority Labour government would seek support from the SNP — just hours after Ed Miliband denied on live TV that any deal would be struck.

The Tories claimed Mr Burnham’s admission blew the lid off the Labour leader’s defiant claims during the last TV debate that his party would not collude with the Scottish Nationalists.

Asked if Labour would hold talks with the SNP “to get their policies through the House of Commons”, the shadow Health Secretary responded: “Of course.” The embarrassing comment threatened to overshadow Mr Miliband’s pledge today that hundreds of thousands of families would immediately be “freed” from the so-called bedroom tax.

 

 

[Rincewind]

They would  want  their support to get policies  through  but not go into coalition or comprimise their manefesto.

[MiniFox]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/01/election-2015-live-ed-miliband-david-cameron-labour-snp-bbc-question-time

 

This is a real career defining election for Cameron.

 

Or is it country defining?

 

"Of Cameron's 'career defining' slip, Miliband says "He's finally found something he is passionate about, his own career"

[Guest MattP]

They would  want  their support to get policies  through  but not go into coalition or comprimise their manefesto.

 

Is this a joke?

 

I thought you watched the debate last night, if you did you heard what Miliband said, which was no deal under any circumstances.

 

Sturgeon is now goading him on Sky News saying he's lost his bottle. Labour might not have a single seat left in Scotland at this rate.

[Guest MattP]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/01/election-2015-live-ed-miliband-david-cameron-labour-snp-bbc-question-time

 

This is a real career defining election for Cameron.

 

Or is it country defining?

 

Brilliant, the same bloke who last night was criticising people (rightly) for judging a man for nearly falling over on a stage decides to stoop to similar tactics to attack his opposition today.

 

He got a word wrong.