91�ȱ�

Hardly surprising that Labour are the opposition, having had that buffoon Prescott as an MP for the last 15 odd years.

Whatever it takes to keep Labour out. Theres plenty of choice, not just Blue Labour or Yellow Labour. Vote anything, so long as its not the blasted Fabians.

And if they do it will confirm what many on the left has suspected about the LD's. The citizens of Hull did not vote for a Tory government nor for a government that will inflict further hardship, poverty and unemployment. They will also want a council that will do its best to resist the cuts of a Tory government. Cant wait for the local elections and the protest vote against the LD's who will end up relying on Tory votes to maintain electoral respectability.

in brent they want to cut lots of libraries because of spending cuts

BUT they have just spent £100M on a new centrallised building where only council staff can get at the books.

more waste from a labour run council .

so yeah vote anyone if it gets labour out.

This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

No1 Fubar,
I note that at times over the last few days you have been at your polemical best.For a devoted and proud UKIP supporter you appear to spend a disproportionate time attacking the opposition. Can you confirm that you are not a closet Tory? No surprise from Gove, the Tories and Lib/Dem Tory stooges need each other to guarantee access to the ministerial salaries and cars.

Surely its political pragmatism. If they're not going to win Hull they'd rather people voted for their LibDem coalition partners against Labour than for Labour against the LibDems.

Don't see what all the sensationalism is about.

Presumably all the Tory voters are already voting tactically for LDs as they have no chance in Hull - there's no way they can further boost the LD vote enough to make up for the haemoragging of support to Labour. Indeed this is probably going to turn off even more left-leaning LD voters (I should know, I used to be one).

What we are seeing is the total obliteration of the Liberal Democrats as a party with any distinctive identity. I would have thought many LDs will be horrified by this suggestion ... or they should be.

There may be a small argument in favour of an electoral pact for Westminister elections (after all the MPs would then join the Coalition benches) but if this happens for councils then what does that say about the LDs as a local party.

There was a time when it was felt that joining with the Lib Dems would detoxify the Conservative brand, but what has happened is that the Lib Dem party has been contaminated by association.

That really was the missed story of the Oldham and Saddleworth Byelection - Lib Dem faces saved by Tactical Tory. Without 6000 Tory votes switching it would have been a disaster for Clegg.

It adds to the impression that the LDs are being propped up by the Tories and would be dying a political death if it were not for the toxic life-support that is being pumped in by the Tories.

Well, well, well. It really is going to be interesting. Gove should be careful what he wishes for. First of all he is pointing out that the only way to vote against the the hideous ConDem Government is to vote for Labour except possibly where UKIP could beat them!

Mine is an anti Tory vote, which means when I lived in the South of England I had to vote Lib Dem, which I would still do now whilst holding my nose! In most of the rest of the country I vote Labour, also holding my nose because of the Iraq war and civil liberty violations.

I suspect that a lot of Tory voters have been anti Labour voters rather than pro Tory , in this and previous elections. They haven't voted Lib Dem because it's a "waste of time" and have had to hold their noses whenever Tebbit, Redwood etc have had their way. The fact that it may now be acceptable to vote Lib Dem gives them more choice and I also suspect that the Clarke wing of the Tory Party more represents the views of their voters whilst the Thatcher wing represents their members. Which is what I mean by interesting.

Of course we will never know people's real voting intentions and views until we have real PR but I suspect that like of other things in the UK we will continue to lag behind Europe in this.

"At present, the Liberal Democrats run Hull city council, Labour are the opposition and the Tories have just 2 out of 59 seats (those 2 are not up for election this May). Tory voters in Hull have just been invited to vote tactically.

First Hull, next the rest of the UK?"

Why not? In 2005 Labour got 9,552,436 votes, whilst what are now the coalition parties got 14,770,369. The result was Labour trampling down the economy with reckless spending (even Tony Blair is saying that these days) that would make a beserk elephant going on the rampage in a china shop seem restrained in comparison.

Anything has to be worth contemplating to stop that happening again, especially with a buffon in charge of the Labour party who thinks the 50% tax rate should stay permanently and a second-in-command who probably thinks 50% is the rate of VAT. Or Stamp Duty. Or something or other to do with tax or National Insurance or something.

Nick, he didn't say "vote LibDem not Tory if you are a Tory".

You have chosen to infer that's what he meant and proceeded to build a generalisation on it.

I think he was thinking of Hull as a LiBDem council and expressing the hope that the LibDems hold it from Labour.

He then expressed the hope that Tory councils hold their seats from Labour.

The link is that Labour are a common enemy of these two parties, which is a fact and has been the case for a while. But at no stage did he invite Tory voters in Hull to vote tactically.

"Now, lest everyone gets over-excited,"
===========================================

Nick, too late for you I think !

I think they will have to result to these and similar tactics.

According to the polls, liberal support has HALVED since the last election.

If they don't do something dodgy to prop up their vote then they may come close to disapearing.

Not as contemptable as the mugabe style plans to doctor the electoral system of course.

Dear Sir from tony ormsby [Personal details removed by Moderator]
At a time when the benefit system is under discussion I would like to make a few suggestions of my own.
MY SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORMING THE TAX AND BENEFITS SYSTEM
(This is meant as an outline of a system not a detailed one)
The alternative tax code system

Any system that is used needs to fair to everyone, so it follows that it must be available to everyone.
I believe that we need to introduce a duel tax code system so that everyone can choose the tax code that suits their circumstances the best.
You would need to create new tax codes to partner the present ones and then give everyone the one of their choice.
CODE ONE
The present system of tax where you have a tax allowance and then and then pay tax at the present rates.
CODE TWO
The alternative choice would be for everyone who wished to receive benefit, but would then pay tax at a higher rate in the pound on everything that they earn. (As the benefit would be instead of a tax allowance it would not be taxable).
This would mean that everyone would be better off working than not. It would mean for example that an unemployed person could take a part time without losing benefit and this would reduce the temptation to work and not declare their earnings. If a system is seen to be fair it is far less likely to be abused.
It would make it possible for a worker to improve his/her skills by splitting part time working with learning new skills.
When business is slack job sharing would become a practical proposition.
You may think that having two systems running side by side would make things more complicated but consider this. When you walk or run its far less complicated with two legs rather than one.PROBLEMS: Means tested Benefits (the poverty trap), and how to reduce them without coursing hardship.
COUNCIL TAX
Council tax is almost imposable to take into account with the new proposed universal credit.
It varies from property to property and area to area and whether or not you have to pay can depend not just on earnings but on savings as well.
Its a disincentive for people to save and is expensive to collect when compared to the alternative.
If you wish to reduce public spending why not get rid of council tax altogether? Instead of local government receiving funds from two sources (local and national) as at present fund them nationally. This could be done by increasing the local government grant to 100% in return for giving up the right to raise taxes. For high earners paying more national taxes it would be a case of swings and roundabouts as they would no longer have to pay council tax. At the present time an unemployed person who does not pay this local tax has to pay it when he/she gets a job and could end up very little better off than not working. It also discourages people from saving as the amount of savings can decide if they pay council tax or not.
As taxes are taxes council tax is to my mind nothing more than a fig leaf (a very expensive fig leaf at that) for governments who don't like as raising taxes themselves.
Would this undermine the independence of Local Councils?. As they are already restrained by Government as to how much they can raise, probably not.
PROBLEMS: Means tested Benefits (the poverty trap), and how to reduce them without coursing hardship.
COUNCIL TAX
Council tax is almost imposable to take into account with the new proposed universal credit.
It varies from property to property and area to area and whether or not you have to pay can depend not just on earnings but on savings as well.
Its a disincentive for people to save and is expensive to collect when compared to the alternative.
If you wish to reduce public spending why not get rid of council tax altogether? Instead of local government receiving funds from two sources (local and national) as at present fund them nationally. This could be done by increasing the local government grant to 100% in return for giving up the right to raise taxes. For high earners paying more national taxes it would be a case of swings and roundabouts as they would no longer have to pay council tax. At the present time an unemployed person who does not pay this local tax has to pay it when he/she gets a job and could end up very little better off than not working. It also discourages people from saving as the amount of savings can decide if they pay council tax or not.
As taxes are taxes council tax is to my mind nothing more than a fig leaf (a very expensive fig leaf at that) for governments who don't like as raising taxes themselves.
Would this undermine the independence of Local Councils?. As they are already restrained by Government as to how much they can raise, probably not.
EARNING TAX DUE TAX CODE BASIC TAX CODE PLUS 20p TAX DUE TAX CODE PLUS 25p TAX DUE TAX CODE PLUS 30p TAX DUE TAX CODE PLUS 35p TAX DUE TAX CODE PLUS 40p TAX DUE
£1,000 £0 £0.00 £0.20 £200.00 £0.25 £250.00 £0.30 £300.00 £0.35 £350.00 £0.40 £400.00
£2,000 £0.00 £0.20 £400.00 £0.25 £500.00 £0.30 £600.00 £0.35 £700.00 £0.40 £800.00
£3,000 £0.00 £0.20 £600.00 £0.25 £750.00 £0.30 £900.00 £0.35 £1,050.00 £0.40 £1,200.00
£4,000 £0.00 £0.20 £800.00 £0.25 £1,000.00 £0.30 £1,200.00 £0.35 £1,400.00 £0.40 £1,600.00
£5,000 £0.00 £0.20 £1,000.00 £0.25 £1,250.00 £0.30 £1,500.00 £0.35 £1,750.00 £0.40 £2,000.00
£6,000 £0.00 £0.20 £1,200.00 £0.25 £1,500.00 £0.30 £1,800.00 £0.35 £2,100.00 £0.40 £2,400.00
£7,000 £0.00 £0.20 £1,400.00 £0.25 £1,750.00 £0.30 £2,100.00 £0.35 £2,450.00 £0.40 £2,800.00
£8,000 £0.00 £0.20 £1,600.00 £0.25 £2,000.00 £0.30 £2,400.00 £0.35 £2,800.00 £0.40 £3,200.00
£9,000 £0.00 £0.20 £1,800.00 £0.25 £2,250.00 £0.30 £2,700.00 £0.35 £3,150.00 £0.40 £3,600.00
£10,000 £0.00 £0.20 £2,000.00 £0.25 £2,500.00 £0.30 £3,000.00 £0.35 £3,500.00 £0.40 £4,000.00
£11,000 £200 £0.20 £0.20 £2,400.00 £0.25 £3,000.00 £0.30 £3,300.00 £0.35 £3,850.00 £0.40 £4,400.00
£12,000 £400 £0.20 £0.20 £2,600.00 £0.25 £3,250.00 £0.30 £3,600.00 £0.35 £4,200.00 £0.40 £4,800.00
£13,000 £600 £0.20 £0.20 £2,800.00 £0.25 £3,500.00 £0.30 £3,900.00 £0.35 £4,550.00 £0.40 £5,200.00
£14,000 £800 £0.20 £0.20 £3,000.00 £0.25 £3,750.00 £0.30 £4,200.00 £0.35 £4,900.00 £0.40 £5,600.00
£15,000 £1,000 £0.20 £0.20 £3,200.00 £0.25 £4,000.00 £0.30 £4,500.00 £0.35 £5,250.00 £0.40 £6,000.00
£16,000 £1,200 £0.20 £0.20 £3,400.00 £0.25 £4,250.00 £0.30 £4,800.00 £0.35 £5,600.00 £0.40 £6,400.00
£17,000 £1,400 £0.20 £0.20 £3,600.00 £0.25 £4,500.00 £0.30 £5,100.00 £0.35 £5,950.00 £0.40 £6,800.00
£18,000 £1,600 £0.20 £0.20 £3,800.00 £0.25 £4,750.00 £0.30 £5,400.00 £0.35 £6,300.00 £0.40 £7,200.00
£19,000 £1,800 £0.20 £0.20 £4,000.00 £0.25 £5,000.00 £0.30 £5,700.00 £0.35 £6,650.00 £0.40 £7,600.00
£20,000 £2,000 £0.20 £0.20 £4,200.00 £0.25 £5,250.00 £0.30 £6,000.00 £0.35 £7,000.00 £0.40 £8,000.00
£21,000 £2,200 £0.20 £0.20 £4,400.00 £0.25 £5,500.00 £0.30 £6,300.00 £0.35 £7,350.00 £0.40 £8,400.00
£22,000 £2,400 £0.20 £0.20 £4,600.00 £0.25 £5,750.00 £0.30 £6,600.00 £0.35 £7,700.00 £0.40 £8,800.00
£23,000 £2,600 £0.20 £0.20 £4,800.00 £0.25 £6,000.00 £0.30 £6,900.00 £0.35 £8,050.00 £0.40 £9,200.00
£24,000 £2,800 £0.20 £0.20 £5,000.00 £0.25 £6,250.00 £0.30 £7,200.00 £0.35 £8,400.00 £0.40 £9,600.00
£25,000 £3,000 £0.20 £0.20 £5,200.00 £0.25 £6,500.00 £0.30 £7,500.00 £0.35 £8,750.00 £0.40 £10,000.00
£26,000 £3,200 £0.20 £0.20 £5,400.00 £0.25 £6,750.00 £0.30 £7,800.00 £0.35 £9,100.00 £0.40 £10,400.00
£27,000 £3,400 £0.20 £0.20 £5,600.00 £0.25 £7,000.00 £0.30 £8,100.00 £0.35 £9,450.00 £0.40 £10,800.00
£28,000 £3,600 £0.20 £0.20 £5,800.00 £0.25 £7,250.00 £0.30 £8,400.00 £0.35 £9,800.00 £0.40 £11,200.00
£29,000 £3,800 £0.20 £0.20 £6,000.00 £0.25 £7,500.00 £0.30 £8,700.00 £0.35 £10,150.00 £0.40 £11,600.00
£30,000 £4,000 £0.20 £0.20 £6,200.00 £0.25 £7,750.00 £0.30 £9,000.00 £0.35 £10,500.00 £0.40 £12,000.00
PLUS WHAT COULD DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT RECEIVED
THE ABOVE CHART IS ONLY DESIGNED TO SHOW HOW THE SYSTEM WOULD WORK
THE RATES SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY

MOTORING TAXES
ROAD FUND LICENCE and FUEL TAX
(I believe the balance between the two needs to change)
I would increase the cost of the tax disk and reduce the fuel tax with the aim over time of getting rid of the latter but collecting the same amount of tax.
1/ there are far too many vehicles on the road with the result increasing congestion (it only takes a vehicle to break down or have an accident to cause major tailbacks and serious delays).
2/ The only people you can hope to persuade to give up their cars are people who only do low mileage. By making it more expensive to put a car on the road only people who make good use it would want to own one. Transport should be thought of as an industry and the inefficient use of equipment should be discouraged.
3/ For vehicles delivering goods to shops and factories they would benifit in two ways. they would pay less tax and not get so many delays caursed by traffic hold ups.
4/ With more people traveling by Bus we would get improved Bus services and as a bonus people would get to know their neighbours better. When I was young (1950s & 1960s) I knew everyone in the road where I lived but sadly those days are gone and that is mainly down to people traveling by car.

Honestly? I think this can only backfire on the Tories... I think Mr Gove is guilty of overconfidence here, and of underestimating the growing support for his opposition.

Many people - especially (those few remaining) Lib Dem voters - will smell the fug of quite seedy manipulation and do the exact opposite of what Gove wishes. I don't imagine that the Tory right wing will like it much either.

Just smacks to me of: "we're not strong enough to go it alone, so let's make some tactical friends...". Which surely leaves Labour appearing as being the stronger party?

I'm honestly quite surprised by these comments. I'm no fan of the Tory party, but I always had Gove pegged as being the more astute among them. Guess I'm wrong (again!).

HAVE I SENT TO THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS SUBJECT?

At 4:59pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"In 2005 Labour got 9,552,436 votes, whilst what are now the coalition parties got 14,770,369. The result was Labour trampling down the economy with reckless spending (even Tony Blair is saying that these days) that would make a beserk elephant going on the rampage in a china shop seem restrained in comparison.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised Andy. And you a numbers man! While there is nothing wrong with the numbers you give you don't seem keen to present the full set. Combined votes against Conservatives approx 16,500,000. Combined votes against LibDems approx 18,300,000.
Thanks for confirming that not only did Labour have the largest number of votes for but also had the smallest number of combined votes against.
Interesting that your opinion of Mr Blair seems to have improved. He was the person in charge of the Labour government for 10 of the 13 years you often describe as a disaster. Are you sure he is an unimpeachable source?
Seems a rather desperate effort to restate the now discredited Tory Story. Give it up, Andy. No one with a brain and access to the figures is going to buy it.

Well a Tory Minister is saying 'don't vote Conservativen in Hull', which must be quite a suprise to the local conservatives. They must be puzzled as they start planning their local election campaign across the City.

Presumably with his knowing smirk he has permission from no.10, but wait for the half hearted denial.

The the aim is to plant the seed to tories who may not usually consider voting Lib Dem, its all part of the voting game, the Lid Dems are heading for a catastrophe in the local elections which could be the beginning of the end of the Coalition with Lib Dem splits. The Tories can't risk such an outcome.

So, this is the new politics, is it?... Forget policies, forget principles, just don't let labour in...

Why do the Tories even field a candidate?, for that matter why would a candidate even bother to stand, knowing he will get no support from his party? If the LD's reciprocate, the implications are mind boggling.

Die-hard Right-wing Tories will shift to UKIP or just vote Tory anyway, Die hard Left-wing LibDems will shift to Labour (according to the Opinion Polls many already have), The Tories and LD's can only stand still(if they are lucky) by propping each other up and running as a sort of Tory(plus) candidate. Many Tory(plus) Candidates will switch to independent Tories or LD's and leech support from the official Tory(plus) candidates, . UKIP and Labour's share of the vote can only go up. Seems like a risky strategy.

To paraphrase an affectation of one of the regular posters on here "Taxi for Gove"

Situations Vacant.

Wanted, "Gang of Four" LibDems to spearhead new political movement. 4 year contract, after which, a possible slide into obscurity, although any future merger may mean the retention of one position.

Duties include:-
Diverting support currently shifting to Labour from LibDems.
Developing an exciting, attractive Party brand including logo's and a name, using only the letters S, D and P.

Interested candidates should apply to:-
Conservative Party HQ.

Previous applicants need not apply.

What will happen here IMO is that a faction of Anti-Coalition (Anti Tory) Liberals will form within or outside of the party. The only ones in thier party gaining from this are those in ministerial positions. A good proportion are voting for things they fundamentally disagree with. This will be difficult to sustain in the face of pressure from the grass roots as they take the hits and the tories don't. Tory tactical voting will fade away quickly, particularly if as in Oldham it creates the impression that they are losing popular support. (the Reaction amongst Tory Activists on Con 91�ȱ� was furious at the Oldham situation)

However, the Tory Core vote of 28-32% is resilient. The LD vote is very much "anti-incumbent" based whether its Labour or Tory in Gov't.

What you have to ask is where else can the anti-incumbent voters go now?

Add another £1 billion to last government IOU to country

/news/uk-politics-12229527
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. At 6:11pm on 19 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
"Thanks for confirming that not only did Labour have the largest number of votes for but also had the smallest number of combined votes against."

Idont Believeit, what figures are you looking at, the result of poular vote in 2010 was:

Cons 10,703,754
Labour 8,609,527
LD's 6,836,824

So how do you reckon Labour won the popular vote.

Dodgy Headline Alert.

That's not what Gove said and I very much doubt that's what he meant.

That said, a common sense between the two parties of being anti-Labour was inevitable. Most thinking and patriotic people are against Labour. Labour are the worst thing that ever happened to Britain.

At 6:50pm on 19 Jan 2011, Indy2010 wrote:
-
17. At 6:11pm on 19 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
"Thanks for confirming that not only did Labour have the largest number of votes for but also had the smallest number of combined votes against."

Idont Believeit, what figures are you looking at, the result of poular vote in 2010 was:

Cons 10,703,754
Labour 8,609,527
LD's 6,836,824

So how do you reckon Labour won the popular vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't. Both AndyC555 and myself were referring to 2005 General Election not 2010, as is clearly indicated in both our posts.

21. At 6:47pm on 19 Jan 2011, Eatonrifle wrote:
What will happen here IMO is that a faction of Anti-Coalition (Anti Tory) Liberals will form within or outside of the party...

I agree with you. They have nothing much to lose and a great deal to gain. Possibly, no choice at all. 'Social Democrats'? I don't think funding would be an insurmountable problem.

One thing is absolutely certain, the Libdems as a party in their own right, thanks to Clegg, are now finished.

Good leadership requires wisdom not just ambition.

ndy C555

"Anything has to be worth contemplating to stop that happening again, especially with a buffon in charge of the Labour party who thinks the 50% tax rate should stay permanently and a second-in-command who probably thinks 50% is the rate of VAT. Or Stamp Duty. Or something or other to do with tax or National Insurance or something."

Which Buffon have you now put in charge of the Labour Party? Can`t be Comte De Buffon unless he`s a vampire, because he was born in 1717,possibly Gigi Buffon,Italian football star.Nah,the money isn`t good enough.Must be one of the illiterate Buffons,but with no entry in facebook I`m at a bit of a loss.When did the coup happen by the way? It`s not on the news.

Scrapping EMA, and manipulating votes to stay in power. What an incredibly nasty, unnecessary thing to do. Why not come up with an alternative before abandoning poor students? Can't wait until the generation currently in power gets out of the way and the next generation takes over and brings about a fairer Britain. The Tories are sure to be an extinct regime.

You're missing the point, idon'tbeleveit.

In the most recent election no party got a majority of the popular vote and so we now have a government where the most popular party has it's policies tempered by another party. I happen to think that is democratic. Under the Labour Government, despite it never havng a majority of the vote, it still trampled its will on the country.

"27. At 8:08pm on 19 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
ndy C555

"Anything has to be worth contemplating to stop that happening again, especially with a buffon in charge of the Labour party who thinks the 50% tax rate should stay permanently and a second-in-command who probably thinks 50% is the rate of VAT. Or Stamp Duty. Or something or other to do with tax or National Insurance or something."

Which Buffon have you now put in charge of the Labour Party? Can`t be Comte De Buffon unless he`s a vampire, because he was born in 1717,possibly Gigi Buffon,Italian football star.Nah,the money isn`t good enough.Must be one of the illiterate Buffons,but with no entry in facebook I`m at a bit of a loss.When did the coup happen by the way? It`s not on the news."

Oh dear. Reduced to criticisms based on typos?

Not too bright when you cut and paste my name incorrectly.

Unless such mistakes are made by you on purpose? Do you take them along to hubby to be chastised? Are you role playing Maggie Gyllenhaal in 'Secretary'? Hey, fair play to you if you are.

10. At 4:59pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"At present, the Liberal Democrats run Hull city council, Labour are the opposition and the Tories have just 2 out of 59 seats (those 2 are not up for election this May). Tory voters in Hull have just been invited to vote tactically.

"First Hull, next the rest of the UK?"

First Hull,tomorrow the world.It is a mark of the political bankruptcy of the Con_Dem alliance,they are unable to put their distinctive policies to the people, but need to stay together for electoral survival.

It`s not guarunteed,as fast as the right of the Lib-dems get in bed with the tories,support from the left leaches to Labour as it did in Oldham and Saddleworth.
Meanwhile the right of the Tory party feels abandoned,with rising discontent over Europe,law and order and patronage.

Further,the Lib-Dems cannot survive as a separate party.The leadership are too tainted by their lies,Mr.Clegg was planning to reverse promises on student fees and the deficit before the election in anticipation of a conservative majority in a hung parliament.A breakaway party will emerge with the Clegg faction joining the Tories and others joining Labour.

There is space for a centre party,but economic crisis polarizes.The drift to the right by the Lib-Dem leadership,and to the left by many ordinary members is evidence of this.

There are now two right wing parties and one party of the left.The covert calls for tactical voting by Mr.Cameron and Mr.Gove, as well as calls for a formal electoral alliance for Con-Dems, are signs of political weakness which the public are sensitive to, and the opposition will exploit because theirs is the only distinctive voice.

Its no wonder the Tories are suggesting this given they couldn't win outright after the deepest world recession in decades (its the economy stupid) and the relentless personal attacks on Gordon Brown by Tories, Lib Dems, Labour colleagues and the press (crumbs even the Observer ditched him). The Tories are gutted that Labour isn't being punished at the moment like they were back in 1997-2003 and worse that they are having to share power with the LibDems. My theory is they are attempting to destabilise the LibDems and hope that the mantra of "Labour left us broke" will lead to a Tory majority next time. The forceing through of boundary legislation is part of this.

Its no good moaning about Labour having had power with a minority of the overall vote - so has every UK government since the 2nd world war. Only proper PR will change that - that doesn't include AV which just updates our constituency approach a little bit (you might nd up with an MP who is not diametrically opposed to your views).

I see that the Ed Miliband insults are building up - looks more and more like the GB stuff all over again. Nasty and puerile.

22 Indy2010

Thanks for these to follow on from Idontbelievits at 17.

So the anti Lib-Dem vote went up from 2005-2010. Thank goodness that common sense prevailed and they got into power anyway. Sky's goanie be the limit with these new Tory votes....(although Sky decisions to be left strictly to the Tories).

31

Well, I suppose I ought to be flattered that you cut and paste words as if they are mine but they are in fact Nick's.

Surely not another deliberate 'Secretary' style mistake?

As for the rest of what you write. Starting to come across as a tiny bit desperate. The coalition is in power until 2015. Let's see who's voting for who then.

Clegg and his sidekicks in government are now seriously suffering from Stockholm Syndrome - they have become the victims of their capitivity in "coalition" - Gove supporting them in this way reveals that the next phase of turning them "True Blue" is underway - think Patty Hearst with a machine gun...

But underneath it all, the promise of a vote on AV is Clegg's only hope for some sort of a future for the LibDems on their own, having haemorraged support so that most of their vote in Saddleworth was tactical Tory.

The effect of this has been to allow the LibDem leadership to delude themselves that their electoral suppport is real - it isn't - its tactical Tory voting that can be switched off overnight - so the Tories' Stockholm Syndrome strategy feeds Clegg's delusion of being autonimous - but there is in reality now a loaded gun behind him - the Tories can turn against them and pull the rug overnight if they want to.

AV is not going to happen - Clegg is effectively saying,

"MAKE ME THE KINGMAKER FOR EVERMORE!"

We're not going to vote for that before hell freezes over because we feel betrayed by Clegg - and given the fact that he intended to do a 180 on student fees and the level & depth of spending cuts BEFORE polling day, this is a statement of fact for those of us who deceived into tactically voted for the LibDems by their (ditched) manifesto promises.

And having radicalised a whole generation against them and irreparably alienating the progressive centre-left, I'd say the LibDems are now entirely hanging by the thread of the private sector delivering 2.7M new jobs by the end of the parliament - on today's figures it clearly isn't going to - so they are facing virtual extinction at the next election once the cozy coalition tactical voting honeymoon ends and the political reality of a general election looms.

The Gove charm offensive is straight out of the psychological warfare manual on how to deal with wobbling allies - be seen to support them, but be ready to terminate them with prejudice if they show signs of walking away from the alliance.

Clegg's inner cabal is now irretrievably locked into the Tory fold - there is some hope of a political future for the remains of the LibDems, but they need to choose the point to enter open rebellion with care - leave it too late and the LibDem dog will have a bad name for the foreseeable future. Clegg himself will be ditched by his own party and joing Cameron in a realigned Tory party, which will allow Cameron to ignore the loony Rightwing.

Milliband's first serious attempt to take on Cameron at PMQs today over the NHS did at least raise the flag of rebellion - let's see who rallies to it....

With the Lib Dems having gone Clown (courtesy of Clegg), it makes sense for Cs to vote Lib Dem in places where the Lib Dems and Labour are the two electoral forces. It is, in fact, essential for this to happen (from the LD viewpoint) since the other sort of tactical voting from which they traditionally benefit – anti clowns voting LD where C and LD are the main players – this is dead. As will be the LD party if they don’t get plenty of this “Gove” type support. Guess the Coalition leaders have worked this out.

35 - great post Richard, not one I would have the patience (or ability with words) to construct.

My more simple offering - real LibDems must be hoping for a miracle - Charles Kennedy to drink his last ever dram.

Now that would be worth a vote, much more so than Gove (is it just me or does he look just a little bit like the factory owner in the Simpsons?)

5#

Hi Sout. Yes, I can happily confirm I'm not a closet one. And thank you for the compliment. Hope you're back to full health.

At 8:13pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"You're missing the point, idon'tbeleveit."

All too easy Andy with regard to many of the points you try to make.

"In the most recent election no party got a majority of the popular vote and so we now have a government where the most popular party has it's policies tempered by another party. I happen to think that is democratic. Under the Labour Government, despite it never havng a majority of the vote, it still trampled its will on the country."

But then again since we had no option to vote for a coalition, the reason why voters happened to give no party an overall majority are only conjecture on your part. You might argue that a coalition of all parties was called for but I can't see that it argues for any particular combination of two parties since all the possible combinations would represent a majority of the popular vote. Are you arguing that governments should always have over 50% of the popular vote? That there would probably always have to be a coalition of some sort?
Tactical voting, particularly if openly encouraged or formalised may be very destructive to those seeking to employ it.

37

all compliments gratefully accepted!

Gove is what the old Etonians call "an egg head" - he's perceived as SOOOO CLEVER - indeed he may well be well endowed with a sharp mind, but it's one that is obsessed with finding arguments to justify the punk politics of the New Maoists - the "smash the state" politics of libertarian English Conservatism.

As to Simpson characters, I'd say Sideshow Bob was nearer the mark myself....

Gove is quite a loose cannon on the Cameron poopdeck - because he has to attempt to understand and justify everything, that's why he took five goes at the school rebuilding programme announcement and still got it wrong - trying to square the political circle when it couldn't be done.

Michael Howard or Nicholas Ridley didn't bother with all this intellectual stuff - Anne Widdecombe's observation that there was "something of the night" about Howard got it right - to hell with analysis or worries about who it will hurt, just do it.

Gove is trying to produce an intellectual and objective justification for libertarian policies - there isn't one because its a dogma, not a reality. In the end his will to go on banging his intellect against the illogical and impractical will sap his will to go on and he'll slip quietly away into a merchant bank somewhere to make money instead.

The nadir of this mindset has to be rail privatisation - people killed by dangerously badly maintained tracks, forced re-nationalisation of RailTrack after it went bust and criminal proceedings for corporate manslaughter.

The cost of providing the service has skyrocketed out of control and fares here are higher than anywhere else in Europe - an ideologically motivated policy that has failed across the board - now back in government the Tories' response has been to drive fares even higher.

Ditto Universities - ditto NHS - ditto local government - ditto defence - the list goes on......

34. At 9:07pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
31
"Well, I suppose I ought to be flattered that you cut and paste words as if they are mine but they are in fact Nick's.
"Surely not another deliberate 'Secretary' style mistake?"

Don`t be flattered.I`m not a mind reader.Unless you attribute your quotations how is anyone to guess their source?

Why are the 91�ȱ� not covering the press story that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is being bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS. Surely this is a resignation issue?

Andy CS 555 30?34

" Unless such mistakes are made by you on purpose? Do you take them along to hubby to be chastised? Are you role playing Maggie Gyllenhaal in 'Secretary'? Hey, fair play to you if you are.

"Well, I suppose I ought to be flattered that you cut and paste words as if they are mine but they are in fact Nick's.
"Surely not another deliberate 'Secretary' style mistake?"

These remarks are offensive.You feel you have a right to make them because being a woman makes me vulnerable.What a sad little man you are.

no 42 Pete Savage "Why are the 91�ȱ� not covering the press story that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is being bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS. Surely this is a resignation issue?"
--------------------------------------------
Do you really believe the 91�ȱ� has an agenda to in any way be fair to the Coalition ? if there were any merit in your claim about Andrew Lansley it would undoubtedly be the focus of "special reports" and phone-ins ad nauseum as part of the 91�ȱ�'s "Cuts series"

Now consider this for an indication of the 91�ȱ�'s true bias:

The lead item on Sky News at 6pm was the Chief financial Civil Servant (politically independent) stating without equivocation to a House of Commons Select Committee that in his very words spending under the Labour Goverment starting from 2005 was "out of control" in (a) the Defence dept (b) NHS (c) Education Dept. He also added that the defence dept was put in "special measures" by Treasury Civil servants such was the lack of any control over costs.

The 91�ȱ� chose to lead its report instead with:

(i)another council reducing the number of employees by a few hundred (about the 20th already, will they do a special show for no 100 ?)- no mention of any compulsory redundancies, if it follows previous announcements there will be very few if any.

(ii) a very small student protest about EMA, far smaller than the previous demos which received widespread coverage for days and which already included EMA protests.

The 91�ȱ� is determined to whip up the greatest amount of anger possible about the cuts, whilst singularly failing to explain the reasons why they are essential if this country is to avoid ruin. At the same time they are failing to hold to account members of the previous government who showed a truly disgusting disregard for taxpayers money.

40 richard bunning

The nadir of this mindset has to be rail privatisation - people killed by dangerously badly maintained tracks, forced re-nationalisation of RailTrack after it went bust and criminal proceedings for corporate manslaughter.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

People have always and will always be killed on the railways. The number of deaths shows a downward trend both before and after privatisation, which does not support your view that privatisation leads to corners being cut and profits being placed ahead of safety.

Numbers below from Social Trends 30 and 40



Passenger death rates per billion passenger kilometres

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2008
Rail 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3

Nick:

In light of comments such as this one...will the 91�ȱ� look again at its policy of providing equal airtime to political parties? If the coalition is behaving as a "single party" then it would be unfair for the Conservative + LibDem Coverage to be greater than the Labour party coverge....otherwise, it would be providing greater airtime to what is essentially a political alliance. I think the 91�ȱ� needs to formally publish a policy on this to ensure that its policy of political impartiality (present company excepted - 'Mr Fair and Balanced') is clarified.

Is this yet a further example of more concepts, without thought on the detail? Sadly I see this as a trend for Cameron. His ability to make great political gains on concepts keeps getting snagged on the detail. Here we now have a senior minister apparently saying, do not vote for what you believe in. If that is the case, then the tories should stand down their candidate, as otherwise he is minimising the chance of success for the strategy. If he really does want to mobilise the tory vote, then no need to say it. Again, poor execution of strategy with undoubted "I meant to say" and so on. He must realise elections are won and lost on floating voters, not the hardcore vote; and floating voters will start to tire of all these errors in judgement and wonder what can he actually deliver on in the detail. Worse still, some hardcore tory voters may take exception to being the suggestion of being 'fast and loose' with thier vote and fail to turn up to vote at all.

"If the coalition is behaving as a "single party" then it would be unfair for the Conservative + LibDem Coverage to be greater than the Labour party coverge....otherwise, it would be providing greater airtime to what is essentially a political alliance. I think the 91�ȱ� needs to formally publish a policy on this to ensure that its policy of political impartiality (present company excepted - 'Mr Fair and Balanced') is clarified."

Oh for Gods sake.... how flamin' childish can you get??? No doubt had it been a Lib-Lab Coalition, this poster would have been asking for double the airtime, as it would only have been "fair and balanced".

There are times when I despair for you lot. Cerebrally challenged doesnt even come near it.

42. At 10:24pm on 19 Jan 2011, PeteSavage wrote:

Why are the 91�ȱ� not covering the press story that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is being bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS. Surely this is a resignation issue?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering some of the things that should have been resignation issues over the last thirteen years, but were not, this isnt even small beer by comparison. Not even in the same postcode.

I am not in favour of telling people how to vote, often it will have the opposite effect than you want, anyway.

I do however know Hull very well, it is often classed as one of the worst places in Britain to live. Poor estates and housing is a feature of this area. If you want their vote get out there and speak to the people, not just at voting time. They are sick of being ignored by all parties, a fair Hullie Gullie will always give you a hearing, no matter what party you stand for. This area is sick of being ignored, just because they are not a Liverpool or Newcastle. All around this part of Britain, including North Humberside, has for years, had difficulty with unemployment after the demise of fishing.

It is time the political elite stopped being afraid of their own electorate, and got out to see the problems for themselves, instead of just accepting that some areas are just not open to their politics.

The surprise to me is why anyone - in Hull - would want to vote for New Labour.

Gove is also protecting his own backside - he must be a prime candidate for the first chop from Dave. Dave, having emasculated the LibDems, is now in hock to them. He owes them big time for tuition fees.

If, amazingly, things turn out quite well and the mood of the nation is really behind The Coalition, and more importantly the Conservatives, in two or three years time, Dave cannot call an election without their help. Or, alternatively, the help of his grumbling backbenchers - the ones who might like to see him out of the job - not re-elected for another term in 2015.

Dave is stuck. He has created several millstones in only seven months and they are all now round his own neck. If he is forced to wait until June 2015 for a vote of confidence, unless things become absolutely fabulous, he is likely to be sunk by one or more of them.

And if things turn out badly in two or three years time, saying "We're all in it together" may just make enough people in the Conservative Party hopping mad and wanting to do a 'Hewitt & Hoon' on him.

I could be completely wrong of course ...

Hey! Let us be careful out there, today.

PS: Mods - why can I not read what RockRobin has posted?

Richard Bunning 35

A thoughtful piece,I liked your psychological parallels,Stockholm syndrome and the like.

There is a sense in which Mr.Clegg wielded the dagger against Mr.Brown(Duncan), far more effectively than Mr.Cameron.Clegg was inside the tent,Brown requested his hospitality,(support),in those debates.Clegg`s vicious rejection was an act of assasination which must have prevented many Lib-Dems from voting tactically.The venom towards Labour remains among the Lib-Dem leadership and remains a barrier to future cooperation with this clique.

Cor, Fubar! You are getting exasperated/grumpy/irate/add-or-delete-that-which does not apply.

Having a bad start to 2011?

re #27

Nice one! :-)

I didn't realise you were female when we were engaging in our little spat over inflation and have referred to you as 'he'. (Albeit in a KJV sort of way!) Apologies.

If you would like to continue the punch-up on Steffie's recent 'Inflation' Blog, I'm ready. It has been an interesting one. We've missed you.

These proposed dogmatic changes to the NHS will be Cameron's 'Iraq'.

One of the reasons why Blair was able to take us into the illegal invasion of Iraq is he wasn't questioned closely enough by the media, particularly the 91�ȱ�, to reveal the weakness of his case. To my knowledge he wasn't even asked if he would resign if WMD weren't found.

Cameron and Lansley have no mandate to privatise the NHS, particularly at a time when the NHS is receiving its highest rates of public satisfaction. They must be subjected to the closest questioning and be made to fully justify every change. They need to produce benchmarks by which the changes can be judged and be asked to accept that if the benchmarks are not met in an agreed time they will resign.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Up2snuff 54

The games people play. I thought you were smarter than that snuff.

People have short memories!

Not all that long ago Tories branded Lib Dems as far to the left of labour, a danger to the country etc etc, and there were (and still are) Lib Dem/Labour run hung councils up and down the country.

Now suddenly there's a different kind of coallition in Westminster and all that's forgotten amid shouts of "betrayal". Every one assumes that Lib dem/Tory votes are interchangable,now, jsut as they believed Lib Dem and Labour votes were interchangable before.

In 2007 a Labour government bailed out the Northern Rock and allowed the CEO, Adam Applegarth to walk away with a huge payout.

In 2009 a Labour government bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and the banking system in general, the official cost of which was estimated at £846bn (£14,000 for every man woman and child in the country).

In February 2010 a Labour government permitted The Royal Bank of Scotland (84% owned by the country) to pay its 17,200 investment bankers £1.3bn in bonuses despite losses for the year reaching £5bn across the group.

From the Labour government the following are working for banks or investment firms:
Tony Blair – Former Prime Minister
Lord Daviesh – Former Minister for Trade Promotion and Investment
Ruth Kelly – Former Secretary of State Department for Transport
Lord Malloch-Brown – Former Minister of State Foreign Office
Lord Myners- Former Financial Services Secretary
Ian Pearson - Former Economic Secretary HM Treasury
Jacqui Smith – Former 91�ȱ� Secretary
Baroness Vadera – Former Under-Secretary of State Enterprise
Admiral West – Former Under-Secretary of State Counter-terrorism

In May 2010 the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a new government.
But they have not altered, amended or removed the support for the banking system, and the bonus culture goes unchecked.

The only noticeable difference between 2007 and 2011 is an increase in:
• Unemployment
• Tax
• Inflation
• Repossessions
• Bankruptcies
• Tuition fees

There are three mainstream political parties in the UK, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats. And evidence points to a vote for them being a vote for the banking industry.

I may as well have marked my ‘X’ on the side of the wheelie bin, for all the good that it has ever done.

I wish I could vote for this lot:

40. At 10:00pm on 19 Jan 2011, richard bunning wrote:

Gove is quite a loose cannon on the Cameron poopdeck - because he has to attempt to understand and justify everything, that's why he took five goes at the school rebuilding programme announcement and still got it wrong - trying to square the political circle when it couldn't be done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It could of course also be:
1. He is not as clever as you think he is,
2. He is not as clever as he thinks he is,
3. He is outstandingly clever but not very practical or consdierate of others. When his officials were coping with the upheaval of change of Government he was asking them to instantly supply information that was not quickly to hand,
4. He is outstandingly clever but forgetful,
5. He is outstandingly clever but short-termist,
6. He is outstandingly clever but was overcome by his own hubris/the hubris of others/the excitement of the election/the excitement of his appointment/the desire to be first to 'do something', and,
7. He is outstandingly clever but some people have been playing with his brain (or he has ;-)),
8. He is outstandingly clever and has a real desire to improve education for the nations' children but, in his over-enthusiasm for a particular approach, meets caution or opposition and becomes ever-more dogmatic and 'gung-ho'.

I could add more but I have things to do, places to go, promises to keep.

'New Maoists'?

Almost worthy of a Guffaw of the Week Award ...

53#

Snuffy, theres more things that you could add to that, for definate. My old sparring pal Souter has even promoted me to the rank of Polemicist which I have to say, I'm quite enamoured by. Maybe I'll one day reach the dizzy heights of Iconoclast... ;o)

61

Morning Fubar, Now now, don't go off getting big ideas and going above your station in life. One title is enough for anyone and if you don't believe me, just ask the great Lord Mandleson!

Iconoclast... Please, just don't go there!

Re; Gove's 'qualities', he could also be very right wing and have little common sense.

Massive story Nick, well done. A great use of license payers money.
Watched Red Ed at PMQ's, how long can he possibly last. One only has to look at the labour front bench, talk about glum.

62#

I'll do my best to be 'umble, Mr N. Never promise what you cant deliver though... a lesson for our political elders and betters, perhaps?

It's called tactical voting ... vote for anyone but Labour!

People of Hull or indeed any other English region, be careful for what you wish for! This tiny little island is in greater peril than what WWII delivered, meltdown is just around the corner! Take a real hard look at all and every candidate, including their respective pasts!

23. At 7:27pm on 19 Jan 2011, Liquidfire wrote:
"Most thinking and patriotic people are against Labour."

----------

^ Yeah, and the Tea Party is that way ------------------------->

----------

44. At 11:19pm on 19 Jan 2011, beginagain25 wrote:

"The 91�ȱ� is determined to whip up the greatest amount of anger possible about the cuts, whilst singularly failing to explain the reasons why they are essential if this country is to avoid ruin."

----------

^ I know, I know.... communists, the lot of 'em.

PS: look busy, the Chinese are coming.

#51 Up2snuff
'PS: Mods - why can I not read what RockRobin has posted?'

Why would you want to?

When I vote in council elections I look for people who know and care for the community.

I'd been voting for the man who fixes my car for several successive council elections before I discovered which party he belongs to - and indeed he says he only chose it as the 'least worse' option when he felt it necessary to be part of a larger group on the council than just himself representing his ward.