Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They can see their hypocrisy but they still don't agree with it? I understand that it's a powerful human instinct to want to pass wealth on to your children. But it's really not good for them or society. Everyone should have to work for their prosperity So get rid of benefits altogether then as everyone should have to work for their prosperity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said To tax people beyond the grave is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said JSA - Something for nothing Child Benefit - Something for nothing Housing Benefit - Something for nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 To tax people beyond the grave is immoral. In your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 In your opinion It's all opinions though, what you have written is also opinion, not fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 It's all opinions though, what you have written is also opinion, not fact. I'm explaining my opinions with detailed arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 JSA - Something for nothing Child Benefit - Something for nothing Housing Benefit - Something for nothing They may have paid tax in the past or will in the future, but anyway, giving people just enough to live in a slightly less severe poverty is not the same as passing hundreds of thousands of pounds to your kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm explaining my opinions with detailed arguments That's fine, but all opinions at the end of the day. I would presume that if and when you ever inherited anything, regardless of the law you would pass it all back to the state. Whereas I would keep it and spend it, putting the money back into the state through the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They may have paid tax in the past or will in the future, but anyway, giving people just enough to live in a slightly less severe poverty is not the same as passing hundreds of thousands of pounds to your kids In your opinion. Most people who inherit money will have paid tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 A point I have made many times in the past...and been criticised for it. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-real-victims-of-londons-housing-arent-the-poor-but-the-squeezed-middle-10216845.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 JSA - Something for nothing Child Benefit - Something for nothing Housing Benefit - Something for nothing Jeff, I really don't understand your confusion on who to vote for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32540801 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Jeff, I really don't understand your confusion on who to vote for... They're just examples of other money for nothing policies - I don't think they should be cut (well maybe the threshold for Child Benefit) but I also think extending the threshold on inheritance is the correct thing to do. Just, IMO, showing the hypocrisy of this money for nothing obsession some have with inheritance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32540801 Done things like that at our nurseries for years so no change there. Pupil premium is a dumb idea though because as usual it doesn't amount to much at all per child and can be used in any way the providers see fit- so whether it helps the children in every case is up for debate. Edited 1 May, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) That's fine, but all opinions at the end of the day. I would presume that if and when you ever inherited anything, regardless of the law you would pass it all back to the state. Whereas I would keep it and spend it, putting the money back into the state through the economy. I don't begrudge people doing what's in their and their families' interest, it's human nature. But they shouldn't squeal about the government taking a portion to improve society as a whole Edited 1 May, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Done things like that at our nurseries for years so no change there. It's certainly becoming much more prevalent. Makes me want to weep some of the states some of the youngsters are in through no fault of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 It's certainly becoming much more prevalent. Makes me want to weep some of the states some of the youngsters are in through no fault of their own. My experience is it's a mix. Some good families do their best and (often foreign) children have nothing through no fault of their own. Other families have their priorities wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 From an admittedly biased source, but this is a view about the 'selection' of undecided voters for QT last night http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Done things like that at our nurseries for years so no change there. Pupil premium is a dumb idea though because as usual it doesn't amount to much at all per child and can be used in any way the providers see fit- so whether it helps the children in every case is up for debate. It's not just schools forking out for this stuff. My SiL teacher regularly buys stuff (books, PE kit etc.) for the more disadvantaged children in his class in what is a fairly affluent area with pockets of real rural poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 From an admittedly biased source, but this is a view about the 'selection' of undecided voters for QT last night http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/ To be fair, that is probably the most obvious question that could have been asked, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 To be fair, that is probably the most obvious question that could have been asked, surely? I think my point was that the audience appeared not to have been selected on the grounds of being undecided. Naughty old leftie Aunty BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 You got to think about it from their voter base and also their personal popularity. 19% for Clegg is a nice improvement on all that, so he will be happy. (his and the lib dem ratings have risen during the campaign) I quite like Clegg. History will be kind to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I think my point was that the audience appeared not to have been selected on the grounds of being undecided. Naughty old leftie Aunty BBC I don't think there is any way you could ever accuse the BBC of being biased against Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I don't think there is any way you could ever accuse the BBC of being biased against Labour. That all depends on how they performed on a BBC QT of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said Yes but I dont work hard just for me, I work hard in order to provide a better life for me and my family, be that through where they live or what I can give them so be it. In doing so I give a vadt amout into the economy every month. Why after I die should I be taxed yet again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Yes but I dont work hard just for me, I work hard in order to provide a better life for me and my family, be that through where they live or what I can give them so be it. In doing so I give a vadt amout into the economy every month. Why after I die should I be taxed yet again ? So you can be taxed less while you're alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Person A buys Ferrari out of personal savings Person B buys Ferrari by taking out huge loan from Wonga without any hope of paying it back. Person B matches Person A's spending. Whether it is affordable for either of them is an entirely different matter, In other words that article is completely meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 My experience is it's a mix. Some good families do their best and (often foreign) children have nothing through no fault of their own. Other families have their priorities wrong No doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Morning everyone! Latest compass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/29/just-43-homes-on-the-market-affordable-for-first-time-buyers-in-london?CMP=share_btn_tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I don't believe that the best house a family can afford is 125K. If they have no savings at all then maybe they should be renting instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I don't believe that the best house a family can afford is 125K. If they have no savings at all then maybe they should be renting instead. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that the best house a family can afford is 125K. If they have no savings at all then maybe they should be renting instead. Thats getting a bit close to Catch 22 - low income = no savings = have to stay in expensive rented accommodation and probably claiming housing benefit. Shared equity on a HA house is probably the best way to go for them and the taxpayer . Edited 1 May, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I don't believe that the best house a family can afford is 125K. If they have no savings at all then maybe they should be renting instead. But in all probability the rent would be significantly higher than any mortgage payment. My very real concern is this. If property prices become so unaffordable in London and the SE whether buying or renting, where on earth are the people who service those areas going to live? I'm talking catering staff, transport staff, even nurses and police. If these folk can't afford to live in those areas, then those who can will surely see a significant drop in the services they use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 They're just examples of other money for nothing policies - I don't think they should be cut (well maybe the threshold for Child Benefit) but I also think extending the threshold on inheritance is the correct thing to do. Just, IMO, showing the hypocrisy of this money for nothing obsession some have with inheritance. I'm sorry dude, but there is quite the difference in the 'something for nothing' between someone on JSA getting £50 p/w (that figure may have changed a bit, but that is what I was living on when I was on it) and getting hundreds of thousands or even millions just because you were lucky enough to be born into a family with wealth. And let's be honest, that is what it is, blind luck. I've spoken before about my experiences of being unemployed and living on benefits, it's really not a picnic. You and I have discussed this before, equality of outcome(EoOu) vs equality of opportunity (EoOp). I'm genuinely interested in how you see inheritance of sums that can change peoples lives as being compatible with equality of opportunity. When we spoke before on this, I mentioned how EoOp only works is society is an even playing field to begin with. If you have people that can do eff all, but are born into wealthy families, with the opportunity to be sent to the best schools, have everything they could ever want and more and then inherit wealth well beyond most peoples means this seems totally at odds with the idea of EoOp. It also totally negates the idea all you need to do is work hard, it's a huge hinderence to social mobility and any equality of opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Person A buys Ferrari out of personal savings Person B buys Ferrari by taking out huge loan from Wonga without any hope of paying it back. Person B matches Person A's spending. Whether it is affordable for either of them is an entirely different matter, In other words that article is completely meaningless. Apart from A and B having the same account and same means of paying it back. Don't tell me Gideon had plans to generate huge income that labour missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 You and I have discussed this before, equality of outcome(EoOu) vs equality of opportunity (EoOp). I'm genuinely interested in how you see inheritance of sums that can change peoples lives as being compatible with equality of opportunity. If you want a dynamic economy which rewards innovation and risk taking then you would abolish inheritance entirely. The trouble is what is best for society as a whole is different to what is best for your own offspring. A compromise imo would be as tax threshold not on how much you can leave tax free, but how much you can inherit / gifted during your lifetime tax free. That would mean big estates are shared between more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sorry dude, but there is quite the difference in the 'something for nothing' between someone on JSA getting £50 p/w (that figure may have changed a bit, but that is what I was living on when I was on it) and getting hundreds of thousands or even millions just because you were lucky enough to be born into a family with wealth. And let's be honest, that is what it is, blind luck. I've spoken before about my experiences of being unemployed and living on benefits, it's really not a picnic. You and I have discussed this before, equality of outcome(EoOu) vs equality of opportunity (EoOp). I'm genuinely interested in how you see inheritance of sums that can change peoples lives as being compatible with equality of opportunity. When we spoke before on this, I mentioned how EoOp only works is society is an even playing field to begin with. If you have people that can do eff all, but are born into wealthy families, with the opportunity to be sent to the best schools, have everything they could ever want and more and then inherit wealth well beyond most peoples means this seems totally at odds with the idea of EoOp. It also totally negates the idea all you need to do is work hard, it's a huge hinderence to social mobility and any equality of opportunity. Surely if the state provides EofOp, ie guarantees the same education/health/welfare etc to everyone is met your remit for a government? I'm working to provide a future for my family both whilst I'm alive and when I'm dead. If I'm going to get stung in inheritance, I'll just make sure I pass on my wealth sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Surely if the state provides EofOp, ie guarantees the same education/health/welfare etc to everyone is met your remit for a government? I'm working to provide a future for my family both whilst I'm alive and when I'm dead. If I'm going to get stung in inheritance, I'll just make sure I pass on my wealth sooner. An old Warren Buffet quote now, but one he has stuck to. Hes got it right. "My kids are going , to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do.'' But he believes that setting up his heirs with ''a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb'' can be ''harmful'' for them and is ''an antisocial act.'' To him the perfect amount to leave children is ''enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.'' For a college graduate, Buffett reckons ''a few hundred thousand dollars'' sounds about right." http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/09/29/68098/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sure I can rely on you all to interpret these words in the light of my little dot on Johnny Bognor's chart, but here are my thoughts on QT. In no particular order, the thoughts of Chairman Bletch. I thought the format was excellent. I loved that the public was allowed to ask tough questions, quickly follow-up, and shout-down the politician if they weren't answering the question. I went to a hustings event in Eastleigh last week and got the chance to ask questions, and many of the ones I asked appeared last night. I thought Miliband got more of a grilling than Cameron. I suspect this might be down to the audience being warmed up by Cameron first. Miliband answered the SNP question excellently. There was no debate about where Labour publicly stands. It seemed to completely shutdown debate on that point, and may serve him well in the final days of campaigning. That said, I don't believe him. As CB Fry said below with tongue in cheek, that trip at the end just sums him up. He's got most of the ingredients to be a great leader, but like the dog that chases Tom in the cartoons, he always seems to manage to step on a rake. Overall I get more and more impressed by his performances - coming from a low base as he was. As I mentioned before, when I see Cameron chucking out triplets of his successes and others' failures in the HoC at PMQ, it leaves me cold. It's successful at PMQ, but when I see him doing the same on the campaign trail it makes him look, I don't know, robotic, unengaged, unoriginal, a puppet of Lynton Crosby, but most of all unstatesmanlike. That said, when he wasn't doing that he performed pretty well. I think it's a shame that he feels the need to continually bring his dead child into the NHS debate. It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. I listened with interest for him to completely rule out child benefit changes, but I didn't hear an unequivocal response. Whilst Dimbleby did ask him a second time, I would have preferred that he had kept going to get that answer, but the format and the clock didn't allow for that. Clegg? Why was he there? Again, as others have mentioned he is a really good speaker, and a little like Blair he does the mock sincerity really quite well. There was one point where (I think) he was talking about foodbanks, and he broke eye-contact with the questioner for a split second to take a brief and wistful look into the middle-distance, before managing to control his obvious emotional turmoil to resume his answer. I was nearly sick in my hands. I think their campaign has been pretty well played - given the kicking they were likely to take. This banging of the "We're the buffer between the bastards and the buffons" line will, I think, protect some of their vote that might have softened otherwise. Whilst he and I irrevocably fell out over his handling of the tuition fees pledge, I thought his defence of it was very, very impressive. Impressive in a sort of "I wonder if Hitler's followers ever thought he would really kill all those Jews?" sort of a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sure I can rely on you all to interpret these words in the light of my little dot on Johnny Bognor's chart, but here are my thoughts on QT. In no particular order, the thoughts of Chairman Bletch. I thought the format was excellent. I loved that the public was allowed to ask tough questions, quickly follow-up, and shout-down the politician if they weren't answering the question. I went to a hustings event in Eastleigh last week and got the chance to ask questions, and many of the ones I asked appeared last night. I thought Miliband got more of a grilling than Cameron. I suspect this might be down to the audience being warmed up by Cameron first. Miliband answered the SNP question excellently. There was no debate about where Labour publicly stands. It seemed to completely shutdown debate on that point, and may serve him well in the final days of campaigning. That said, I don't believe him. As CB Fry said below with tongue in cheek, that trip at the end just sums him up. He's got most of the ingredients to be a great leader, but like the dog that chases Tom in the cartoons, he always seems to manage to step on a rake. Overall I get more and more impressed by his performances - coming from a low base as he was. As I mentioned before, when I see Cameron chucking out triplets of his successes and others' failures in the HoC at PMQ, it leaves me cold. It's successful at PMQ, but when I see him doing the same on the campaign trail it makes him look, I don't know, robotic, unengaged, unoriginal, a puppet of Lynton Crosby, but most of all unstatesmanlike. That said, when he wasn't doing that he performed pretty well. I think it's a shame that he feels the need to continually bring his dead child into the NHS debate. It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. I listened with interest for him to completely rule out child benefit changes, but I didn't hear an unequivocal response. Whilst Dimbleby did ask him a second time, I would have preferred that he had kept going to get that answer, but the format and the clock didn't allow for that. Clegg? Why was he there? Again, as others have mentioned he is a really good speaker, and a little like Blair he does the mock sincerity really quite well. There was one point where (I think) he was talking about foodbanks, and he broke eye-contact with the questioner for a split second to take a brief and wistful look into the middle-distance, before managing to control his obvious emotional turmoil to resume his answer. I was nearly sick in my hands. I think their campaign has been pretty well played - given the kicking they were likely to take. This banging of the "We're the buffer between the bastards and the buffons" line will, I think, protect some of their vote that might have softened otherwise. Whilst he and I irrevocably fell out over his handling of the tuition fees pledge, I thought his defence of it was very, very impressive. Impressive in a sort of "I wonder if Hitler's followers ever thought he would really kill all those Jews?" sort of a way. You had me with your analysis until the lame Hitler reference. Then I was sick in my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 You had me with your analysis until the lame Hitler reference. Then I was sick in my hands. Nothing more than two politicians reconciling a breach of trust. The two are not comparable in any other way BTT. Did I need to add that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sure I can rely on you all to interpret these words in the light of my little dot on Johnny Bognor's chart, but here are my thoughts on QT. In no particular order, the thoughts of Chairman Bletch. I thought the format was excellent. I loved that the public was allowed to ask tough questions, quickly follow-up, and shout-down the politician if they weren't answering the question. I went to a hustings event in Eastleigh last week and got the chance to ask questions, and many of the ones I asked appeared last night. I thought Miliband got more of a grilling than Cameron. I suspect this might be down to the audience being warmed up by Cameron first. Miliband answered the SNP question excellently. There was no debate about where Labour publicly stands. It seemed to completely shutdown debate on that point, and may serve him well in the final days of campaigning. That said, I don't believe him. As CB Fry said below with tongue in cheek, that trip at the end just sums him up. He's got most of the ingredients to be a great leader, but like the dog that chases Tom in the cartoons, he always seems to manage to step on a rake. Overall I get more and more impressed by his performances - coming from a low base as he was. As I mentioned before, when I see Cameron chucking out triplets of his successes and others' failures in the HoC at PMQ, it leaves me cold. It's successful at PMQ, but when I see him doing the same on the campaign trail it makes him look, I don't know, robotic, unengaged, unoriginal, a puppet of Lynton Crosby, but most of all unstatesmanlike. That said, when he wasn't doing that he performed pretty well. I think it's a shame that he feels the need to continually bring his dead child into the NHS debate. It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. I listened with interest for him to completely rule out child benefit changes, but I didn't hear an unequivocal response. Whilst Dimbleby did ask him a second time, I would have preferred that he had kept going to get that answer, but the format and the clock didn't allow for that. Clegg? Why was he there? Again, as others have mentioned he is a really good speaker, and a little like Blair he does the mock sincerity really quite well. There was one point where (I think) he was talking about foodbanks, and he broke eye-contact with the questioner for a split second to take a brief and wistful look into the middle-distance, before managing to control his obvious emotional turmoil to resume his answer. I was nearly sick in my hands. I think their campaign has been pretty well played - given the kicking they were likely to take. This banging of the "We're the buffer between the bastards and the buffons" line will, I think, protect some of their vote that might have softened otherwise. Whilst he and I irrevocably fell out over his handling of the tuition fees pledge, I thought his defence of it was very, very impressive. Impressive in a sort of "I wonder if Hitler's followers ever thought he would really kill all those Jews?" sort of a way. Forgot to add that Miliband's handling of the "Did you spend too much?" question was poor. There was a chance to take some heat and gain some credibility there. But as it's a nuanced argument, and it's late in the campaign, perhaps he had no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sure I can rely on you all to interpret these words in the light of my little dot on Johnny Bognor's chart, but here are my thoughts on QT. In no particular order, the thoughts of Chairman Bletch. I thought the format was excellent. I loved that the public was allowed to ask tough questions, quickly follow-up, and shout-down the politician if they weren't answering the question. I went to a hustings event in Eastleigh last week and got the chance to ask questions, and many of the ones I asked appeared last night. I thought Miliband got more of a grilling than Cameron. I suspect this might be down to the audience being warmed up by Cameron first. Miliband answered the SNP question excellently. There was no debate about where Labour publicly stands. It seemed to completely shutdown debate on that point, and may serve him well in the final days of campaigning. That said, I don't believe him. As CB Fry said below with tongue in cheek, that trip at the end just sums him up. He's got most of the ingredients to be a great leader, but like the dog that chases Tom in the cartoons, he always seems to manage to step on a rake. Overall I get more and more impressed by his performances - coming from a low base as he was. As I mentioned before, when I see Cameron chucking out triplets of his successes and others' failures in the HoC at PMQ, it leaves me cold. It's successful at PMQ, but when I see him doing the same on the campaign trail it makes him look, I don't know, robotic, unengaged, unoriginal, a puppet of Lynton Crosby, but most of all unstatesmanlike. That said, when he wasn't doing that he performed pretty well. I think it's a shame that he feels the need to continually bring his dead child into the NHS debate. It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. I listened with interest for him to completely rule out child benefit changes, but I didn't hear an unequivocal response. Whilst Dimbleby did ask him a second time, I would have preferred that he had kept going to get that answer, but the format and the clock didn't allow for that. Clegg? Why was he there? Again, as others have mentioned he is a really good speaker, and a little like Blair he does the mock sincerity really quite well. There was one point where (I think) he was talking about foodbanks, and he broke eye-contact with the questioner for a split second to take a brief and wistful look into the middle-distance, before managing to control his obvious emotional turmoil to resume his answer. I was nearly sick in my hands. I think their campaign has been pretty well played - given the kicking they were likely to take. This banging of the "We're the buffer between the bastards and the buffons" line will, I think, protect some of their vote that might have softened otherwise. Whilst he and I irrevocably fell out over his handling of the tuition fees pledge, I thought his defence of it was very, very impressive. Impressive in a sort of "I wonder if Hitler's followers ever thought he would really kill all those Jews?" sort of a way. Now that's just 'kin repulsive and uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Apart from A and B having the same account and same means of paying it back. Don't tell me Gideon had plans to generate huge income that labour missed? And even if he did whelkster, how would that income have magically appeared in the first 2 years of their term? Far from being meaningless, Jack Frost, I think it is a small fact worthy of bearing in mind when we now hear criticism of Labour's disastrous management of the economy. Because, surely, if the Conservatives then felt that it was disastrous to spend in the way Labour had planned, they surely would have been looking on Exchange and Mart for a second-hand Mondeo, not agreeing to keep up the payments on Labour's Ferrari? I'm not suggesting this, discrete fact blows apart some myth that Labour overspending. It doesn't. But it's also not meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/01/uk-factory-data-debunks-tory-claims-of-economic-recovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 David Cameron just committed a bit of a gaffe, describing the upcoming election as career-defining. He quickly corrected it to "country-defining", but yeah, priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I can see the Tories winning because they are getting their message over better than Labour, they have managed to turn a global financial crisis into "labour left us broke again" and it will work. I was frustrated by Millibands poor performance last night when questioned about the economy, he should have highlighted the fact that it was the uncontrolled capitalism that got the world into the mess and under the Tories the crash could have been more severe. He also should have highlighted the good the last Labour government did before the crash, except he looked like he didn't have an answer. Thatcher could always turn a question around to make her seem right even when she was obviously wrong, Milliband couldn't do that. Same for Nick Clegg, instead of apologising for making a mistake about tuition fees, he should have blamed the Tories for the policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now