saintbletch

I agree VFTT, but with that move to the centre, the SNP has equally cleverly positioned Labour as Tory-lite in Scotland. I also think this move to the centre may cost Labour in the North too (generalisation acknowledged) I think whether the move by Labour was clever will not be known until the wash-up of a) the election result and/or b) the negotiations to form a coalition/CaS government.

Also, genuine question to those with UKIP sympathies... What did you think of Nigel Farage suggesting that he offered support to Milliband, but it was rebuffed as it was conditional on Labour offering a referendum on Europe. Personally I was surprised that those who might have voted Conservative but chose UKIP, might have in fact been lending their vote to Ed.

@Johnny Bognor, genuine question - looking to debate and hear your thoughts, not deride you. You mention that your politics are centre-biased. Ignoring (if you can) their political history, if you look at Labour's manifesto, what do you see that is too far left from the centre to win your support? I ask because I personally see today's Labour party as occupying the centre ground in British politics. I recognise that we might be viewing the same thing from different perspectives, but my sense is that those truly on the left of the political spectrum feel that there is no longer a mainstream party that represents their views.

True. Do you think that Nick Clegg has a recurring nightmare where just before signing the coalition agreement, he receives a text message from the ghost of David Lloyd George reminding of that choice? I have to believe that other parties will have learned from the Lib Dem's demise, so your suggestion is surely well understood. That said, as Clegg proved, the prize is a big one and we are each, but flesh, blood and ego.

I'm not so sure it's so wide of the mark, KRG. After the debate, I saw two of the five that raised questions interviewed on Sky News. Far from being vetted as to their beliefs, they both said that they were simply asked what question they would like to ask to which leader. They suggested that their questions were un-edited, and they weren't questioned further about their beliefs. This seems to fly in the face of the assurances that David Dimbleby gave Farage - that the audience was independently selected to represent the balance of the parties. Perhaps the sympathies of the audience were inferred from their question. IF so, that is a pretty lazy way to do it, and it would be very easy to improperly influence. That said, IF the balance that the independent firm was striving for, was to reflect the 5 parties on the stage, then it would obviously have a left-of-centre bias.

Me too, Batman. After 5 years of a Conservative-led coalition, the wealthy are doing better per person than the less wealthy. It's a fact that if you have power, or an influence on power, you get something for those you represent. I don't expect the SNP to buck that truism - if they are given the opportunity. What interests me is that it looks like the effort David Cameron put into keeping Scotland as part of the UK, might have backfired spectacularly. It struck me at the time that is was odd that Cameron came out saying that he passionately wanted to keep Scotland tethered to the teat, whilst being unlikely to be significantly represented north of the border. I must admit that with the resurgence of the SNP, I was predicting an annihilation for Labour in this general election. I figured that without their Scottish Labour seats, and on the back of decent economic figures, the Conservatives would walk in to power. I wonder if the Conservative party thought the same? I think I got it wrong. I think they did too. It remains to be seen if the same efforts from Milliband to maintain the union will backfire on him too.

Yep, that's because they were defending principles they truly believed in. Milliband was saying what his party has calculated will get him elected/form a coalition. Depressing.

I think the way the rest of the panel is addressing Milliband is making him look very powerful and lending a little statesmanship to his performance. Especially when the other parties begged Milliband to work with them. I think absence might have backfired for Cameron tonight That said, Milliband is positioning himself as Tory lite now, and Nicola has 'ripped him a new one' tonight.

Did we just see a flash of the real Farage then? He appeared drained of bonhomie and without a pint in his hand, he just sounded nasty. Oh, Nige.

Heartfelt congratulations Toke. #thatsmyboy No, seriously. That's my boy. Ask you wife about her firm's Summer party. Anyway, hope Mum, Son and Dad are all doing well! Really pleased for you.

Yeah, sorry Wes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that. I was attempting to come across as as obtuse as Unbelievable Jeff's focus on smoking amongst food bank users. There should be an emoticon for "I'm being intentionally obtuse". ?

Ta. An interesting read, shurlock. It just shows that what appears like a simplistic approach that nobody could possibly argue with, might just be a simplistic approach. Some soundbites (from an article that focusses on the impact in the US of in-kind benefits from an economist and not a politician)...

What are those arguments, shurlock? Got a link?

Yes, I'd like to see more the arguments for and against a system like that. Logically it feels sensible, but I'd like to hear from people on the receiving end.

Because right now they find themselves hungry or without shelter?

Or spun another way, with each of the 10 cigarettes a day seen casually hanging from the be-lipsticked yet dehydrated lips of the food bank user, she is honourable donating cigarette duty that she can't afford to the exchequer, to temporarily appease an addiction she cannot fight. She's paying her way in tough times, despite herself. You've got to respect that. Of course she might get her cigarettes from the Black economy? Tax-avoiding slag! I can't deny your logic, but I think why you've got a bit of push back on the smoking issue is that it comes across as saying that you want to ensure that only truly needy people queue for food given away with compassion by charities. This isn't something that our taxes directly fund, so on that basis I sort of have the feeling that we lose the ability to put conditions on the use of these services. And removing all the smokers from the stats, we still have needy people. The smoking or not smoking seems to be little more than a distraction.

Oh, I see. I must have seen political bias where there was none, stug76. Anyway, unlike me, it's a good job you're open-minded, because I think I might be able to save you some sleepless nights. There was a recent referendum in Scotland that centred around whether Scotland should leave the UK. The vote was No and most commentators (that I've read) believe that the SNP has little option, but to accept that result for at least the next decade. Other commentators have said that the best result for the SNP would be to oppose a Tory minority government with a strong majority over Labour in Scotland. This, they believe would give the SNP the best chance in the next election (after this one). After all, if the devil no longer existed, even God would find herself queuing for unemployment benefit. The SNP has ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, and Labour has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP. I recognise that a political institution ruling something out doesn't carry the same currency that it once did. So there is a little risk here for you. So, this leaves one major potential scenario whereby, through some form of negotiated confidence and supply structure, the SNP agrees to protect a Labour minority against things like having budgets voted down, or perhaps votes of no confidence, but in every other issue they reserve the right to vote against the minority Labour government. So, the question is what would Labour be willing to give away for such limited confidence and supply support? Scottish independence? No, I can't see that. Removal of the nuclear 'deterrent'? No, I can't see that either. Perhaps a significant reduction? Yes, maybe. The ability to control tax affairs in Scotland? Yes, I could see that as the most likely scenario - together with some form of moratorium on the regnegotionation of the Barnett formula. I can't see the SNP holding much greater sway than that over a minority Labour government. I could of course be wrong, and we could be in for 5 years of a lefter-than-left coalition of bastard children of Robin Hood. Personally, the idea of an SNP confidence and supply mechanism dragging Labour to the Left seems like a pretty good solution. But I'd concede that I'm not longer as committed to the concept of the UK as I perhaps once was. I'd also acknowledge that I can't see such a relationship lasting the length of a parliament, but then I thought the same of this current coalition. Sleep easy, stug76. Well, easier.

Great to see you expand on your views, trousers. I know we don't always have time to do so. And the bold text above is an interesting, if subtle point. Together with the Telegraph article you linked to, it has made me think. One of the positions of the author in the article, who helps run a food bank, was that the demand for food banks is not always represented by the absolute number of food banks. I think an economist would say that in any disruptive or discontinuous 'market', demand always precedes supply. Or, as you say, the demand may well have been there under previous governments. The issue perhaps was that supply (charities like The Trussell Trust) had not as yet seen the need in the market that it could tap into. I reflected upon this, and I've concluded that you are probably correct. It makes sense to me. I suspect the first map that pap showed does not properly convey the latent demand in the market at that time for food banks. It simply shows the spread of those setup and able to meet the demand. Then I reflected a bit further, and I thought "Hold on, Bletch. There's more to this!" (I even punctuate my internal monologue). You see, I realised that as a society, and under various colours of government, we have allowed one part of our society to become reliant on charitable handouts so that they can gain the basic nutrients to continue to meet the job description of being a living human being. Now, you are also correct that this is not unique to our country. There are other countries around the world where this happens. I remember seeing films of black faces looking plaintively up at men throwing sacks of rice from the bodies of low-loader lorries, so I know this to be true. But this also didn't make me feel much better either. I then realised what the problem was. This was happening in the UK in 2015, at the same time that all major parties are promising not to raise taxes and to gouge greater chunks from our welfare state. All of them promising that the most disadvantaged in our society will be protected. I fail to reconcile these two positions. The other point Mr Aitken made in the article is that food banks have become 'politically weaponised' (my term not his). And I agree. So please don't see this as an attack on the Tories from Labour, the Tories from the Lib Dems, or any variation thereof. I just find it amazing that anyone can expend the intellectual energy rationalising the need for food banks, whilst somehow managing to completely distance themselves from the empathy that, to my mind, any human should feel for any other human legitimately forced to reach out their hands and ask others to feed them. I guess we're all hewn from different stone, and I plainly haven't walked a mile in your shoes. We have food banks handing out food to genuinely needy families (some of whom don't even smoke), in the UK, in 2015. *I hope you like the effort I went to to put what I perceive to be a social issue into a market context. x

Now that I've had a bit of fun, you deserve a better response. In the main I agree with the bold text above. I mean, if leadership debates on TV and manifesto launches barely move the entrenched positions of voters, then it'd be a bit much to expect a politics thread on a backwater, football message board to move people. That said, I do find my views swayed (if not, perhaps changed completely) on specific subjects by reading other perspectives on here.

Now, now CB Fry. I'm not sure stupid is the correct pejorative. Given that this post... ...was followed by this post... ...I'd replace stupid with hypocritical, or at a push ironic.

One thing about the RTB v2 proposal that doesn't seem to be getting too much attention is the effect of forcing councils to sell off their most valuable housing stock. Presumably this valuable housing stock will either be a) in a expensive area, or b) a large property. If that assumption is correct, then a) may well result in 'unplanned' social engineering - forcing lower income families out of certain areas, and b) may well force larger families to move away from the area completely if new large houses are not built to replace those sold off. I also recognise that the manifesto says that qualifying housing will be sold when it becomes vacant. But, how does that allow any form of timescale to be placed on the raising of these funds?Taking it to the extreme to prove the principle, what if no valuable housing stock 'becomes available' at any time over the course of the next parliament? Perhaps steps might be taken to ensure that the more valuable properties become vacant.

Interesting debate between Gove and Boulton on Sky News last night. I think Gove did a pretty good job of attempting to defend the indefensible. He's a proper politician - and I mean that in the most insulting way possible. Boulton does a good job of grilling him on the issues, and Gove fights back and obfuscates. Politician wins. Politics loses.

Whilst I might moderate the language used Wes, VFTT is right. pap's entire position on the subject is that he would never do it. I believe he was illustrating that, far from being simply an academic principle, he actually does have the option to buy his mother's house. Despite having the option, he won't do it. So asking him where his mother would live after he kicked her out is simply not relevant.

I think the issue under discussion, Nolan, is that IF you CAN raise ~£18B, why not just build the one million new houses that this could fund? Why offer what from some angles appears to be a bribe to HA tenants? Raise the cash, build loads of affordable houses. All is good. Supply and demand then would suggest that house prices would fall, as would demand for private rented properties, Landlords would then not get the same levels of capital and rental return, and would likely dispose of the investment and move the cash into something with a better return. And that is why it will never be part of Conservative policy to truly address the issue of social housing.

Not so sure papster. It's a smart move, and it might move enough voters in marginals to make a difference. Especially if Tory high command is currently identifying the HA-housed voters in those marginals, and is planning to bombard them with personalised letters and prospective MP visits. Those conversations will be alluring I'm sure. "Vote for us and this house is yours at a 25% discount, oh and we'll help you with the mortgage too". *(figures and policies plucked from thin air) It might make deeper thinkers uneasy, but where it matters it might have the desired effect.