91热爆

The Times is reporting that 55% of Labour supporters want the PM to resign, and your Blog entry deals with in issue that is not of the Conservatives making nor are they in a position to do anything about it.

Is it any wonder that the 91热爆 are regularly accused of bias?

Boris Day. Keep crime off the streets he cries. Zero tolerance. Boris D +1 Police return fire in shoot-out in Chesea. (He did not quite mean those streets, I'll be bound). You couldn't make it up. Call in Brian Paddick, I say.

David Cameron Should listen as well if he wants to win back votes.If he cant match what he is pushing Labour for he will get caught out.

'Dave' is a conventional politician in that the last thing you'd expect him to do is answer the question honestly.

Really, that is all you need to know.

The English people need to start seeking out a different type of politician, one who instinctively tries to give a straight, rather than a calculating, answer.

However, does such a politician exist?

I'm beginning to have my doubts.

It is taking the full resources of the Treasury weeks to come out with a workable plan, how can Cameron, without the relevant figures, be expected to produce one any quicker, if at all.

The Treasury are still working on the numbers of people that have lost out (according to Treasury spokespeople just tonight). Without that crucial information it is difficult to come up with costed proposals - and you can bet your life if the Tories did it would divert Treasury resources into working out why the Tory plans would not work.

It was the Government that created the mess, they must sort it out and it is fair for the Tories to highlight this.

I dont think that guy has too much to worry about in encountering Tory duplicity ... the Labour government's incompetence is now open for all to see. This morning, No. 10's spokesperson said that the PM would scrap the fines for leaving out too much rubbish, since this pettyness really pisses people off. Almost immediately, the Department of the Environment announced that the trial scheme of fining people for excess rubbish in certain areas would continue .... you really couldn't make this incompetence up, could you ?

Spot on Nick,Cameron,must say what he would do on issues like the 10p thing,however it does not deflect from the many problems in the Brown camp,there is this black cloud and litany of poor policy within the labour party,it must make its mind up on the Blair years and new labour,gone is the idea of power for power sake,gone is that dreadful spin,in difficult times the people want clear policy making and direction.

#1, wildnagger2000, ABSOLUTELY right - Nick your true colours have been nailed to the mast pretty much since Gordon took over the reigns. Even though this is your blog, and therefore one cannot expect licence payer 'impartiality' from this URL, Nick I think you need to realise that there has been a sea change in voter intentions. The good old days of New Labour are gone.

OK so Dave Cameron was pressed on whether he would reintroduce the 10p rate - so what? He didn't create it, and he didn't remove it. The man who did was nowhere to be seen today - why don't you focus on that?

The Tories at least have always been consistent under DC - no promises of no unfunded tax cuts, and no significant tax cuts until they've seen the books - he stuck to that answer today despite how tempting it would have been to say yes to reintroducing the 10p rate.

I think the way he has tried to exploit this proves Rory Bremner's recent parody of Cameron: nothing more than a shameless opportunist.

Along with sidekick Osborne, until recently, he has been talking about flattening taxes (i.e. making poor people pay more relative to the rich). When Brown announced the policy to cut lower earners adrift, last year during the budget, Cameron sat there and did nothing.

To paraphrase the description London's New Mayor once gave of Tony Blair: "He's drifting rudderless in the wide Sargasso Sea of the Conservative Party's ideological vacuum."

There is no point in asking an opposition MP or leader whether they would reverse something like this until they have a view of the accounts and whether the funds are available. If Cameron answered he would be accused of putting the economy in jeopardy, if he doesn't then he has no policies.
I am sure the Conservatives have a raft of policies waiting for the right moment to announce which the electorate will love, but they daren't do it until they know there is going to be an election otherwise Gordo and his pals will steal their thunder, as they tried to with inheritance tax.

David Cameron is correct not to provide detailed policies for two reasons:-

1. Nu Labour will nick any good ideas or solutions.

2. The Tories should ensure that the spotlight is kept on the very enjoyable spectacle of Nu Labour's self-demolition.

How exactly is David Cameron supposed to commit to a specific tax pledge? Nobody knows just how bad the economy really is, and specific pledges can't sensibly be made until he knows what he's got to work with.

All we know for now is that Gordon Brown has presided over a massive bubble which is currently deflating. How far and how fast the deflation takes us is an unknown.

I thought this particular blog entry was among the most biased garbage I've read on this site.

"At 10:15 pm on 06 May 2008, wildnagger2000 wrote:

"your Blog entry deals with in issue that is not of the Conservatives making nor are they in a position to do anything about it"

Perhaps not, but how can the Conservatives claim that removing the 10p tax band is a bad idea, but not state that they would return it if they get into power - with out looking hypocritical or unsure of their own policies

Is it any surprise that the 91热爆 are regularly accused of bias by wildnagger2000 and their ilk (and their counterparts on the Labour side)? No, not really.

Nick Robinson is regularly the most unbiased reporter the 91热爆 has. If you have a particular political slant, you might not like what he's reporting on, but please don't think you're fooling independents. Keep up the good work, Nick.

In particular, if David Cameron is going to be our next Prime Minister (which is likely), I for one want to know what his policies are going to be. Then I'll know whether to vote for him or not.

That's much more important to me at the moment than pointless speculation about whether Brown is going to resign (he's not, at least not until Miliband pulls his finger out and stands against him).

Labour went for a long time unscrutinised before the 1997 election, to nobody's good. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Nick, this didn't feel like a Sharron Stoner moment. It's hardly possible for the Tories to commit themselves to one aspect (the 10p rate) of a tax policy without having the opportunity to set out their plans in full.

The key issue is surely not whether to have a 10p band, but the fact that the Government, in abolishing it, overlooked the financial loss they would cause to a large number of vulnerable people (and, for a time at the start of this current controversy, flatly denied that such losses had been incurred). The question for the Government is: precisely what they will do to redress the situation they have caused.

Who should answer that? Not Mr Cameron, I think. The names of the guilty parties are Brown and Darling.

#12 "How exactly is David Cameron supposed to commit to a specific tax pledge?"

He didn't seem to have any problems doing so wrt inheritance tax.

Nick

That makes as much sense as asking if Chagari would block the printing of 2.5 million zimbabwe dollar notes (worth about 1 us dollar) - it doesn't really mean anything to anyone other than the incumbants.

When the loonies are relieved of control of the asylum, the incommers will have to deal with what they are left with.

As you now report Gordons views as if you are his spokesperson 'gordon beleives', 'gordon is' rather than as a reporter i.e. 'gorden says he beleives' or 'gordon says he is' - will you keep this up when he is in opposition, or will you transfer this familiarity to any new prime minister?

What gets me is not so much the refusal to commit to a policy but the cynical way the plea for votes is being made. Cameron wants the voters of Crewe to "send a message to Gordon Brown." It makes it sound as if the Tories aren't actually interested in improving the lives of locals or representing their views, just using the vote as a further opportunity to weaken their opponents. Voters need to be offered a positiive alternative - a vision of how to make things better - not to be caught up in opportunistic sniping.

Unfortunately, the government has made a catastrophic blunder at the worst possible moment. Worse, it has alienated its core support and undermined its reputation for being a guardian of low-earners.

But the fact is that turning to the Tories is not going to make things any better for those on low incomes. Mr. Cameron can't promise to revive the 10p rate because he wouldn't. He will, in fact, probably be quite pleased that a Labour government has carried out what, for the Conservatives, would be a difficult reform to push through.

Cameron may not be able to outline exactly what his policy response would be, but this does not excuse his opportunistic behaviour. What he needs to do is present the steps he envisages for taking the country forward. And i'll tell you one thing, those steps will not be the ones that the people of Crewe and Nantwich want to see taken.

Why should Cameron give the government the ideas of how to get out of their own hole? He has not got the books in front of him.

What he has said is he will cut bureaucracy and free up money from that. This is already happening in London and they have committed to do the same with the National Lottery

An insightful and timely comment, Nick.

David Cameron makes a stand for order and society but his lack of staying power has caused him to crumble into a thuggish spiv. As Nick comments and I suggested the other day, Cameron鈥檚 play of strength places him at his weakest. He can only begin to sink from this point on if he continues to plough the unethical path he鈥檚 been following.

Ethics is like as a sword. It鈥檚 inert and neutral if left alone but where the ambitions and greed of men pick the sword up and attempt to use it they rapidly display whether they are fit to wield it. The Samurai knew this which is why the sword was a symbol for their very existence, as Zen scholars like Suzuki commented that enemies jump in front of the sword.

Where Labour, the Conservatives, and Liberals have put their own ego ahead of what is right they have self-destructed, thrown out their leaders, or been kicked out of office. The ideological arrogance of socialists, greed of capitalists, and the hand waving of idealists comes with a price. This is not just a matter of leadership, party, or community but the self.

It鈥檚 better just to let go of all claims and ambitions.

Again and again, three times in all, this man pressed Mr Cameron to say that he would bring back the 10p tax rate. Again and again Mr Cameron refused to do that, insisting that the people of Crewe and Nantwich should send the government a message with their votes in the forthcoming by-election.

Sounds like DC has been taking leasons from GB on how not to answer simple questions.

(Very) Useless Tories or Nu Improved (1970s) Labour?

I'm with DC on this one. Knee jerk policy statements is one reason why GB is where he is now...no only because of the 10p tax issue but also poorly thought out terror legislation, reversing promises on road tax, failure to sort out the escalating community charge.....The street corner is not the place to formulate future tax policy.

Since when did anyone expect a politician to do what they said when out of office once they are in office? Come to that they can't be relied on once they are in office either.

How about the referendum on the EU constitution? ( no let sematics get in the way),

"I'm listening" (well not to our experts on cannabis classification nor anything else I don't want to hear, nor people who don't agree with me)

"I feel your pain" ( well not when it comes to pensions where I've asset stripped yours to make sure mine and the political classes gold plated one is well funded )

" economic prudence" ( well not when it comes to spending where most major project expenditure is over budget, delivery is late and I don't talk about quality on delivery )

" democracy, fair representation of the will of the people" ( well not so fair that Westminster needs to reflect the will of the people, especially the English. Why shouldn't I be a dictatorial bully with only 36% electoral support, and anyway I don't care I've got my feet under the table and an anti terrorism bill on the way to keep any opposition quiet, especially at party conferences)

" What other ideas on good governance has Mugabe come up with I could copy?"

This was a simple yet key question for Dave to answer. He didn't. I am not convinced he is ready for No. 10. If it was me I would have said "Yes" and done it when in power. He worries me greatly when he misses the obvious!

Why should David Cameron now take the flak for a Labour measure? He will not be in office for another 2 years and so has calculated that it would be quicker to overturn the measure now rather than wait until all those people affected have had their pockets fully drained. I see nothing wrong in that. To now attack him for something he has not instigated is beyond belief and my opinion of Nick Robinson is now diminished as a result.

Nick

It took the Labour party 12 months to understand the impact of the 10p tax. They are making plans to "help" those who lost out, untill we all know what that help will be.
Is it a short term fix on the fuel payment or any other slight of hand that since 1997 we have seen. Cant expect any meaningful response from DC till we know the package.

The 10/20p tax is to the Labour Party as The Poll Tax was to the Tory Party great in theory impossible to sell.

Voters have always voted with their wallets, nothing has changed.

"And so it came to pass."

I can't believe I'm reading something so lazy.

Poor Dave. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I thought the advice he gave the guy who kept asking about the 10p tax rate was good. Dave can't do anything about the 10p tax rate until he is elected. The UK finances are in a dreadful state and would need sorting out first. Voting Labour out at the imminent local election in Nantwich and Crewe would be a good start.

re 4. At 10:45 pm on 06 May 2008, JohnConstable is makes a telling observation "people need ... a different type of politician, one who instinctively ... gives a straight....answer. And, I might add, knows some answers to our ills. I nominate Dr John Vincent Cable MP, who called Gordon Broon 'Mr Bean'.

In the case of employment law and financial probity, Cable has sound judgement.

Law respecting persons has come a long way since then, company law has not.
British law is still stacked in favour of property and, of course, the owners of property, real or in business. How long ago is it that a walkway on a North Sea oil rig fell into the sea taking three workers to their deaths? The oil rig belonged to one of the oil majors, yearly profits in the billions. The company was fined 拢300. All efforts to make directors of public companies liable in law for deaths and damage suffered by employees has come to nothing. There seems no political desire to change the unequal merry-go-round

Suppose a Liberal Democrat government one day passed a law forbidding directors and others from stripping the assets of a company. Imagine the uproar from the Conservative Party, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Times etc, plus the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and even the more enlightened CBI.

Will things ever improve? Not unless British politics one produces another Franklin D. Roosevelt. Remember, after the crash of l928/33, FDR passed all sorts of laws preventing American bankers, brokers or any other gamblers from lending to speculators thus precipitating the rush of the herd into the kind of bubble pretended by the banks to be over lending on mortgages. Most since undone.

Vince Cable is one of the few who understands our current credit crises, knows how to manage them and articulate the solutions.

I fail to understand why the Tories are having such a hard time explaining what they would do with the 10p rate.

how about this?

Questioner - would you reinstate the 10p band.
DC - Right now we are not in government and so we cannot do anything. If Gordon Brown was to find his bottle and call an election right now, then we would look at ways of compensating those who have had a tax increase. Look firstly we would not have increased the tax burden on the lowest paid it is immoral.

The problem is not that the 10p rate was removed, but that the tax burden has been increased on the lowest paid. Gordon Brown has spent all the money he raised by removing the 10p band and so there is no money available to reinstate the 10p band and anyway removing the 10p band is a good way to simplify the tax regime as long as you compensate the tax losers and don't try to con the public that there are no tax losers.

So if we were elected now as a governing party we would immediately look at the last budget and introduce measures that would compensate those hit by this tax con budget, maybe by raising the level at which tax is started to be paid or introducing new rates or reliefs.

After our first budget we would ensure that all those who have lost out by the removal of the 10p band would be compensated.

The real question is when will Gordon Brown call an election, so we can get on with helping the lowest paid.

The 91热爆 had a 20 minute interview with Gordon Brown on Sunday.

Gordon Brown introduced the 10p tax band. It was his budget that removed it.

Gordon Brown knows as much as anyone as how this matter can be overcome, and at what cost. Could Andy Marr get an answer?

Brown was asked the same question by Andrew Marr

What do you believe is worse Nick...

Cameron, who has not seen the books, refusing to explain how he would overcome this problem, and at what cost, on a street corner; or Brown, who should know, refusing to detail how it will be resolved, in a 20 minute interview with a trained journalist?

The most Brown could offer was a reference to a letter that Darling had written to a select committee, saying they will do their best to compensate 2 groups.

No details of numbers
No commitment to backdate
No timescale
No firm method
No costing
No hope for those not in the 2 groups

Hopefully you will remember to provide the balance when highlighting that Cameron has not provided a solution.

Come on Dave dear, what will you do? Why do you not start by a public apology for the misery that you created in 1992. That's right 12 September 1992 when you and your friend Lamont told us that the economy was OK and that Sterling was strong. The truth was that the economy had big structural problems because of years (1981 鈥� 1992) of mismanagement and the pound was worth a big 0!
Apologise for a start Dave, and then give us your phoney ideas as to how to climb this WORLD WIDE economic crises. World crises Dave not UK, wolrd crises.

#9
"Along with sidekick Osborne, until recently, he has been talking about flattening taxes (i.e. making poor people pay more relative to the rich)"

Thats not even close to how it works, I remember reading a paper back around 2000 which at the level of government spending the 0% rate could have been at 拢20,000, so anyone earning less than that per year would pay 拢0

Then for people earning more (from pay or interest, share sales, etc....) they pay 20% of whatever is left so the more you earn the more you pay relative to 'poor people'. And when you get to the 'super-rich' its more or less like paying 20% on everything, for somebody on 拢25,000 its like having a 4% tax on everything

The other side of this was a consumption tax (VAT), the more people earn the more they spend (to a point) so again the medium to high earners would pay more tax

But this was costed when Brown was following tory spending plans, before his feckless spending sprees and hiding debt off books so what this would be now is anyones guess

I think the link to Sharon Storer is lazy. Blair was prime minister at the time and could do anything. Cameron is leader of the opposition and can do nothing. And there will be another two years before he becomes prime minister.

A more balanced article would have pointed this out.

The legal boys tell me that he should simply have qualified a 鈥淵es鈥� with 鈥淚f I were PM today鈥� (everything is subject to contract in this game).

#32 OnlyWayUP

Did you read the papers in 1992? Spain devalued twice..Italy devalued three times, Sweden twice, Finland three times, the US went throught the savings and loans crisis and the junk bond collapse...

The problem in 92 was a 'world' problem the difference is the Tories didn't chicken out of their responsibilites like Gordon is trying to do now. Boast about the good times and blame everyone else for the bad should be tattooed on Gordon and every NuLibor apologist.

Northern Rock? Is that a 'world' problem? That's a Tripartite structure problem but not according to NuLibor. Ignored dozens of warnings about it ad did nothing. Utter incompetence not a 'world' problem.

Get real the 10p tax joke is NuLibor's problem to sort out not Dave's and they should get on with it or face destruction at Crewe and Nantwitch and in 2010.

How about the Wendy Alexander refusal to answer if she had consulted big Gordon before going live on the devolution issue? Never heard such a load of flannelling in all my life.

How come we saw none of this during the elction run up? It was an obvious question ... like ... will you bring back hunting, will you scrap the minimum wage etc!

.... and did not tax go down from 22p to 20p?

OK, so here's the thing.

This issue marks Cameron's card as being a dyed in the wool opportunist and nothing more. Why?

The removal of the 10p starting tax rate was announced by Gordon Brown LAST YEAR. Why has it taken until now for David (champion of the lower paid) Cameron to make a fuss?

Simple, he didn't start to pile the pressure onto Gordon Brown until members of the Labour Party did. It was only when he got a sniff of kicking the government when it was down that he started this crusade.

Personally, I think removing the 10p rate without increasing personal allowances to compensate is nothing short of a disgrace, but this argument should have been had a year ago.

Who knows, if Cameron had actually taken up the challenge then, he may have headed off the upswing in Labour ratings when Brown took over and had the new PM on the back foot right from the start.

He may also have convinced people that this was an issue he actually believed in, rather than just another one he could use to batter the Government with.

So Cameron was asked the same ammount of times as Blears was on newsnight about the 10p tax and she wouldn't answer the question either.So no party will will answer it but surely the onus is on the party in power.

If HMRC so decide, at the drop of a hat they can simply turn up and demand to 'look at the books' of any business located in the UK.

And yet, as a number of posters on this blog thread have stated, 'Dave' cannot comment sensibly on these tax matters until he and his chums have 'seen the books'.

I suppose that what this really illustrates is the awful culture of secrecy that pervades this wretched country.

Given this level of 'open' (sic) Government, is it any wonder that we English have been going nowhere for decades?

So let me get this straight, you're flagging up this as a problem for the leader of the opposition, when he didn't...

a: introduce the 10p tax rate

b: remove it in order to appear as if he were cutting tax

c: backtrack when it hit the lowest paid most and his party rebelled.

The question from the so called Conservative supporter is from entirely the wrong premise. Would Cameron have allowed the tax system in this country to have got into such a dizzy mess? No. The reason he can't give a straight answer is that not even Brown can give a straight answer because it's so complicated.
Perhaps you should be badgering Brown a bit more rather than letting him get away with murder in interviews like the 91热爆 always does...

This exchange on the 91热爆 News last night was interesting in that it did provide a preview of the sort of pressure Cameron will face. He cannot credibly claim to be PM in waiting if he ducks the questions like this, particularly when he is actively attacking the government over the same issue.

He is going to have a lot more difficult moments like this, with more challenging interviewers. Interesting times ahead.

Cameron could have said he did not know what the public finances were but if finances allowed, any tax reduction he would introduce would be specifically targetted at the low paid, before any other tax cutting measures are brought on line.

As some one said he was able to give a specific tax pledge for people whose homes are woth 拢1 million to be exempt from inheritance tax. I know very few people in that position, I do know large numbers of low paid who desperately need help.
Come on Dave prove everybody wrong and show you are not a party just for the rich and powerful

I thought a more straightforward answer was possible. "No, the 10p tax rate was a stupid idea. It made the whole system unnecessarily complicated. We would extend the zero rate to benefit the low-paid." The first two points are widely agreed, and the third would be true, as that seems to increase with inflation, by and large.

@ 38: ".... and did not tax go down from 22p to 20p?"

Yes it did. The reason? To hide the fact that the 10p tax band was not abolished at all. It was doubled to pay for the 22p - 20p tax con! It was robbing the poorest to bribe the middle class.

The problem for labour is not just the 10p tax con, but that this policy throws into sharp relief the character of a government that thinks it is morally acceptable to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer pounds to bail out billionaire bankers at the same time that it is doubling the income tax on the poorest workers and then to lie repeatedly about the implications and effects on the poor.

Labour's mask has slipped. The pretence that they ever were the party of the poor and the working class is now exposed as the cruellest of hoaxes. This is a vicious government who have ruthlessly betrayed their core supporters. The mask has slipped and shown a hideousness will not be forgotten by putting the mask back on.

The 10p tax-con was the straw that broke the camel's back and it's re-introduction will NOT repair the splintered vertebrae.

To try to spin this as a story criticising David Cameron is just very very weak journalism indeed. Talk about the bottom of the barrel.

Labour is in a very deep hole and it looks like Nick, you are doing your level best to help dig them out of it, or push the Conservatives into it.

The overwhelming public feeling is very much against what you are writing at the moment Nick.

The financial commentariat did indeed see the introduction of the 10% tax band by Chancellor Brown back in 1997 as something of a political gimmick, as it only extended to 拢1000.

However, fiscal drag, which Brown has slyly used over the past ten years to drag more and more working people into higher tax bands, has, in a piece of irony, truly bitten him now as he tries to remove the 10% band.

My main point here remains, it should be totally unacceptable for Government to be able to shroud its finances in such secrecy that the English people, let alone the political 'opposition' are unable to form an opinion on the state of 'the books' until there is a change of Government.

That ain't remotely democratic.

That exchange with the man in Crewe beautifully illustrates one of the great mysteries of our time - why we indulge politicians who don't give a straight answer to a straight question.

I am constantly amazed that, when politicians are interviewed for our supposed edification, their refusal to answer doesn't lead to a straight termination of the interview, as in:

Nick: Prime Minister, will you compensate all of those affected by the 10p tax decision?

PM: You know, Nick, all my political life I have...

Nick: Yes or no?

PM: When I was young we used to say...

Nick: Thank you Prime Minister. Now, back to the studio.

They'd soon learn!

At least Cameron has turned up at the by-election and is willing to be questioned by the public. Where's Brown?

It's simple raise the tax free allowance by a couple of hundred quid and the problem goes away, no compensation, new civil servants or complex administration schemes to got with it are needed.

Of course meddling Gordon will never go for it though.

Sorry Nick - I know it was late last night when you posted this topic, and you must be feeling a bit tired after the recent political events - but this topic is a fairly lazy and largely irrelavant effort.

Given the wealth of political issues emerging each day, is this really the best you could come up with ?

The big issue at the moment is that the public and many Labour backbenchers have lost confidence in Gordon Brown.

Why, therefore, are you focusing on making such a big issue about one person giving Cameron a hard time?

And the 91热爆 wonders why many of the public think it is biased???

It is for Labour to provide the answer to the problem that is exclusively of their making. The Conservatives may well have a very sensible, fair and practical solution to the problem of low pay, but it is too early in the electoral cycle to disclose it.

My solution is to raise the tax-free pay personal allowance to an amount well in excess of the statutory minimum wage and abolish all of the concomitant and byzantinely complex tax credits and other means-tested benefits for the beneficiaries. The government could then fire the consequentially redundant staff at HMRC and DWP who administer, which could be offset against the cost of raising the personal allowance.

Meanwhile, let us all enjoy the sight of Gordon Brown floundering and the many Macbeths in his party sharpening their daggers.

to all those who think Nick's post is biassed; given that most people think they'll be in govt in 2 years time, it's entirely reasonable to start asking them, right now, what they'll do when in Government. it is especially reasonable to ask them a question about their plans rtegarding an unpopular tax when they have already said they plan to make it the centrepiece of their campaign for what, if they pull it off, will be one opf the biggest by-election upsets ever (not that it'll happen. I mean, Crewe, of all places...)

Well done Nick. It seems you've hit a nerve with the Tory mob. The fist time Cameron is asked a question outside of the safety of Westminster and he looks smug, aloof and couldn鈥檛 care less. The more scrutiny the Tories come under the better and the more we will hear the same old Tory cries of bias and leave off our man.

To be honest I'd rather have a leader who makes up policy on the fly than a leader who sets out to deliberately create policies to damage the country/people as much as humanly possible.

I'm sure David Cameron will announce policy details in due course, but best to wait for the Gordon-bashing to continue for a bit first. That way people will understand that the policies which labour steal end up just being a sick and twisted version of an original decent idea that they hijacked.

A PM who's actively trying to damage the country in every way he can is a lot more concerning than an opposition leader who hasn't spelt out the detail of every single opposition policy yet.

For goodness sake, Gordon Brown hasn't even explained the 10 tax rebate yet (and he has no idea why the country's economy is going down the toilet due to his own negligence) - how can the 91热爆 start criticising the opposition for not spelling out every detail of every policy ?

My guess is that the tories will end up bypassing this specific problem completely, and (hopefully) will reform the tax system in such a way that the 10pct question will become irrelevant, perhaps by simply increasing the allowances by the relevant amounts for the relevant people, thereby taking most people out of the tax credit system completely, and just letting people keep more of their own money in the first place.

Post 52.

I disagree strongly.

In my humble opinion, the big political issue is whether or not the zombie political entity 'Britain' should continue to exist.

Everything else in this land flows from that root political issue.

It will not 'go away', no matter how much some people would like it to.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I think back to '95, '96 and even the election campaign of '97. I seem to recall a certain Leader of HM Opposition and his Shadow Chancellor refusing to answer very similar questions. As I recall they were always saying things such as they would make no changes for 2 years and make no promises until after they'd inspected the books.

Sauce for the goose etc.

Besides which, the old saying of Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them is also very true. Floating voters (who are the ones that actually matter) don't vote for the other side because they like or agree with them, they vote for them to get rid of what's in power because either it's rubbish or stale or as is usually the case, both as in the Boris/Ken affair. People didn't switch to Boris because they agreed with him, they switched to Boris because they'd had enough of Ken.

No.39 you're wrong.

Cameron did point it out last year and got jeered by Ed "so what?" Balls and the rest of the Labour benches as Gordon gloried in the headline of a cut to the 22p rate hoping no one would notice his sleight of hand! Once again Gordon has been caught out by being a bit too clever and partisan.

In any case why should Cameron have to answer the question when if he said anything our Gord would just say he hasn't costed it.

This is an entirely self inflicted wound for Labour and it is not going to be healed by sending those affected into the labyrinth of Gordon's Tax credit system, where a doctorate in bureaucratic form filling is a must if you are going to have any chance of receiving anything in reasonable time.

Why hasn't Gordon gone to Crewe and Nantwitch to defend the removal of the 10p tax band?

He's prepared to send Yvette Cooper-Balls to defend it even though she doesn't understand it on Newsnight. He's sending his chancellor in to clear up his incompetence. He gets Harriet to speak on the telly the night Ken Leavingsoon gets booted out.

Where is McCavity the Mystery Brown when it comes to explaining himself? The grabber from the hidden poor...

At - 36. At 09:50 am on 07 May 2008, RobinJD wrote:
Did you read the papers in 1992? Spain devalued twice..Italy devalued three times, Sweden twice, Finland three times.
Is that so RobinJD!
Which country had inflation of 13%? Which country had 16% interest rates? Which country had it鈥檚 currency crushed to NIL? Only Sterling had that problem, why? Because unlike what Cameron and Lamont were telling us in 1992, the economy had STRUCTURAL problems.
Go back to what was said in 1992 and even recently, 91热爆 economic correspondents reported that in 1992 the economic problems were structural not just seasonal! That means that we were being told lies, after lies after lies, until the penny dropped.
In actual fact the economy had such big problems that even though the Tories were known to cuts in NHS, cuts in education, cuts in all services the economy was not generating sufficient wealth to fill the exchequer for onward investment for example in health and education. In fact we had nearly 60% of GDP in National Debt + cuts!
One also remembers two previous recessions, + an NHS that was comparable with that of a third world country, where one had to wait for 3 years for an operation, closure of 100s of hospitals, doctors graduating and flying off to the USA for work, nurses pay was miserable and not forgetting over 3.6 million unemployed! The list of doom and gloom goes on!
Last but not least, where was the global credit problems that we face today? Shortage of food and biblical rises in price? What was the price of oil under the Tories and yet we had the escalator tax which they were proud of. Making our petrol more then 2 times more expensive then that of other EU countries.
If Cameron does not come up with SPECIFICS, we shall all be ruined if he was PM in these very, very difficult times.
By the way, I am not only against the removal of the 10% tax band without compensation, but I was always against it鈥檚 introduction in the first place!
Some idiots think that this was introduced by a Conservative Govt. As if!

Onlywayup:

Italy had debt to GDP of 100%.

The pound was devalued 10%, the Lire was devalued 20%, the peseta 25%, the Swedish Krone 20%.

The Swedes had ve GDP for three and a half years.. we had a recession for a year.

The US had an eighteen month recession and had to bail out the banking system.

Climb out of the UK bubble and you will see that the government's record is a disaster of deficit spending which is now coming to a sorry ending.

Classic politicians.

"What you are doing is very very bad."

"So you wouldn't do that?"

"I didn't say that."


Pathetic bunch of losers. They should all be kicked out of parliament after five years and not allowed to stand again until they've done five years of real work. They're all parasitical scum - red, blue, and yellow.

"55. At 2:02 pm on 07 May 2008, princebullett1 wrote:

Well done Nick. It seems you've hit a nerve with the Tory mob."

I am fascinated by how one would define the "Tory Mob".

The 44% who voted conservative in the local elections, perhaps?

Apologies to have to bother you again Nick, but some people just do not get it. They try to defend the indefensible! Take it from an ex Tory.
No matter how much one tries to compare with what happened in other countries in the early 90s, no country had the economic problems created by the Tories in UK.
In UK we had the highest number of unemployed in all the western world. Highest interest rates as well.
Please do not mention Italy, cause even today Italy has some 108% of GDP in National Debt and they will never rid themselves of that unless they start to spend to invest rather then keeping people happy as we did under the Tories. Now read the following and learn.
91热爆 economics editor 鈥� Evan Davis says:
The painful parliaments are those where we have to reassess our whole view of the strength of the economy.
For example, the problem in 1992 derived not from a slowing economy. It derived from the fact that by 1992 we realised the late 1980s boom had been a temporary aberration, and not the permanent turnaround we had thought.
Once we sat down it became clear that the rise in government borrowing was not a blip caused by a recession; it was STRUCTURAL.
The economy was simply not as strong as we had been thinking for several years and consequently it would never generate as much tax as we needed.
So taxes had to be raised - or spending cut back. Have a nice day Nick.

To answer some of the less thought out comments on this blog, from my personal perspective.

When the 10p was highlighted a couple days after that budget, there was a brief murmur that was quickly quieted down by a host of reassurances.

I remember various news programs asking how many people would loose out, and various ministers saying no one there will be ample help for those affected.

I put it out my mind as probably a 鈥榥one issue鈥�, because of that.

When it became time for implementation, it became clear that there was no such help and more people than admitted where worse off.

Cameron the opportunist ????

To be fair he was in the same boat as the rest of us, not knowing what was going on.

Even labour own backbenchers didn鈥檛 start moaning until a couple months ago when they realised the 10p was going to hurt a lot more people than they where told.

If labours own backbenchers didn鈥檛 know, how do you expect Cameron to know?

Far as I am concerned Cameron reacted at the right time in the right way, and then got jeered with that obnoxious 鈥榮o what鈥� comment from Ed balls for his trouble.

Cameron has no policies????

As far as Cameron鈥檚 none committal to restoring the 10p band, only a complete moron would promise such a thing without knowing if the resources are there to deliver.

Cameron is a shallow salesman???

Lets not forget brown himself a few weeks ago said it was over hyped by the media, we all know that鈥檚 now untrue.

If the guardian article (martin kettle 21st April 2008) is accurate, he told Blair only about 25,000 or so would be worse off when he with Ed balls at his side proposed removing the 10p band.

That estimate is either a lie or gross incompetence you decide which. (again if the guardian article is accurate)

Cameron doesn鈥檛 need to sell us anything browns doing all that for him, Cameron couldn鈥檛 ask for a better PR person than Gorden Brown.

Dear only way up:

here is an economy -

Left leaning government
Full employment
Low inflation
Very high property values commercial and residential
Very high personal and government debt
Huge public sector employment
Low interest rates
Belief that business cycles were banished thanks to 'intervention' from government
High levels of taxation

Sound familiar?

It's Sweden in 1990

Followed by three year recession
12% unemployment
Radical cuts in government spending
Banks going bust
Property market collapse

The economy was simply not as strong as the government had made out because the government was propping it up.

Polly Toynbee and her Guardianistas were the strongest supporters of the Swedish 'model' shortly before it imploded. Today they support the UK government.

Go figure.

RobinJD - in what strange parallel universe do you live, where we have a 'left-leaning' or in fact left-ANYTHING govt?
10 years of Blair was enough to ruin any chance of a Labour govt being, socially and economically, to the right of - say - the Heath govt.
(PS: the centre-right were in power in sweden for 2/3rds of the 90s recession).

To Onlywayup :

So you complain that under the Tories there were doctors flying elsewhere to work, miserable pay, and petrol was 2 times more expensive here.

Compare that to now when we have trainee doctors having to fly abroad to get posts to finish their training, teachers striking over pay, a government going back on a pay review body agreement (the police), and petrol THREE times more expensive than elsewhere. Not to mention the hideous waste of money on administration, bureaucracy and quangos.

As for post 65, you defeat your own argument. Even the 91热爆 economics editor said they realised the problems after the event, not before.

Incidentally, does "we realised the boom had been a temporary aberration and not the permanent turnaround we had thought" sound like the perfect description of Gordon's "end of boom and bust" economy?

Facts:
On May 16, 1991, Lamont stated in parliament that "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying"[2] The remark is regularly, if not approvingly, recalled by commentators and other politicians.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lamont replaced Major as Chancellor in Major's new Cabinet, thereby finalising his commitment to Major's exchange rate policy. Lamont claimed that the recession would be "short-lived and relatively shallow" and later that "the green shoots of recovery" could be seen all around - early in 1992 one of the Sunday newspapers ran a "Green Shoots Index" of signs of recovery, only to have to drop it when few such signs could be found. Despite the Conservatives' surprise victory in the April 1992 general election the ERM policy proved unsustainable (due to structural problems in the UK economy) and collapsed on Black Wednesday, when Lamont was forced to withdraw the pound from the ERM despite assuring the public that he would not do so just a week earlier.
The advisor and perpetrator of all that happened was non other then - you guessed it - David William Donald Cameron.

More facts Nick:
Take Malta, which is part of the EU and one of the places where fuel is still relatively cheap when compared with other European countries.
From the Government statistics office of 2 weeks ago one finds that in Malta Unleaded fuel is Euro1.09 = Stg拢0.819, nearly 82 pence. 77% that of the UK petrol. Not quite 3 times as much. Heating Oil Euro 0.824 = Stg拢0.619, which makes it more expensive, albeit to say they use it mostly in industry.

Dear Nick,
If I were you I'd be inclined to ask 91热爆 online to remove this particular topic from your list of current discussion blogs. It's entirely irrelevant and does you no favours at all!! This is Gordon Brown's problem not David Cameron's after all.

Re post 72, absolutely disagree 100%, I want to know where the Tories stand on this. I am wavering for ther first time in my life to vote for the tories, mainly because of my dissapointment with the Labour Government. I want to believe the tories have changed and they are not the party for the rich. The only firm financial policy proposal we have had so far is to allow those with 拢1 m homes to pass them on to their relatives. This was taken up shamefully by the labour Government. Shame on both parties.

This is the chance for Dave to show he understands those working in low salary jobs are hurting and need help. They have seen salary levels go down due to cheap labour form Eastern European countries and face increasing energy and food costs. These increases afect those on low incomes to a much greater effect than those on middle and high incomes. Make a stand Dave and a commitment. I and others I know are waiting to see if the Tories have changed and they are a party we could vote for

Blimey Nick.

One whiff of scrutiny and the Tory voters don't like it.

Just look at the protestations to this interesting blog!

I think we are seeing Labour's Black Wednesday moment. A 23 point lead for the Conservatives in the polls without them doing anything much at all; and with a whole perfect storm of damaging issues to the government still doing the rounds in the media.

The difference is that when Mr Blair took over in 1994, Labour set the groundwork for that little card of pledges they distributed prior to the 1997 election. It maintained the Party's momentum right up to polling day.

One just cannot see the Tories copying that. And here's the reason why: They wouldn't really change anything! Labour has aped damaging Tory economic policy and found themselves in this horrible, all-too-predictable mess. What can the Tories do to minimise British exposure to credit and stoke investment in our industries? After all, they led the charge up this very path where we now find ourselves as a nation!

That's why Cameron is forced into spluttering ums and ahs when questioned about detailed policy.

The Tories haven't got any detailed policy.

#3 - David Cameron Should listen as well if he wants to win back votes. If he can鈥檛 match what he is pushing Labour for he will get caught out.

Please, please Mr Cameron as a lifelong Labour voter I don鈥檛 want you to match Labour, I want something different to what we have got now. I want something better.

If you can deliver what Labour should be delivering in the first place:

social justice
strong community and strong values,
reward for hard work,
decency
rights matched by responsibilities

You will get my VOTE.