Leading article

Why aren’t the Tories winning?

They should be miles ahead given the state of the economy, schools, the NHS

4 April 2015

9:00 AM

4 April 2015

9:00 AM

When launching the Conservatives’ campaign this week, David Cameron told party activists that the general election was ‘on a knife edge’. He is right. His chances are little better than 50/50, which is terrifying given the calibre of his opponent. The Prime Minister is entering this election with a list of achievements matched by almost no other leader in Europe. Yet he’s struggling to beat one of the least popular opposition leaders in modern times. What has gone wrong?

It’s not the economy. Employment stands at a record high, and most voters will never have lived through such low inflation as we have today. The price of food is actually falling, as is the price of petrol; it costs £18 less to fill up an average car than it did 18 months ago. Mortgage rates stand at record lows, too — the average five-year fix is a snip at 3.1 per cent. Real wages are finally creeping up, household disposable income is at a six-year high, and the recovery gathers strength all the time. From the factory gate to the high street, confidence has returned.

To lose an election in such circumstances takes quite some doing. The absence of a Tory lead is all the more remarkable given that the polls show the Prime Minister ahead on the issues of economic competence and overall leadership ability. No one has ever lost power while leading on these two issues. But almost no one is being asked to vote for David Cameron: the choice we face on 7 May is to vote for MPs of a certain party. The problem lies with the popularity of the Conservative party, whose motives are still not entirely trusted.

When Cameron arrived in No. 10, the Tories gained a Prime Minister but lost a salesman and advocate. He has not talked much about the Conservatives, and occasionally behaves as if the party is an embarrassment. Conservative membership has almost halved under his leadership, a fairly clear sign that the party was being hollowed out. Yet this was explained by his aides as a sign of the times; that people simply don’t join political parties nowadays. This is untrue, as the SNP and Ukip have proved.


Cameron would never admit it, but he has turned out to be a rather good Conservative. He has liberalised schools: there are 4,300 more Academies and 225 new free schools offering places for over 100,000 pupils (and three applications for every place). He asked Iain Duncan Smith to enact radical and much-needed welfare reform. He has modernised the health service, cutting 18,000 bureaucrats and hiring 8,700 more doctors — last week it emerged that public satisfaction with the NHS now stands at a record high. Cameron does not just have a good track record, but a remarkable one, especially given the financial constraints under which he has operated.

To what can his success be attributed? ‘I hope people see that I am a reasonable person,’ he said in a recent interview. ‘I think reasonableness is very underrated in politics.’ As he is finding out, Conservatism is also underrated. It is Conservative values which have brought about a jobs miracle, empowered teachers, revived failing hospitals and created an economy whose employment rate is envied across the Continent.

It’s also worth recording — because the Prime Minister can be relied upon not to mention it during the campaign — that the Conservatives’ university tuition fee system has also worked. It was a progressive reform: fees of up to £9,000 are being charged and repaid through a graduate tax. But a chunk of this money is set aside to help universities encourage less well-off students in whatever way they think best. As a result, England has now seen record university applications, even from poorer students. This achievement should be treated as a proud boast, not a dirty secret.

Elections are at their most exciting when they are a battle of ideas, yet too much of the Tory campaign has involved blowing poison darts at the Labour party, or tiptoeing around the views of focus groups. Paradoxically, the politicians who obsess most about elections are always the worst at actually winning them. Left or right, the great political victories tend to come from those who can articulate a clear agenda and have the courage to pursue it; who don’t just parade their achievements but explain them.

It’s not too late for David Cameron to try. As James Forsyth revealed in these pages six weeks ago, he is considering a plan to let 2.5 million housing association tenants buy their homes at a steeply discounted price. This would not only give 2.5 million people a good reason to vote Tory, but serve as a simple ad for Conservative principles: a belief in passing power from the state to the people. Mr Cameron has indicated that he could make this proposal the centrepiece of the Tory manifesto, which would electrify what may otherwise be a dull, defensive campaign.

Four years ago, an artwork by Tracey Emin was installed inside the Camerons’ Downing Street flat. It consists of two words in neon: ‘more passion’. With five weeks left until polling day, that is precisely what’s needed.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Jim Neal

    brilliant article!

  • A World of Paine

    He is not winning because true Conservatives will not vote for him

    I was until a few years ago a fairly staunch supporter of the Conservative party. I had been for about 40 or so years. I have now switched my support to UKIP.

    Nigel Farage, has pointed out one simple fact – that our politics is dominated by careerist politicians who all have the same background, think the same and sound the same. Their policies often do not chime with a large part of the electorate, but any dissent is quickly shouted down. We are insulted, denigrated, bullied or cajoled.

    Cameron, the epitome of a careerist politician, has had many years to prove himself to true Conservative voters and he failed miserably.

    He failed to win in 2010 despite the open goal presented by the prospect
    of a Gordon Brown second term. He then allied himself to a party that many long time supporters and activists despise, simply to grab the power that the ballot box had denied him. He will now fail to defeat the hapless Red Ed Milliband.

    He has failed to offer a credible and timely route that would allow the
    country to free itself from the clutches of the EU.

    He has had four years in power but has delivered merely crumbs to his
    erstwhile supporters, dashing hopes and even going out of his way to
    antagonize on occasions. He is a self serving, pro-EU liberal to the
    core and no true Conservative should ever vote for him – his word counts for nothing.

    • TruthBeatsLies

      Brilliant comment…! Trouble is, I think I have the semblance of an answer to the headline question – “Why aren’t the Tories winning…?”

      Looks like ‘Red Ed’ as you call him, lately threatens to be a much more sympathetic public communicator than “Close-Shave Dave” – aka “Dave-the Knave” and his ever-baying rent-a-gang at Westminster, hired to drown Ed out – ever imagined…!!!

      • Mary Ann

        And of course you put Ed on television where the right wing press cannot wilfully misinterpret everything he says.

    • Bert

      “His chances are little better than 50/50, which is terrifying given the calibre of his opponent.”

      There’s also the matter of the ludicrous boundaries which are in dire ned of alteration,and would have been if Nick Clegg had not welched on his AV for Boundaries change deal. The deal being, he got a vote on AV+, not a guaranteed result in his favour, for which he would support boundary change.

      AV+ vote failed – so Cleggy dishonestly threw his toys out of his pram and would oblige viz the Boundary changes.

      But I concur with your line of argument – being a long serving Conservative myself until the Euro elections two years ago. Now a staunch UKIPPER.

      • Pacificweather

        It was AV not AV+ and he needed a referendum for PR to survive politically. Having failed to get it he exacted his revenge on Cameron. Even some Tories were against the reduction to 600 MPs. There is no guarantee that the new larger constituencies would have given the Tories any advantage.

        • Bertie

          It was for a Vote on AV/AV+, not to get it passed.

          It appears, retrospectively , that Clegg expected the Conservatives to deliver a YES.

          Which was not the deal. Getting a vote on the subject was the deal, for which Boundaries were the the reciprocal favour. Clegg reneged, treacherous dishonest bastard that he is.

          • Pacificweather

            It was a vote on AV. AV+ is used to elect the Mayor for London. The LibDems wanted a referendum on PR but the Conservatives and Labour refused. Gordon Brown had agreed to support AV in a referendum and this was the the question selected. Labour went back on it’s agreement as you would expect and campaigned for FPTP. The British electorate became the only people in the history of the world to vote to continue to have two thirds of their MPs elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents.

            Several Tory MPs were unhappy with the proposal to reduce the number of MPs to 600. There would have been no guaranteed electoral advantage for the Tories as a result of the changes. The electoral advantage that Labour appeared to enjoy from the current boundaries evaporated in 2010. You can never tell who will have the post code advantage regardless of boundaries. For example, in 1983 the Tories lost 2% of the vote to give then the same percentage of the vote as Labour got in 1997. But in 1983 theTories had the postcodes and that 2% reduction in vote gave them 52 additional seats. In 1997 the same percentage of the vote gave Labour 197 seat majority the postcodes had changed in their favour. By 2005, their 35% gave them only 66 seat majority because many of the postcodes were did not approve of the Iraq war. By 2010, Gordon Brown ensured they had lost the postcodes altogether.

            The interesting thing was that in 2010 is wasn’t the Tories who picked up the postcodes it was the LibDems. So, if the number of MPs had been reduced to 600 and the boundaries completely redrawn who would have gained the postcode? We will never know. What we do know is that Britain got its second democratic government in 2010, albeit by accident, and we may get our 3rd this year. That is the only benefit of living in a postcode democracy. You may take a punt on how the postcodes will vote but you can never be sure until after the votes are counted. In Britain, all the votes are counted but only half the votes count.

            None of this information will alter your views about the LibDems.. That is what is so wonderful about Britain’s tribal politics. You can make your views known and absolutely no thought is required.

          • Bertie

            Ok, so it was a vote on AV as I said.Added the AV+ as wasnt 100% sure on exactly what it was Libdems wanted.
            The
            Libdems wanted the AV vote(not quite as good as PR,but it was clear
            this was the best they were going t obe offered) for which they would
            support the Boundaries re-assessment. Are you disputing this point?

            The events…

            “The Tories say the original agreement
            between the two parties was that they would agree to an AV referendum if
            the Lib Dems agreed to change constituency boundaries. Now the AV referendum has been lost,
            they complain, Clegg is trying to make supporting the boundary changes
            contingent on the Tories backing House of Lords reform (which many do
            not like at all).”

            “First, the Lib Dems agreed to change constituency boundaries not to
            ‘benefit the Tories’ but (1) to equalise constituency sizes to ensure
            each individual’s vote is worth more or less the same no matter where
            they live (whether in dense inner-city or sprawling countryside), and
            (2) to reduce the size of the House of Commons, something which has been
            Lib Dem policy for years.”

            Although it seems there’s been some rewriting and that the Lords reform was also required.

            Im pro reducing the size of the HoP -we simply dont need that many MPs .

            “There would have been no guaranteed electoral advantage for the Tories
            as a result of the changes. The electoral advantage that Labour
            appeared to enjoy from the current boundaries evaporated in 2010.”

            I have to dispute that as being erroneous. What has changed since 2010?If anything the imbalance has accelerated.

            The aim of boundary change,first and foremost, was to “equalise constituency sizes to ensure each individual’s vote is
            worth more or less the same no matter where they live (whether in dense
            inner-city or sprawling countryside),”

            And Tory constituencies are still overwhelming larger than their Labour or Libdem counterparts.

            The problems, giving the Labour and Libdems an inbuilt advantage still exist –

            1) Out of date boundaries and unequal seat sizes
            2) Over-representation of Scotland & Wales.
            (although this apparently only relates to Wales post 2011)

            Soin both 2005 and 2010 this anomaly of boundaries cost the Tories significantly.

            The bias in the electoral system.

            If you leave the
            Liberal Democrat share of the vote unchanged then the Conservatives need
            a lead of 11% over Labour to win an overall majority,
            while the Labour party can achieve an overall majority with a lead of
            about 3 percentage points.

            Equally illustrative are the last two general
            election results – in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3% over the
            Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats;

            in 2010 the
            Conservatives had a lead of 7% over Labour, but did not have an
            overall majority at all.

            And you’re telling me that this electoral boundary disadvantage evaporated in 2010?? Seriously?

            The facts would seem to evidence otherwise.

            Tory constituencies are still overwhelming larger so clearly the issue remains. As the 2010 election results evidenced.

            “None of this information will alter your views about the LibDems.”

            Absolutely – they’re worse than labour, but far better than the SNP. A Labour coalition with SNP is my biggest concern.

            “That is what is so wonderful about Britain’s tribal politics. You can
            make your views known and absolutely no thought is required.”

            Agree.
            pity that most voters don’t actually sit down and vote for the party
            that actually is best for Britain rather than which one will line their
            pockets more…

          • Pacificweather

            We were not privy to the discussions and so, as with the two parties, the facts are disputed. What sways me to the LibDem view point is the number of Tory MPs who were against the reduction of MPs. Not only the number but more importantly who they were. MPs I would be inclined to trust.

            The changes have only been postponed until 2018 which will give everyone a chance to review the boundaries decided by the electoral commission to see if Labour’s charge of Gerrymandering is true or false. This actually benefits the Tories because if the public did think Gerrymandering had occurred the Conservatives could end up in 2020 where the LibDems are today.

            It seems to me that you don’t understand our current electoral system. Please correct me if I am wrong. The reason that Labour got a 66 seat majority in 2015 is the same reason the Conservatives won the election in 1951 when Labour had the majority of the votes or that the Tories gained 52 seats in 1983 despite losing 2% of the votes. FPTP has turned Britain into a postcode democracy. If you have the post codes you can win an election on 35% of the votes. If you don’t, you can’t. Self evidently, the Labour party vote collapsed despite the boundary advantages you claim. What actually happened is they lost the postcodes.

            It isn’t the boundaries that cause the problem it is the fact that 52% of the votes are completely ineffective. They have no effect on the outcome of the election whatsoever. Two thirds of MPs are elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents. AV ensures the the MP is selected by the majority of the votes cast, albeit the second or third preference if there are many candidates and the first preference vote is close.

            If you want a fair system then the system used for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly (Additional Member System) gives you a local MP plus a regional MP to provide for greater proportionality. The English, not being as sophisticated as the Northern Ireland electorate couldn’t cope with the Single Transferable Vote.

            The Conservatives only need 11,000 votes to gain 22 seats but they don’t need them in my constituency or many others. They need them where the postcodes count. To win 22 seats with 11,000 votes has nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with a postcode democracy. Should they win them, those MPs will have been elected by a minority of the votes cast in their constituency.

          • Bertie

            I don’t recall a reduction in MP’s being part of the deal tbh -it was a AV vote for Boundaries change. Surprised at the Lords reform appended as that’s 2 for 1 in Libdems favour.

            “number
            of Tory MPs who were against the reduction of MPs. Not only the
            number but more importantly who they were.”

            So not really sure how this little piece of information would sway you one way or not. I don’t trust Clegg whatsoever. Saying that I’ve only slightly more trust in Cameron. David Davis was my man for leadership – hard working, possessing probity, discipline and integrity. I say that as a Public school boy myself btw.

            “It seems to me that you don’t understand our current electoral system.Please correct me if I am wrong.”

            Eh you claimed the boundaries had no effect – which I illustrated was a wrong assumption on your part.

            The bias in the electoral system.

            If you leave the Liberal Democrat share of the vote unchanged then the Conservatives need a lead of 11% over Labour to win an overall majority, while the Labour party can achieve an overall majority with a lead of
            about 3%. (Effect of the boundaries surely – and the relative small size of Labour constituencies compared to their Tory counterparts? Merge 5+ Labour constituencies so that they are comparable and Labour loses significantly)

            Equally illustrative are the last two general election results – in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3% over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats;

            in 2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7% over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all.

            And you’re telling me that this electoral boundary disadvantage evaporated in 2010?? Seriously?

            The facts would seem to evidence otherwise.

            Tory constituencies are still overwhelming larger so clearly the issue remains. As the 2010 election results evidenced. How has this inbuilt bias changed?

            Surely the postcode argument is part of the constituency size problem. Too many areas(postcodes) with far smaller population numbers such that an average constituency size for Labour is 20-30% that of a Tory one..

            “Self evidently, the Labour party vote collapsed despite the boundary advantages you claim. What actually happened is they lost the postcodes.”

            So the boundaries advantage labour enjoyed PREVENTED their collapsing vote from feeding through, the result being no majority Govt for the Tories which, if the roles had been reversed, would have seen Labour romp home – as 2001 and 2005 illustrated.

            So you have essentially illustrated that a massive shift to the Conservatives doesn’t fed through DIRECTLY DUE to the boundary layout, as I claimed!!! Glad we’ve sorted that out.

            “It isn’t the boundaries that cause the problem it is the fact that 52% of the votes are completely ineffective.”

            Eh no as I have illustrated it is precisely because of the outdated boundaries that Labour’s vote can collapse but the boundary advantage props them up and prevents a Tory majority.

            “Two
            thirds of MPs are elected by a minority of the votes cast by their
            constituents.”

            I’m ALL for redrawing the boundaries, after re sizing them such that most constituencies of similar size. This will see many Labour ones subsumed into one new larger body,and the loss of 3-4 MPS on each occasion.

            Thereby ending the boundary disadvantage experienced by the Conservatives.

            “AV
            ensures the the MP is selected by the majority of the votes cast,
            albeit the second or third preference if there are many candidates
            and the first preference vote is close.”

            You’re clearly a fan of AV – I’m most certainly not. We’d get even more nutjobs such as Bennett of the Green Party(I presume you heard her debacle of a radio interview) and much more volatile coalitions along the lines experienced by Italy

            “The
            English, not being as sophisticated as the Northern Ireland
            electorate couldn’t cope with the Single Transferable Vote.”

            Tad racist that remark.

            “The Conservatives only need 11,000 votes to gain 22 seats but they don’t need them in my constituency or many others. They need them where the postcodes count. To win 22 seats with 11,000 votes has nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with a postcode democracy. Should they win them, those MPs will have been elected by a minority of the votes cast in their constituency.”

            And you think that’s more unfair than……..

            Equally illustrative are the last two general election results – in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3% over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats;

            in 2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7% over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all.

          • Pacificweather

            I admire the way you avoided all the inconvenient facts I presented to you and the ones you selected you completely failed to understand. You wouldnt have done that willfully would you? No, of course not. You are an Englishman.

            There is no cure for monomania or poor arithmetic but if you go the Electoral Commission web site and download spreadsheet for the election results for 2005 election you will be able to do the calculations yourself or get someone to do it for you. I do admire your dedication to political tribalism though. Definitely saves time doing the arithmetic. I would like you to get your wish for a minority elected government but I think there is a very good chance that there may be another democratically elected one. Two or three in 85 years isn’t so bad is it? Surely you can put up with that. Things will soon be back to normal.

          • Bertie

            What inconvenient facts? I was the one giving you them – the outcomes of the last two elections.

            Here ‘s another fact for you.

            Conservatives are 1% ahead in the polls, 35% vs 34% yet the forecast number of seats is Labour 277, Conservatives 264.

            https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre

            How is that even fair?

            Clearly It reflects the boundary issue – and most political commentators say the “boundary affect” is still significant. So not sure why you disingenuously claim it has dissipated in effect since 2010 to now be so miniscule as to be unworthy of attention.

            “There is no cure for monomania or poor arithmetic but if you go the Electoral Commission web site and download spreadsheet for the election results for 2005 election you will be able to do the calculations yourself or get someone to do it for you”

            Why do I need to do that – the facts are, re the 2005 election, in public domain.

            2005 Labour had a lead of 3% over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats.

            Do you dispute this?

            2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7% over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all. Again, FACT.

            Much of the discrepancy is down to the ludricrous boundaries which are solely in need of updating.FACT

            So just which inconvenient facts am I ignoring then?

            “but I think there is a very good chance that there may be another democratically elected one.”

            How is it democratic for a party that represents barely 5% of the electorate of the UK will, due to Scottish idiosyncracies, be dictating in a hung parliament what does, or does not get done…

            Is that what you think democracy is? Tinpot extreme parties getting far more influence than they otherwise would?

            Scottish are you perchance?

          • Pacificweather

            You ignored 1951 and 1983. You want two MPs for the Isle of Wight. You want an organisation that is supposed to be neutral to Gerrymander the boundaries for your party not the other party by looking at how people vote not merely to ensure the constituencies have the same number of people. You want them to do this every five years before every election even if the Tory share of the vote diminishes. You want them to undertake this mammoth task rather than having a democratic electoral system that has no boundary dependency. Something you utterly reject. You ignore the fact that Labour Lost the election and your party formed the government on using the same boundaries. If that isn’t monomania I don’t know what is.

          • Bertie

            I didnt see your comments regarding 1951 or 1983.

            “You want two MPs for the Isle of Wight.”

            No – where did I say that?

            Frankly they shouldnt even have one MP imv, but instead be represented by a suitable constituency Hampshire shire.

            “You want an organisation that is supposed to be neutral to Gerrymander the boundaries for your party not the other party by looking at how people vote not merely to ensure the constituencies have the same number of people. ”

            And there’s that straw man again – where did I say that? I actually disagreed witht eh Tory MP’s not wanting a reduction in MP numbers. Remember? No of course not given your remark above.

            Constituencies should be amalgamated where its obviously sensible to do so.And its no longer a case of having constituencies with similar numbers as they are so out of kilter – Labour ones are ALOT smaller, fact.

            “You want them to do this every five years before every election even if the Tory share of the vote diminishes. ”

            And where did I say that?

            The boundaries havent been changed for decades so is long overdue. It certainly doesnt ned to be done every 5 years.

            “You want them to undertake this mammoth task rather than having a democratic electoral system that has no boundary dependency.”

            And how is the SNP having influence far greater than their polling in any way democratic then? How is giving small extreme parties a far bigger say than they would otherwise get fair?

            “Something you utterly reject.”

            I’m all for democracy – so quite why you claim I reject it bemuses. In fact I’d go as far as to say I’m probably more inclined to democracy as I’m thoroughly against the EU and its current method of operations.

            “You ignore the fact that Labour Lost the election and your party formed the government on using the same boundaries.”

            Eh my party formed the last government – it couldnt do so without a coalition, which is precisely my point. If Labour had polled as the Tories did in 2010 then they’d have had a sizeable working majority (Boundaries,and constituency sizes still in their favour.)So I am not actually ignoring anything,not even your blatant obfuscation and trolling…..

          • Pacificweather

            Disqus hasn’t erased my comments on 1951 and 1983. Go back and look at them. If you don’t understand the Isle of Wight comment you don’t understand the present boundaries. Unlike the Conservative party you rejected the reduction in the number of seats to 600. You didn’t recall it you said. Was it another inconvenient fact? Mr Cameron has a better memory than you do. Reducing the numbers would solve the IoW problem. But having, said that, you want the whole of Hampshire as one constituency. You are all over the place. You reject doing the work on real data and prefer your own propaganda sources. You are now so desperate that you accuse me of trolling merely because I could be bothered to do the work and you cannot. Be proud of your unthinking Tory affiliation but don’t expect others not to think and evaluate the data. Even fellow Tory voters.

          • Bertie

            “Disqus hasn’t erased my comments on 1951 and 1983. Go back and look at them.

            I never said they did- just that I didnt see them.

            “If you don’t understand the Isle of Wight comment you don’t understand the present boundaries.”

            You IOW comment was a dig suggesting I only wanted boundary changes where it didnt affect my party. Which clearly my response adequately illlustrates that not only am I all for MP numbers being reduced, I am also that way inclined even if it sees a Tory MP lose his seat.

            “Unlike the Conservative party you rejected the reduction in the number of seats to 600. You didn’t recall it you said. Was it another inconvenient fact?”

            What?

            Only some of the Tory MP’s rejected it,and I most certainly said I did not agree with them – I am, and always have been. ALL FOR a reduction in the number of MP’s

            Why are you lying and claiming I rejected such a reduction?

            So no inconvenient facts, just you lying about what I said or did not say. Quelle surprise.

            “But having, said that, you want the whole of Hampshire as one constituency.”

            Nor did I say that, either. Why are you being so disingenuous. Either that, or you are unable to read.

            Show me where I claimed that.

            “You are all over the place. You reject doing the work on real data and prefer your own propaganda sources.”

            How is

            https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre

            conceivably an unacceptable source, one that is far more likely to have assessed real data than you, or I

            “You are now so desperate that you accuse me of trolling merely because I could be bothered to do the work and you cannot.”

            I have shown you plenty of factual information evidencing why the boundaries still play a massive part in preventing the Tories from getting a working majority and how it favours labour. You chose to ignore them all – hence the trolling remark.

            “Be proud of your unthinking Tory affiliation but don’t expect others not to think and evaluate the data. Even fellow Tory voters.”

            I’m not a Tory voter.

            so that’s you incorrect yet again, caught spinning disinformation and outright lies.

            Clearly you are a Scot.SNP as well no doubt.

          • Pacificweather

            Time for your response on the 1951 election result.

            We’ll save 1983 for when I get back from the land of the brave and the home of the free. I notice your silence on voting systems with no boundary impact. It’s that monomania isn’t it?

            Whilst I’m away have a look at the size of the population of the IoW and compare it with any urban constituency (a large Labour one will do). I shall expect numbers.

          • Bertie

            “I notice your silence on voting systems with no boundary impact.”

            What voting systems would they be?

            I’ve already told you I am against AV – for obvious reasons,which I clearly stated.I’m against AV+, Proportional representation blsah blah. FPTP is fine.

            Also noticed that you NEVER answer any of my questions.

            “Whilst I’m away have a look at the size of the population of the IoW and compare it with any urban constituency (a large Labour one will do). I shall expect numbers.”

            And the relevance of that comment is?

            I’ve already told you that because it is such a small island it shouldn’t have 2 MPs, let alone one,but instead be subsumed into one of the Hampshire ones. makes far more sense.

            So what exactly is your point? That a large Labour constituency is far bigger than IOW -I know that it isnt as the Population of IOW imakes it the largest constituency. A large Tory constituency is however, generally far larger than a large Labour one, across the board in most instances. And the average Tory constituency is generally generally larger than an average Labour one.The facts are a boundaries change would be very detrimental to Labour – as indeed would Scottish independence!! Nor am I averse to making changes to the boundaries where they would be detrimental to the Conservatives of such changes are the fair and just thing to do. So unlike yourself I am not the type of person who wants to “have my cake and eat it” so to speak.

            Your point? Other than trolling.

            You’re Scottish arent you?

            We are done. You clearly are not interested in discussing anything that runs contrary to your myopic self indulgent left wing inclined opinion.

          • Bertie

            Returning to your claim that the boundary issue has had little impact since 2010 – a claim I disputed.

            Dated only this month
            3rd Paragraph

            “Constituency size bias and the lack of boundary reforms favour Labour, who would need to poll around 7% less of the total vote than the Conservatives to attain the same amount of seats.”

            Cough, cough,splutter.

            Guess that claim of yours was a tad erroneous.

            Quite a balanced article. So claims of partisanship wont hold.

            Have a nice day.

            http://whichinvestmenttrust.com/uk-general-election-2015-how-it-might-affect-investments/

          • Pacificweather

            That well known expert on the British democratic process Which Investment Trust. I still you are still using a third party to do your thinking for you. What the article explains to you if you read it properly is that the FPTP system is not democratic and subject to variations. Sometime the variations favour the Conservatives as in 1951 (when Labour got the most votes but the Conservatives got the most seats) and 1983 and sometimes they favour Labour as in 2005. For the entire period from 1951 onwards it has been the Electoral Commission’s job to keep the boundaries to ensure a similar number of votes in each constituency ( except the IoW). However, the voters are perverse. They change their minds. Recover the Falklands and a 2% reduction in votes gives you 52 Consevative seats. Invade Iraq and 36% of the vote gives you a 66 seat majority. What you are trying to do is justify a piece of electoral insanity perpetuated by an electorate who either do not understate it or really hate the idea of living in a democracy. Which of these categories do you fall into?

          • Bertie

            So what non third party sources are you using to evidence your claim that “the Boundaries issue” no longer has an impact post 2010 – as you claimed?

            You’re wrong, just admit it. As it stands things are grossly unfair to the Conservatives, in favour as they are, of Labour.

            As the report shows. What’s your beef with Which Investment as a source?

            “Sometime the variations favour the Conservatives as in 1951 (when Labour got the most votes but the Conservatives got the most seats) and 1983 and sometimes they favour Labour as in 2005”

            I think you’ll find that the boundaries havent favoured the Conservatives since 1983 BECAUSE of the immense demographic change this country has undergone over the last 32 years.And thus is why boundary reform is urgently needed. The effects in 1953 were marginal compared to their impact now.

            I never disputed that FPTP was not democratic – I merely said I didn’t believe a proportional representation system was a better solution as it’d result in electoral impasse – then we’d be as much a basket case as Italy which its frequent changes of government…

            “What you are trying to do is justify a piece of electoral insanity perpetuated by an electorate who either do not understate it or really hate the idea of living in a democracy. Which of these categories do you fall into?”

            Ideally I’d prefer democracy but PR, which I gather you are all for is not the solution to achieving this in my view. Government would come to a stand still due to all the incessant bickering,as it has in Italy.

            I also don’t think nutters such as the Greens should be given any opportunity to get their mitts on power.

            Listen to this – absolutely comical. And this is the leader of the party.

            http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384#KBiswSjQ6LtMIy9D.97

            Perhaps it might be worth trying out though. I’m all for a fairer society which has become far too lop sided.

          • Pacificweather

            Let us suppose you are on the Electoral Commission. Explain to me the mechanism by which you will give parties boundaries that will ensure that the number of MPs is equal to the votes received by the parties. How will you know how people are going to vote prior to the election in every street in Britain when even different polling companies can’t agree based on a sample of 1000 people. You reject the simple solution in favour of the impossible solution. But if you can explain a working method then I will concede the point.

          • Bertie

            “Let us suppose you are on the Electoral Commission. Explain to me the mechanism by which you will give parties boundaries that will ensure that the number of MPs is equal to the votes received by the parties.” ”

            Rather pointless exercise as the experts have already drawn up suitably considered proposals – it’s just getting them passed which is proving to be the issue because of Libdem reneging.

            You reject the simple solution in favour of the impossible solution”

            What’s the simple solution? Don’t recall you ever pointing out your chosen methodology.

            PR isn’t it?

            I am coming round to that way of thinking after hearing that The Green Party , with 8% of the popular vote will only get 2 MP’s, UKIP with 13% of vote will only get 2 MPs but the SNP, with 4% of the popular vote will get 50.
            This outcome seems ludicrous. Perhaps FPTP has had its day as voting patterns become more and more diverse.

          • Pacificweather

            When you refer to the work having been done I presume you are referring to The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 and the one for Wales. These also answer your question about why the 2005 election boundaries are not relevant today. These even up the constituencies in number of voters but make no attempt at proportionality because it is clearly impossible. I would dearly love to learn your proposals for that. I notice you showed no dismay at the 1951 election result which seems to demonstrates a a desire for partisanship rather than democracy.

            The electorate in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland do not use FPTP for their Assemblies and Parliament so perhaps it is time that the English caught up. The only democratic election they have is for the EU Parliament.

          • Bertie

            “When you refer to the work having been done I presume you are referring to The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 and the one for Wales. These also answer your question about why the 2005 election boundaries are not relevant today.”

            So how come many sources , including the Which

            Investment one I gave you the other day place significant emphasis on this discrepancy – and why, if they’re not relevant were the Conservatives looking to get them changed??? Your claim doesn’t add up, unsurprisingly.

            Personally I’d make the constituencies far far larger by axing 50% of the MP’s -we simply don’t need the current numbers.

            “I notice you showed no dismay at the 1951 election result which seems to demonstrates a a desire for partisanship rather than democracy.”

            I didn’t bother because, as I have illustrated, there are many sources that still claim the boundaries, and thus constituency sizes, are as relevant today as they were in 2010, or 2005, or 2001 despite you claiming they were not. And that was the focus of our discussion.

            Personally I don’t see how a party with 4% of the popular vote should effectively determine government policy. Which is exactly what we are going to get. A coalition of the left, spend free, which is the last thing we need after 5 years of austerity – guffaw. What austerity, we’ve added £700 billion to the national debt.. If that’s being austere I dread to think what profligacy will entail.

            “The electorate in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland do not use FPTP for their Assemblies and Parliament so perhaps it is time that the English caught up.”

            It’s certainly time for an English only parliament, to discuss English only matters. I notice however that Ms sturgeon says , given England’s size, English matters affect Scotland so they see no problem interfering…

          • Pacificweather

            It’s not my claim. It is what the Electoral Comission does by statute. Read the Order and see for yourself. Why did you go to other sources when you have the definitive and obvious source available? Journalist have their own agendas so, as you may have noticed, and don’t always tell the truth. Many are also lazy and as are as likely to repeat a myth as the next person. You like the myth. It’s comforting to have a reason why your party didn’t get a majority of seats on 36% of the vote. Thinking how ridiculous and undemocratic that any party should get a majority of seats on 36% of the vote is not going to be the first thought that pops into your head if you are committed to one of the two main parties more than you are to the idea of democracy.

            Why did Cameron want to reduce the number of constituencies? Your guess is as good as mine. His Minister claimed it was to make Parliament more effective. In fact, when question by members of his own party, the Minister could give no reason for selecting 600 rather than 550 or 400. Perhaps, having failed to secure a majority of seats on the 2007 boundaries he felt a an extra bit of gerrymandering was required but if he went too far it might become obvious or even counter productive. Also, his MPs were restless because they saw increased constituency work looming. There is only a certain price an MP will pay to have his party in permanent government. If he had given the LibDems the House of Lords reforms they wanted then he would have got it the bill passed. I would bet if the Conservatives win a majority in this election the bill will not be resurrected. The other consideration is that the pressure to change from FPTP would return again which the two main parties fear. You can’t go on having governments with a majority of seats on 36% of the vote without the electorate eventually waking up and crying foul.

          • Bertie

            “If he had given the LibDems the House of Lords reforms they wanted then he would have got it the bill passed. I would bet if the Conservatives win a majority in this election the bill will not be resurrected.”

            The deal was for a vote on AV – it didn’t include Lords Reform as well – that, or, the importance of boundary change key given the Tories were willing to give two concessions to achieve it. Which is it? If Boundary change is not at all important(despite it clearly being so) there is no way Cameron would have given two concessions.

            If there’s a Tory majority(highly unlikely) then its a fair bet the Bill for Boundary reform will being sought. We will never know as the chance of a Conservative majority is not even remote,but non existent.

            “The other consideration is that the pressure to change from FPTP would return again which the two main parties fear. You can’t go on having governments with a majority of seats on 36% of the vote without the electorate eventually waking up and crying foul.”

            Given voting turnout is barely more than 40% perhaps making the vote compulsory would end any such government having such a precarious position. Far too many don’t even bother.

            Also I suspect having a party with 4% of the popular vote (SNP) wagging the tail of Milliband to get numerous concessions will be the downfall of FPTP myself. Many in England wont take kindly to be told what to do by a bunch of self serving sweaties.

          • Bertie

            I also notice that you nearly never answer my questions.

            What sources do you use then to evidence your claim that “the Boundaries issue” no longer has an impact post 2010 – Remember that claim?

          • Pacificweather

            I believe I have answered that question below in reference to the 2005 election results and the 2010 election results demonstrate the effect.

          • Bertie

            So you’re for PR.

            Are you not concerned that this will give undue influence to extremist parties?

            Eg Greens. – If you’ve any doubt about how nutty they are this is their leader pontificating over the cost of building houses etc

            http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384#KBiswSjQ6LtMIy9D.97

            We’d also have far less stable governments, akin to the Italians.

          • Pacificweather

            The Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish PR elected governments are stable and their electorate does not consider them extreme.  Even you could not deny the benefit that has brought to N.I.  Unlike the UK, the Scots have a majority elected government  using PR.  The UK hasn’t had a majority elected government since 1931 (except by accident in 2010).

            Finland, Germany and Switzerland (to name but 3 countries) are stable and prosperous.  Belgium once took over a year to form a government but my Belgian friends tell me that not having one was better than having one.

            Two or three Green MPs aren’t going to build more wind turbines than the Tory electricity subsidy farmers.  If they have any effect on government at all it would be a miracle.  If they managed to remove the employer subsidies the major parties are so fond of they would save the taxpayer £12.9 billion a year.  However, you just have to think of the effect the N.I. MPs have on the government to realise you are worrying about nothing.

            I realise I am in the minority (about a third of the electorate) but I would like to have an effective vote.  I am, and have always been for the last 40 plus years, one of the 52% whose vote is ineffective except in the EU elections.  Having two thirds of MPs elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents is not calculated to give them commitment to the interests of the majority of the electorate.  We see that in their reluctance to ensure we have an open and transparent energy market for example which would benefit the majority not the few.  

            Is it eccentric to want to have a democratically elected government in the 21st century? My countrymen think it is and it seems you agree with them.

          • Bertie

            “The Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish PR elected governments are stable and their electorate does not consider them extreme. Even you could not deny the benefit that has brought to N.I. Unlike the UK, the Scots have a majority elected government using PR”

            The benefit brought to NI? What, the sell out to the IRA? And the appeasement of terrorists whilst at the same time prosecuting soldiers who were doing their duty for the crown.

            Unlike the rest of the UK England is both far larger and has a wider variety of “colourful political parties”, especially those at the extremes. You’d be okay with PR even if it resulted in the SWP, EDL,BNP and their ilk securing several seats would you?

            “Finland, Germany and Switzerland (to name but 3 countries) are stable and prosperous.”

            We aren’t Finland, Germany or Switzerland. More akin to Italy,Greece where it to come to PR going froward I fear.

            “Two or three Green MPs aren’t going to build more wind turbines than the Tory electricity subsidy farmers.”

            Woudn’t be so confident if I were you as LibLabCon’s all for wind turbines despite the added cost to consumer bills to subsidise them…..

            “If they managed to remove the employer subsidies the major parties are so fond of they would save the taxpayer £12.9 billion a year. ”

            Farmer subsidies amount to £12.9bn? Any evidence to that.Or are you claiming Electricity subsidies in total, or just to farmers, amount to £12.9bn? Only ask because your sentence preceding the one I linked didnt make sense. eg Your “Two or three Green MPs aren’t going to build more wind turbines than the Tory electricity subsidy farmers.”

            “I realise I am in the minority (about a third of the electorate) but I would like to have an effective vote. I am, and have always been for the last 40 plus years, one of the 52% whose vote is ineffective except in the EU elections.”

            Your vote has been ineffective except in EU elections…
            Which party do you vote then?

            I dont vote Conservative btw, viz your partisan comment previously.

            “Is it eccentric to want to have a democratically elected government in the 21st century? My countrymen think it is and it seems you agree with them.”

            I’m undecided but lean more to maintaining the Status quo with over due boundary changes to reflect demographic shifts in the last 20+ years but am open to being convinced.

            I certainly don’t want a country where 4% of the popular vote gives a party 53 seats and far too much say on how the other 60 million people in the country are thus effectively governed. Additionally I beleive we have far too many MPs – 50% less would be much more manageable.

          • Pacificweather

            You don’t process information very well. I don’t think there is a cure for that. How did you translate employer subsidies to farmer subsidies? The total of employer subsidies (just given on Newsnight) is £34 billion but some of those are long standing like social housing rents, child benefit and part time workers. The £12.9 billion per annum is for those in full time employment (ONS figures for 2013). That figure was zero 20 years ago.

            You say you don’t want a country where 4% of the vote gives 53 seats but you are happy with a country where a reduction of 2% of the vote gives an additional 52 seats. On what level does that make any sense?

            Under PR, 4% of the vote can only give 26 seats in a 650 seat parliament and 24 seats in a 600 seat parliament. I think I now understand why you did not want to look at that election result spreadsheet.

            The British always lean towards maintaining the status quo which is why an EU in/out referendum is pointless (although I think we should have one just to put the wind up the multinationals).

          • Bertie

            “You don’t process information very well. I don’t think there is a cure for that. How did you translate employer subsidies to farmer subsidies?”

            Read your sentence again – if you are unable to write cogently such that someone doesn’t get a mixed message don’t be surprised when they ask you what you are saying..

            Your comment was:
            “Two or three Green MPs aren’t going to build more wind turbines than the
            Tory electricity subsidy farmers. If they have any effect on
            government at all it would be a miracle. If they managed to remove the
            employer subsidies the major parties are so fond of they would save the
            taxpayer £12.9 billion a year.”

            You wrote – Tory Electricity Subsidy farmers.

            For a start that doesn’t even make sense, hence my confusion at what you were trying to say in the first instance! And your immediate launch into the employer subsidies gives the impression it is part of whatever incomprehensible gibberish you wrote just prior. Given your inability to write cogently is it any surprise someone has difficulty understanding what you meant and therefore makes assumptions.

            I don’t watch Newsnight so would have no idea what these £34bn employer subsidies are that you pull out as evidence of your previous comment – The £12.9 billion per annum is for those in full time employment (ONS figures for 2013). Superb. What a waste of money – no wonder this country is drowning in debt.

            “You say you don’t want a country where 4% of the vote gives 53 seats but you are happy with a country where a reduction of 2% of the vote gives an additional 52 seats. On what level does that make any sense?”

            The 1951 election is irrelevant in the big scheme of things as it was not only so long ago, but the demographics and constituency sizes have changed beyond recognition since then – as has the composition of the UK.

            Nor did I say I was happy about the outcome -that was just you erroneously assuming.

            So which party do you vote for then if your vote has consistently been worthless…

            “I think I now understand why you did not want to look at that election result spreadsheet.”

            Eh, what? You’re making things up again… If you aren’t going to stick to the truth and claim I believe in something, or said something, then we are done. I’ve better things to do that communicate with someone who lies.

            “The British always lean towards maintaining the status quo ”

            Precisely – gold star for FINALLY saying something that chimes with why I have the opinion on PR I do …well done.

            “which is why an EU in/out referendum is pointless (although I think we should have one just to put the wind up the multinationals).”

            And you dont think we should have one for “Democratic” reasons????

            No one under th age of 65 has had a vote on the “common market” let alone a political union, and here you are faffing about on FPTP vs PR, but you want to keep democracy away from the British people on a far more important issue!!!!

            Classic.

            You must be a voter for the Communist party or SWP. Know I know why youre reluctant to reveal which party you vote for.

          • Pacificweather

            1983 not 1951. The same effect occurred in the 2010 election (this will please you) the LibDems gained an additional 1% of the vote but lost 5 seats.

            It isn’t my fault you don’t understand how taxpayers’ money is spent.
            Like you, I don’t vote Conservative. I have an ineffective vote, if you remember, so I can’t vote for anyone to any effect except in the EU elections. If you don’t vote Conservative why are you so concerned that the electoral system has finally failed them. Who are you going to vote for this time? As usual I shall add my candidate to the ballot paper “PR OR NOTHING”. It has the same effect as 52% of the votes. No effect.

            So you did look at the election result spreadsheet. Well done. So now you know what I told you was true. You can keep communicating with me. That’s good. I would miss our little chats.

            Voting for the status quo is a virtue in your book it seems. Did you know that the British are the only people in the history of the world ever to have voted in a referendum to continue to have two thirds of their MPs elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents?

            If UKIP supporters hadn’t voted for the status quo they would be getting sufficient seats in this election to ensure that there was an in/out EU referendum. As they didn’t they won’t. It is a shame when people only focus on one aspect of democracy. It allows the politicians to run rings around them.

          • Bertie

            “It isn’t my fault you don’t understand how taxpayers’ money is spent.”

            That’s a rather arrogant remark – I’m well aware where a great deal of taxpayer money goes, how we are spending far more than we earn, and thus, have been adding £100bn per annum to the national debt, now at £1.4trillion.

            Clearly this is a pet project or yours hence your extensive research.

            “Like you, I don’t vote Conservative. I have an ineffective vote, if you remember, so I can’t vote for anyone to any effect except in the EU elections.”

            Ah youve finally accepted I am not a Conservative. You STILL have a vote, whether you believe it is effective or not. So come on – spill the beans. Why so evasive on who you vote for. Unless you’ve something to hide, of course.

            “If you don’t vote Conservative why are you so concerned that the electoral system has finally failed them.”

            Why do you think?

            “Who are you going to vote for this time? As usual I shall add my candidate to the ballot paper “PR OR NOTHING”. It has the same effect as 52% of the votes. No effect.”

            So you dont actually vote for anyone but spill your ballot – defeatist. So who do you vote for at the EU elections where your vote has some effect then?

            Who am I voting for? The same party I have voted for for the last 5 years at both GE and EU.

            “Voting for the status quo is a virtue in your book it seems. ”

            No, there you go assuming again. The status quo is usually adhered to as it is usually the least worst option… In this case, it is debateable, perhaps it is time for a change but given the majority of England vote for a Conservative leaning rather than a Labour/Green/Plaid Cymru/Left SNP one who knows whether PR would reflect that.

            “Did you know that the British are the only people in the history of the world ever to have voted in a referendum to continue to have two thirds of their MPs elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents?”

            Just because that may be so doesnt mean they are wrong.

            “If UKIP supporters hadn’t voted for the status quo they would be getting sufficient seats in this election to ensure that there was an in/out EU referendum. As they didn’t they won’t.”

            An what point would you be making here? Why focus on purely UKIP voters as surely ALL voters are to blame in your eyes.

            p.s I take it you dont work

          • Pacificweather

            You really do have trouble processing information. As of November 2014 the debt is now £1.8 trillion. I have told you how I vote but you have not returned the courtesy. In he EU elections I have, over the years, voted for most of the major parties and some of the minor ones. If you tell me who you intend to vote for I will tell you which minor parties.

            Like you, at 11:00am on a Wednesday, I have time to read and post.

          • Bertie

            “You really do have trouble processing information. As of November 2014 the debt is now £1.8 trillion.”

            Really? Evidence its £1.8 trillion – you’re making it up.

            National debt is

            £1.521 trrillion – FACT. Nowhere near your £1.8 trillion.

            http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

            If I have trouble processing information that when does your latest porkie say about you!

            “I have told you how I vote but you have not returned the courtesy”

            Did you? You said you’d SPOIL the BALLOT PAPER. That isnt voting. You also DIDNT SAY how you WOULD VOTE in the EU elections where your vote actually counted(in your view)

            So your claim of telling me how you vote and claiming I didn’t return the courtesy is disingenuous in the extreme.

            “In he EU elections I have, over the years, voted for most of the major parties and some of the minor ones.”

            Well that’s hardly descriptive now is it.

            “If you tell me who you intend to vote for I will tell you which minor parties.”

            I thought it was obvious what party I vote for…

            “Like you, at 11:00am on a Wednesday, I have time to read and post.”

            Hmm seems you have time all morning, and most evenings……I work from home – what do you do?

          • Pacificweather

            The government does indeed publish two figures for the Nation’s indebtedness and just over £1.5 trillion is one of them but they also publish the whole (WGA) indebtedness figure which is just over £1.8 trillion. I like to use that one, not only because it is so shocking, but because if makes people who still quote the out of date £1.4 trillion figure look up the latest increase.

            You want me to be more generous than you by telling you who I vote for whilst you refuse to tell me who you vote for?

            I hope you are self employed and not cheating your employer. I’m a self employed dog walker, which reminds me I had better go and do that now.

          • Bertie

            “The government does indeed publish two figures for the Nation’s indebtedness and just over £1.5 trillion is one of them but they also publish the whole (WGA) indebtedness figure which is just over £1.8 trillion”

            Wow you’re slippery – the government certainly doesnt publish two sets of figures as all the website,news outlets attest. It also doesn’t account for all the Off balance PFI and the like such that £1.5trillion is a massive understatement.

            “The truth however is much worse, factoring in all
            liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real
            national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.”

            So despite the on the clock being £1.5trillion( I was correct – where’s your link for £1.8tln?) the actual national debt when everything else is taken into account is even higher, at £4.8 trillion.

            So your claim of:

            “You really do have trouble processing information. As of November 2014 the debt is now £1.8 trillion”

            Was utter tosh.

            “You want me to be more generous than you by telling you who I vote for whilst you refuse to tell me who you vote for?”

            Not at all – spoiling your bailout paper doesn’t count as a vote. You were quite prepared to tell me about that but not about how your vote in the EU ones as there your vote actually counts.

            So you’re being disingenuous with your claim that you’ve said how you vote as you actually haven’t.
            Slippery yet again.

            Who said I was refusing either. But I’m not going to respond if you’re going to be deceitful and slippery.

            “I hope you are self employed and not cheating your employer. I’m a self employed dog walker, which reminds me I had better go and do that now.”

            I “trade” part time for a living having worked in the City for 15 years in Asia so not cheating my employer..strange that you would think that.

            A dog walker eh – nice lifestyle. I come across several such people every morning when I walk my own. Take out a large number do you? I gather the going rate is £10 a day per dog?

            For a self employed dog walker you strangely read the Spectator/and are very interested in politics/vote reform. Quite out of the ordinary it has to be said.

          • Pacificweather

            Look at the paragraph headed “Whole of Government accounts 2013-2014: At a Glance”.

            http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/whole-of-government-accounts/

            You do love your second hand sources. Why not go to the official sources first.

            I learnt the perils of one sided relationships in my youth so my small party voting record shall remain between me and the ballot box until you “fess up” to being a UKIP supporter and former Tory voter.

            I voted Tory in the EU elections for many years when a very decent man, who I new personally, was the MEP but I wouldn’t give his successor my vote under torture. I once lived in a constituency who had Christian Atheist candidate and I used to vote for him. In 1997 he got 122 votes. I have also voted for an independent but now all the characters seem to have gone (certainly in my current constituency). So come clean and I’ll tell you about the minor parties I’ve voted for.

            Dog walking is £12 for an hour’s walk and £20 for two. Boarding is £24 per night. I do a pack day special which is very popular with the dogs. I take 15 of them up to the hills to hunt for rabbits (which they can’t catch) but dogs love running in a pack.

          • Bertie

            “Look at the paragraph headed “Whole of Government ”

            The WGA is a single set of audited accounts consolidating the financial information of the UK Government. It sets out what the Government owns (assets), owes (liabilities), receives (revenue) and spends (expenditure).

            It doesn’t include all the off balance PFI though does it so if you’re going to nitpick about my national debt figure which both first hand source and second party you denigrate are all more or less in agreement as to what National Debt figure is then I’ll reciprocate as the actual debt when all PFI etc is taking into account is far far higher.

            “The WGA provides an accountant’s view of the Government’s financial position, which is different from the fiscal measures produced by the Office for National Statistics. The 2013-14 WGA shows net expenditure for the year of £148.6 billion and a net liability position of £1,851.8 billion.”

            WGA Doesnt include the PFI though – and no one report this WGA figure? Why not?

            I use a variety of sources….

            http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
            £1.36trillion FY2015 – estimated by Treasury.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt
            £1.56 trillion by Q1’15

            These are all wrong are they?

            Nought wrong with them as sources.The FT wrong?

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11117335/Just-how-big-is-Britains-debt-mountain.html

            2013/2104 £1.402 trillion Sept 2014.

            Yet not a single reference to your £1.8 trillion,anywhere.
            Not even at http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

            “I learnt the perils of one sided relationships in my youth so my small party voting record shall remain between me and the ballot box until you “fess up” to being a UKIP supporter and former Tory voter.”

            Eh? You’re the one that was messing about claiming you’d revealed how you voted – as I said spoiling your ballot paper isn’t actually accepted as voting.

            Fess up? I’m more than happy to reveal it if you’d stop childishly messing around making disingenuous claims.

            “Dog walking is £12 for an hour’s walk and £20 for two. Boarding is £24 per night. I do a pack day special which is very popular with the dogs. I take 15 of them up to the hills to hunt for rabbits (which they can’t catch) but dogs love running in a pack”

            Boarding – no thanks. You’ve clearly far too much time on your hands! Must be a good living though, all cash in hand.

          • Pacificweather

            Your generous apology was appreciated. I can now reveal I voted UKIP in the EU elections after my Tory MEP retired but not in 2014 when it became obvious they were going to win the most seats. I like to vote for the underdog so I voted (wait for the drum roll) the Greens. I know what you are thinking but the poor dears aren’t doing so well in Germany these days and I have a soft spot for the MP for Brighton. She looks a bit like my first girlfriend. Ah, the nostalgia.

            The HMRC is rather strict on dog walkers not as generous to us as they are to you city chaps.

          • Bertie

            What generous apology was that then? You weren’t deserving of one.

            “I can now reveal I voted UKIP in the EU elections after my Tory MEP retired but not in 2014 when it became obvious they were going to win the most seats.”

            Intriguing. Cant say I believe you however given out prior discussions.

            “I like to vote for the underdog so I voted (wait for the drum roll) the Greens.”

            Ludicrous.Utter ludicrous and you claim I have trouble processing information yet you vote for a party run by an idiot! Either that or you vote for them on the basis the Brighton MP looks akin to your last g/f – even more hilarious.

            “I know what you are thinking but the poor dears aren’t doing so well in Germany these days”

            Eh no they’re just utter idiots as this interview of their leader attests – you know, first hand evidence, live at the time.NB made to look a utter fool.

            http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384#KBiswSjQ6LtMIy9D.97

            “The HMRC is rather strict on dog walkers not as generous to us as they are to you city chaps.”

            Clearly you didn’t read my prior response as the HMRC has nothing to do with my working overseas in Asia where I think you’ll find the Tax authorities are far more diligent,and less considerate to “deviating from the accepted norm”

            Your biz is also cash in hand I gather so easier to fiddle.

            🙂

            In the Euro elections I too vote for UKIP, and always have done. I’d certainly never contemplate voting for the Greens, or LibDems, or some other bunch of crackpots that dont have the best interests of England or the UK at heart…

          • Pacificweather

            You are a treat to have a conversation with. Just push the button and you are off.

            Most of my customers have Internet banking and pay by direct transfer. The days of cash in hand are sadly over. You are right about the Asian finance system and law enforcement though. I well remember Jim Slater could not set foot in Singapore because they banned insider trading long before the UK and would have been only too happy to put him in prison.

            The European Parliament is well intentioned but pretty useless. Having a few crackpots to counterbalance the crooks seems the only possible way of protesting. You are surely not telling me you take it seriously.

            UKIP were useful as a protest vote to kick the Tories and, for a while, they did that effectively but they are slipping away and Nigel Farage is unlikely to win a seat. They had a chap on Question Time a week or two back who was quite good and would make a reasonable front man for the party when Nigel Farage resigns as leader. The Tories are going to form the next government possibly with the LibDems again but with DUP support as well and there will be an in/out EU referendum in which the British will vote for the status quo 60/40 or there abouts. But, as with the Scottish referendum that won’t quite be the end of the argument.

          • Bertie

            “You are a treat to have a conversation with. Just push the button and you are off.”

            You can talk! Pot kettle.

            ” I well remember Jim Slater could not set foot in Singapore because they banned insider trading long before the UK and would have been only too happy to put him in prison.”

            Certainly needs tightening up in UK I concur – AIM is a shambles.So many dodgy dealings and dubious directors.

            “The European Parliament is well intentioned but pretty useless.”

            Really? 50% of Acts & Regulations implemented in UK come from Europe. I certainly don’t believe the figure is as low as 10-14%

            I wouldn’t say they’re useless but exceedingly dangerous.

            But then you’d know the percentages given you voted UKIP wouldnt you!

            Or perhaps our politicians have been lying about it being 50%!!!

            ““EU legislation…accounts for around half of all new regulation.” Chuka Umunna MP, Labour Party press release, 25 October 2011.”

            “50 per cent of all our economic laws come from Europe.” Bill Cash MP (Conservative), House of Commons, 24 October 2011.”

            Of course the closet Communist Poly Toynbee jad it alot lower

            https://fullfact.org/factchecks/proportion_of_uk_law_made_by_eu-3073

            Two thirds of Britain’s laws ‘made or influenced by EU’

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11443085/Two-thirds-of-Britains-laws-made-or-influenced-by-EU.html

            Dated March 2015…

            “An analysis by Business for Britain, a group campaigning for reform of
            Britain’s relationship with the EU, found that 64.7 per cent of all laws
            in this country are related to EU regulations and directives.”

            Anyway bit busy today out in the garden…beautiful day.Have to make the most of it with the onset of 4+ days or rain,or worse , as of tomorrow.

            “The Tories are going to form the next government possibly with the LibDems again but with DUP support as well”

            Tories will get the most number of seats(and is very much England centric)

            The government will , however, be formed by a Labour/SNP coalition – Most Libdems are toast imv.
            UKIP vote will slip come polling day as people realise what is at stake – the country simply cant afford another Labour government, let alone one with the SNP pulling the strings.

          • Pacificweather

            It is interesting that you think that despite getting the most seats the Tories won’t be able to form a government. As they are the government at the moment they have the advantage and could even form a minority government but they will have support from other parties. Labour say they won’t form a coalition with the SNP but they would need some solid arrangement if they were going to form a government. It will be interesting.

            I am less concerned where laws come from and more concerned about what effect they have. The worst laws have come from the UK government; ones that restrict our freedoms. Labour may have created them but the Tories and LiBDems haven’t removed them or even changed them. We sign away our rights to the WTO as much as we do to the EU. It’s the price of trade. As attractive as leaving the EU seems the restrictions they would place on us to trade with them tariff free would be much the same. After much thought I don’t think it is worth it unless we think we can trade even with the tariffs.

          • Bertie

            “It is interesting that you think that despite getting the most seats the Tories won’t be able to form a government. As they are the government at the moment they have the advantage and could even form a minority
            government but they will have support from other parties”

            Because I believe that the Libdem vote wont be sufficient to prop up a coalition Tory led government this time round. So whilst the Conservatives will get the most votes, I fear Labour wont be too far behind,and the
            SNP’s 50 odd will be decisive. If Alexander and Clegg lose their seats then its Vince Cable and he’s very pro Labour…So it’ll have to be a minority Tory government(Will Cameron have the balls?)

            How many votes are the DUP likely to get or will we have a coalition of The LEFT (Lab,Lib,SNP, Greens)

            “Labour say they won’t form a coalition with the SNP but they would need some solid arrangement if they were going to form a government.”

            If it means getting into power Labour will form a coalition with the SNP. No ifs, buts. It will be interesting that’s for sure – the horse trading, oh to be a fly on the wall.

            “I am less concerned where laws come from and more concerned about what effect they have.”

            I’m equally concerned as to where they emanate because I actually like to have some say in how I am governed, what I can or cant do. And I say that having lived in countries with some very oppressive regimes over the years.

            ” We sign away our rights to the WTO as much as we do to the EU.”

            Don’t dispute that at all..

            “As attractive as leaving the EU seems the restrictions they would place on us to trade with them tariff free would be much the same.”

            Disagree.

            Whilst the restrictions would most likely remain, whether we were in(being out voted as most decisions are based on majority voting making Clegg’s claims of better in to influence rather hollow) or whether we were out –
            I don’t see much danger of additional tariffs as we’re Europe’s largest export market. And they wont want us to engage in reciprocity.

            The overriding benefit that is never mentioned,however ,
            is the £9-12 billion pounds we’d save immediately by not having to make a members contribution. Nor would we be subject to dubious GDP based payments,such as the £1.7billion demanded last year. Its debt inspired
            so take away the stimulus and GDP growth will evaporate. Perhaps now that the ECB is engaging in its own QE,rising German and French GDP will see them put more in,and we’ll get a rebate!

            ” After much thought I don’t think it is worth it unless we think we can trade even with the tariffs.”

            So you don’t think,ceteris paribus, that saving £9-12billion per year membership fees is worth it?
            (I gather we pay £12bn gross, but get a rebate/regional aid such that net we pay c £8.6-9bn)

          • Pacificweather

            Yes, I guess that is true. If you are one of the 48% who have a say in how we are governed you are going to be more concerned where laws are made than if you are one of the 52% who don’t, as I am. As I have a say in electing MEPs I am happier with laws being made by the EU as they have to be approved by the EU parliament.

            As an aside, I listened to a programme on Radio 4 about school dinners. The Swedes were amazed that British schools could buy food locally to ensure freshness and quality when they were restricted by EU tendering rules. It isn’t just Britain that gold plates these rules it seems. It’s actually because our schools buy out of their own budgets that are below the tender threshold and the Swedes buy regionally. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

            You may be right that we could negotiate a no tariff deal better than countries like Norway or Switzerland. But what if we can only get a deal on the same terms. We end up no better off. My feeling is that if the main argument is to save £9-12 billion you could do that more productively by raising the minimum wage to remove the employer subsidies. Jobs should create tax not tax create jobs. It isn’t sustainable. It ain’t right, it ain’t fair, it ain’t friendly (if you have not been watching Poldark that won’t make sense).

            I have moved from thinking exit had much merit to ambivalence. The WTO is going to be top dog eventually and a trading block the size of the EU gives us a stick to beat the USA with and one day, China. I can’t put up any sort of case against what you say but I feel less strongly about it than I used to.

          • Bertie

            “If you are one of the 48% who have a say in how we are governed you are going to be more concerned where laws are made than if you are one of the 52% who don’t, as I am”

            But you do have a say – you get a vote. It’s irrelevant whether your party(Don’t think I haven’t noticed that you still haven’t said who you vote for in the General Elections)

            “As I have a say in electing MEPs I am happier with laws being made by the EU as they have to be approved by the EU parliament.”

            You realise the MEP’s just acquiesce to whatever the “Majority vote” decides on (With Britain often outvoted as a result – your so called vote is hardly any more worthwhile than your GE one in that context!)

            “You may be right that we could negotiate a no tariff deal better than countries like Norway or Switzerland. But what if we can only get a deal on the same terms. We end up no better off.”

            But that’s the point – even IF we only get the same terms as Norway/Swiss we’d still be far better off to the tune of £9-12 billion per year (that’s 45-60 billion over 5 years!)

            “My feeling is that if the main argument is to save £9-12 billion you could do that more productively by raising the minimum wage to remove the employer subsidies.”

            Why not do both!(Assuming of course your raising of the minimum wage, which has already been done, in addition to taking people on £11k or less out of income tax completely and ending these employer subsidies are equally guaranteed to save £9-12bn with no negative repercussions. And the base case is that, ceteris paribus, even if we only get same tariff terms as Norway we’d still be saving that not insignificant £9-12billion per year or 33% odd of the Defence budget.

            Cancel Hs2, tighten up on welfare abuse, penalise those attempting to engage in health tourism, deport all foreign criminals that cost £35k each,per year, to house in UK prisons, end asylum, end tax evasion by corporates, cancel foreign aid £12billion per year) etc etc.

            “Jobs should create tax not tax create jobs.”

            Agree which is why CAP should be abolished -open up markets for third world “one commodity” based economies to export to our markets without excessive tariffs – we’d not need Foreign Aid then!! Help them to help themselves. CAP is outdated and serves only to feather the nests of mainly French farmers.

            Too young for Poldark – second time around is it? I recall, hazily, parents watching it in the 1980’s

            “”I have moved from thinking exit had much merit to ambivalence”

            Ambivalence means we’ll be steamed rolled into something that is not beneficial. As the shift from Free Trade Area(Voted for in 1970’s) to political union and loss of sovereignty illustrates. Most people in the UK haven’t a scooby what’s been happening the last 30 years in this regard.

            “The WTO is going to be top dog eventually and a trading block the size of the EU gives us a stick to beat the USA with and one day, China.”

            Being part of the EU trading block wont assist us in either regard I regret to say. British interests often differ to those of Germany/France and we’ll simply get outvoted. How does it benefit us being “inside, getting outvoted all the time” or being outside, with no influence. Usually get the same result so why pay £9-12 billion a year,every year, for the privilege?

            We’ve turned our back on our history, with nations with have alot in common with, namely the Commonwealth, in favour of countries whose rule of law differs to ours,and with whom the only thing we have in common is hundreds of years of warfare!

            p.s I vote UKIP in both GE / Euros -as I’m sure you guessed. I used to be a Tory 15-20 years ago.

          • Pacificweather

            I have a vote but not an effective one. I have never lived in a Constituency which my preferred party was likely to win. If you are a Conservative voter in London or in Salford your vote does not have any effect on the outcome of the election. If you are a UKIP voter (hundreds of thousands will be) your vote will have no effect unless you live in one or two constituencies. Same for LibDem voters in the majority of constituencies. In fact if your MP is one of the third who get a majority vote, the additional votes over and above those needed to elect him or her will not aid your party to get the seats it deserves in proportion to the votes cast and so even those additional votes are ineffective. In the EU elections all votes are effective.

            Switzerland and Norway both contribute to the EU budget. For Norway it is €340 million which is more than Britain pays per head of population. So there is no advantage in leaving with a deal like theirs and they have no say and no veto.

            What you say about the WTO means we are stuffed whatever we do. I think we would be less stuffed in the EU than out but your guess is as good as mine on that one.

            As for voting in this election I have a choice of a completely ineffective vote for UKIP, Labour, LibDem or an independent candidate or (for the first time because I moved last year) a superfluously ineffective vote for a Conservative incumbent with a massive majority. It’s a difficult decision as to which to give my ineffective vote to or write my protest on the ballot paper. You want your UKIP vote to be registered even if it’s ineffective. I have registered my ineffective vote for 45 years and now I want to live in a democracy so I have decided to protest for one just to make an equally ineffective gesture but one I believe in as you believe in UKIP.

          • Bertie

            “I have a vote but not an effective one. I have never lived in a Constituency which my preferred party was likely to win. If you are a Conservative voter in London or in Salford your vote does not have any effect on the outcome of the election. If you are a UKIP voter (hundreds of thousands will be) your vote will have no effect unless you live in one or two constituencies. Same for LibDem voters in the majority of constituencies. In fact if your MP is one of the third who get a majority vote, the additional votes over and above those needed to elect him or her will not aid your party to get the seats it deserves in proportion to the votes cast and so even those additional votes are ineffective.”

            You have a vote, be grateful for that. Many people have died over the history of this once great nation to ensure you have that right.

            Every vote counts. Just because you don’t happen to get the result you want doesn’t mean your vote is ineffective – just that your opinion is not shared by the majority in the area you vote in.

            “If you are a Conservative voter in London”

            Agreed – it’s a tad disconcerting to be a minority, ion ones own capital city, and to know one is being outvoted by a bunch of foreigners who dont share the same values on many fronts as the indigenous residents.

            Would PR solve this though? Would it not give even more power to such nutty extremists as the Green Party, or some radical Islamist offshoot?

            “Switzerland and Norway both contribute to the EU budget. For Norway it is €340 million which is more than Britain pays per head of population”

            This argument of per capita is a phoney one – we pay,£12 billion per year, outside of any other ad hoc demands. We can’t afford it.

            Foreign Aid £12bn, EU bill £12bn, Debt service costs £50bn – that’s 3/4’s of the way to the £100bn EXTRA we are borrowing each year,and are adding to the National Debt!!!

            Outside of that
            Norway pays E340m, or E66.876 per head
            (Pop 5.084m)

            UK pays £12,000,000,000 or £184/61 per head
            (Pop 65m)

            How does Norway pay more per capita?

            “So there is no advantage in leaving with a deal like theirs and they have no say and no veto.”

            Eh there is an advantage – Status Quo is Stay in, get outvoted on majority basis,be subject to all bureaucracy, and PAY £12bn per year.

            Leaving would mean we’d be £12billion per year better off right off the bat!

            “I think we would be less stuffed in the EU than out but your guess is as good as mine on that one.”

            Here we disagree. I’m all for a EFTA, and believe we’d be better off outside EU, open our markets to Third World Exports on a free trade basis, the onus being to trade more with the Commonwealth and North America..

            “It’s a difficult decision as to which to give my ineffective vote to or write my protest on the ballot paper. ”

            Given the lengths some have gone to over the years to ensure you have that right to vote it’s a tad disrespectful to “spoil your ballot paper” imo. But then I’m an old fashioned.

            “You want your UKIP vote to be registered even if it’s ineffective. I have registered my ineffective vote for 45 years ”

            I want to express my opinion – which is what a democracy is all about. If the majority don’t agree with me then that’s tough, for me surely?

            “I have registered my ineffective vote for 45 years and now I want to live in a democracy”

            You do live in a democracy though – you are being given the opportunity to express your opinion where many, overseas, do not get such a right. You get the opportunity to vote in GE’s, Local elections, Euro elections. To say you believe you don’t live in a democracy is just ridiculous.

            I had to endure 13 years of a Labour government I didn’t vote for, didn’t agreed with, and utterly detested. The fact was though, to a large degree a result of the outdated boundaries and constituency sizes, the majority appeared to disagree with me and want the change Labour proffered.

            Demographics are resulting in massive changes across this country such that London now is Labour territory – funny that given most “Migrants” to these shores vote Labour in their droves.Who knows – another 5 years of net migration of 250-300,000 people per year(that 450,000 migrants from Eu/NonEU coming in, with 200,000 indigenous Brits leaving) you might get your wish in your constituency…..and your vote will finally align with the majority in your area.

          • Pacificweather

            Nobody died to ensure I have the right to vote. I am male and my male heirs have been voting since 1265. In two thirds of constituencies it is the minority not the majority of voters who decide who is elected. In no other country in the world would that be considered democratic with the possible exception of the USA but then they think they aren’t a socialist country. The world is full of the deluded. We aren’t going to get away with not paying the EU if we want to trade with them tariff free. It might be cheaper to pay the tariffs but that’s another thing.

            On the plus side, the exit polls are giving UKIP 2 seats. AV would have given them a few more but like turkeys they voted for Christmas in May 2011.

          • Bertie

            “Nobody died to ensure I have the right to vote. I am male and my male heirs have been voting since 1265”

            What makes you think you’d have a right to vote at all if Britain had lost either WW1 or WW2 then?

            Clearly your lineage didnt fight in either war to preserve that democratic right – hence your laissez faire attitude.

            “In two thirds of constituencies it is the minority not the majority of voters who decide who is elected.”

            Rubbish – simply not true that in 66% of constituencies the minority decide who is elected.Utter tosh.

            “In no other country in the world would that be considered democratic with the possible exception of the USA but then they think they aren’t a socialist country.”

            You think the USA is Socialist? Seriously? Have you visited or lived in a socialist country?

            “The world is full of the deluded.”

            You’re clearly one of them!!!!! USA Socialist, roflmao.

            ” We aren’t going to get away with not paying the EU if we want to trade with them tariff free”

            We wont be paying £12billion per year membership fees – FACT

            “It might be cheaper to pay the tariffs but that’s another thing.”

            Why wont it be? And why will we be paying tariffs on our exports to them, when their EXPORTS to us are far larger.

            You clearly havent thought this through have you….

            “On the plus side, the exit polls are giving UKIP 2 seats. AV would have given them a few more but like turkeys they voted for Christmas in May 2011.”

            Well – on the plus side, if the BEEB poll is to be believed we wont be getting your party in, and that twit Ed Balls, will be losing his seat.

            Because you are a LABOUR voter arent you

          • Pacificweather

            You do the arithmetic for yourself

            http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0005/47264/Generalelection2005_A-Zconstituencyresults_18784-13893__E__N__S__W__.xls

            2/3 of constituencies were elected by a minority of the votes. In fact if your expertise with spreadsheets is poor you could just think about it for a few minutes and it becomes obvious that it must be so.

          • Bertie

            How are the results working out for you?

            Clearly you must be a tad disappointed at Labour’s performance.

          • Pacificweather

            I hope you want knowledge rather than prejudices and will do the arithmetic on the spreadsheet and on the final results when published.

            The results so far are exactly as I predicted. When in doubt the Briish vote for the status quo. However, it was good to see signs of change in Scotland and good that they are unlikely to form a government with Labour. Best of both worlds.

          • Bertie

            “I hope you want knowledge rather than prejudices and will do the arithmetic on the spreadsheet and on the final results when published.”

            You mean similar to your Per Capita spend argument for Norway which I proved , with factual evidence, was utter tosh!

            Such that you moved the goalposts to “on an Income basis”

            Would that be Gross Income or Net income. You do realise Norway has a Sovereign welath fund worth $850 billion. Compared to our £1.5-1.8 trillion pound debt. So £12bn is worth alot,and we clearly cant afford it. The Norway contribution is piecemeal, on a notional basis, on a per capita basis, on a relative basis. You are wrong in your claim.

            “The results so far are exactly as I predicted”

            Really? I dont recall you predicting a Conservative MAJORITY!

            “When in doubt the British vote for the status quo.”

            Did they? Status quo is surely a coalition government. We now have a Conservative MAJORITY. That isnt status quo at all.

            “However, it was good to see signs of change in Scotland and good that they are unlikely to form a government with Labour. Best of both worlds.”

            Now that we do agree on….

          • Pacificweather

            That spreadsheet frightens you doesn’t it? Is it the arithmetic or the loss of prejudice you fear?

          • Pacificweather

            Ed Balls lost his seat! I haven’t been so pleased since Michael Portillo lost his. The only downside is we will see more of him on TV with a personality transplant.

          • Bertie

            “Ed Balls lost his seat!”

            Raise you George Galloway.

            A very enjoyable morning bar the disappointing Thanet South result.

            Some interesting swings across Northern England to UKIP I gather. SW England goes blue, libdems crushed.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            Your right wing fascist friends have been crushed and all their rubbish about Scotland being subsidy junkies exposed- did you see Farage’s “telt” face when Sturgeon pointed out more money is raised in Scotland per head and we actually lose out on money to Westminster iin this system. Scotland had a landslide of progressive politics- meanwhile the South of England vote for a party that installs Michael Gove the child abuse coverup merchant as justice secretary.

          • Bertie

            You clearly don’t know what fascism is, nor have experienced it,as UKIP quite simply isnt a such.

            As to being crushed- they secured 3.5-4million votes – that’s more than those muppets at the SNP secured.

            “when Sturgeon pointed out more money is raised in Scotland per head and we actually lose out on money to Westminster iin this system”

            Don’t recall that..Evidence that it was actually said,and,more importantly, correct?

            If you’re that happy LEAVE the UNION. Most English will be glad to see the back of you. And you can hand back the subsidy you get via Barnet for starters.

            “Scotland had a landslide of progressive politics”

            Is that what you call voting in a wet behind the ears 20 year old University student ahead of someone who actually had a brain and was shadow foreign secretary.

            “Michael Gove the child abuse coverup merchant”

            I suspect Labour was just as culpable – as indeed they were with the child grooming by Pakistani men in Northern England.

            Dont get too upset though – nice Tory majority. SNP irrelevant. Enjoy your fuming…

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            I am not alone in saying UKIP are fascists- even Nick Griffin lost his seat to them largely because of their intolerance to immigrants attracting the fascist vote. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/they-ve-voted-ukip-s-racist-policies-instead-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-losing-his

            They may not be fascists in all respects but definitely have some of their policies are. Just ask any breastfeeding mother.

            UKIP have two seats to show for their votes. Compared to the political earthquake boasted and predicted by Farage and by anyone´s book, that is being crushed. So keep flapping about on the chess board over that one as long as you like! ; )

            You may also notice that, The SNP contested 59 seats and got 1.45M votes securing 56 seats (av 24651 per seat). UKIP contested 624 seats and got 3.8M (av 6220 per seat). That´s a landslide would you not agree?

            Pointing out someone is 20 years old- is that the best you can muster?! She has not been elected purely for being in the party with the most appealing policies, but it is precisely the policies of the party that make the landslide progressive. As satisfying to see Alexander ousted as it was- he was a part of the rotten core of a party that needs to reinvent itself in a clear and obvious way.

            I agree with you on Labour otherwise why are they being so quiet on the issue?

            The SNP will have to be kept happy or the Tories will have to change their party name and stationary quite soon.

            I will leave you with a clip of Farage silenced on the subsidy myth by Sturgeon http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leaders-debate-verdict-nicola-sturgeons-5450474

            Here is more evidence if you need it http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

            Quite a lot to be happy about. A shame you can´t detect people´s moods very well.

          • Bertie

            Hmm I seem to have been sent this three times by Disqus –

            “I am not alone in saying UKIP are fascists- even Nick Griffin lost his seat to them largely because of their intolerance to immigrants attracting the fascist vote.”

            Newstatement your source.Lol. Not objective are they in any sense of the word.

            SNP got 1.45m votes. UKIP nearly 4 million. Big difference. SNP got 56 seats which is absolutely ridiculous. Still, with a Conservative majority they’re irrelevant and have no influence no matter how many temper tantrums they throw in Westminster.

            “Pointing out someone is 20 years old- is that the best you can muster?!”

            I think you’ll find I inclided more than just that detail -t the obvious one being she’d never done a proper job, is unlikely to have that much experience of the big wide world, unlike the Shadow Foreign Secretary with years of experience under his belt. She was voted in because she was SNP – in fact I’d wager a gorilla would’ve been voted in if it’d been wearing an SNP badge. She’s also quite a uncouth pottymouth as her numerous tweets show. Ergo she is not suitable for the position of such responsibility. I’d suggest she goes to Etiquette school asap.

            “The SNP will have to be kept happy or the Tories will have to change their party name and stationary quite soon.”

            Eh why so? What’s on the Conservative party stationary? SNP dont have to be kept happy at all – they’re irrelevant just as much as they were when they had only 6 seats.

            The interesting thing is, the SNP, with their 56 seats claim the Tories have no legitimacy in UK(which Im sure you’d concur with) yet,at the same time beleive they’re 56 would give them legitimacy to vote oN English matters within a Labour/SNP coalition!!
            The hypocrisy is not lost on English voters.

            Anyway, a word of advice to you and your Pro Scottish indie movement –

            Next time you have your independence vote give the Vote to England and Wale- you’ll get the answer you want!

            Nice sources – mirror, rampantly Left Wing,

            “And Farage’s poisonous politics win cheers from a minority but his nastiness builds a wall to trap Ukip.

            The fighting performances of Sturgeon, Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood and the Greens’ Natalie Bennett illustrated why the old days of two-party politics,or more recent three-party politics, are dead and gone.”

            yes, very objective there.Pretty clear where th Mirror is coming from.

            New Stateman, rampantly Left Wing.
            James Maxwell is a Scottish political journalist –

            Of course they’re not going to have a nice word to say about UKIP -as indeed nor are the Guardian or BBC.

            Personally didn’t think Sturgeon won the debate. In fact many had Farage winning it. Milliband lost, overwhelmingly”

            Do I give any credence to your two sources – not a job. TNI is in terminal decline, as is the New Stateman, yet another tediously leftwing magazine with little substance.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            If you think that the source discredits the reported information- not an opinion I might add-then you are clearly a moron. But by your own moronic standards, can you acknowledge the Telegraph reporting this as evidence? That a fascist group have stated they
            have ‘almost everything’ in common with Ukip.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11203651/Far-right-groups-clash-with-anti-fascists-in-Rochester-ahead-of-by-election.html
            I could post evidence of this all day but you will just jump around skittering on the chess board as per usual.

            56 -2 MPs big difference. And the SNP only stood in a fraction of the seats.

          • Bertie

            “If you think that the source discredits the reported information- not an opinion I might add-then you are clearly a moron.”

            Clearly not as moronic as you lefties. I am merely returning the favour that articles sourced from the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph habitually receive from those of a similar left wing bent to yourself – that they are subjective,and therefore don’t count!!! Or do you deny that such behaviour occurs at the BEEB and Grauniad?

            “But by your own moronic standards, can you acknowledge the Telegraph reporting this as evidence? That a fascist group have stated theyhave ‘almost everything’ in common with Ukip.”

            The Telegraph is Pro Tory you twit – of course they’re going to smear UKIP as much as the Left wing press are!!! Are you really that naive?

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/polit

            “I could post evidence of this all day but you will just jump around skittering on the chess board as per usual”

            The clearest evidence is to check out the manifesto – you know, the only fully costed one that was not challenged by any of the other parties whatsoever! What does that tell you?

            If you believe UKIP is a fascist party then you’re clearly off your rocker – did you see how many Labour voters it attracted for starters. Nor does it behave as a Fascist party, nor are any of its manifesto commitments in anyway fascist.

            “56 -2 MPs big difference. And the SNP only stood in a fraction of the seats.”

            Use your brain and you’ll work out why SNP got 56 seats on such a small amount of the vote in Scotland, let alone nationwide. And the “Scottish” question would not see SNP replicate its success nationwide for the simple reason its a one issue party with no relevance south of Scotland. No one really gives a shit about Scotland – in fact, if the SNP want to guarantee independence they should give England and Wales the vote next time!

            If you had a brain you’d realise that even the moron is smarter than you.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            The Conservative and Unionist party will no longer represent a union if it doesnt keep the SNP happy thats why. The Tories only represent a third of the country- all of them selfish scumbags or idiots and the other two thirds hate them with a passion. The SNP represent 50% of Scotland so there is a clear difference there. I agree they shouldnt be voting on English laws but they shouldnt have to go to Westminster at all. The north and south of the country are two different political animals entirely. I would be happy to see the North of England secede with Scotland.

            “Nice sources – mirror, rampantly Left Wing”

            You have succeeded in missing the point again with your derision of the source. Despite most readers of the Mirror declaring Farage as winner of the debate! It was merely a place to watch a clip of the debate. Cast iron evidence of your moronic pigeon skittering.

            “New Stateman, rampantly Left Wing.”

            Idem!

            “Personally didn’t think Sturgeon won the debate.”

            Well there’s a surprise! You remind me of the knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail cut limb from limb declaring “its only a fleshwound!”

            “TNI” Transnational Institute? Toy News International?

            The sources are irrelevant. Its the information thats important.

            Again you focus on one MP and their age as your only perceived weakness in the armour. The pathetic moron that you are. The tweets you refer to are by a 15 year old version of her. You’re in your 40s whats your excuse?!

            Lay off the whisky next time you write something and we might get some sense out of you.

          • Bertie

            “The Conservative and Unionist party will no longer represent a union if it doesnt keep the SNP happy thats why. ”

            The Union is dead. It’s only a matter of time now.

            “The Tories only represent a third of the country”

            And? The SNP only represents 1.25 million voters!!!! Not even 7%. And your point is….

            “all of them selfish scumbags or idiots and the other two thirds hate them with a passion.”

            Really? Evidence? Or just supposition revealing your inadequacies and emotional fragility. Plenty of Tories are anything but the selfish scum bags and idiots you portray them to be.Clearly you’re probably supportive of that odious twit Russell Brand – now there’s a smug pretentious hypocritical scumbag for you – rampant lefty.

            “The SNP represent 50% of Scotland so there is a clear difference there. ”

            l0olololololololol

            Classic. Such a poor loser. Your hopes of a Labour / SNP coalition dashed.

            “I agree they shouldnt be voting on English laws but they shouldnt have to go to Westminster at all”

            Absolutely – most of them aren’t even qualified to go to Westminster either!

            “The north and south of the country are two different political animals entirely.”

            Agreed – Northern England has fallen behind – much of it down to the destruction of the fishing towns, and those allied with old uncompetitive industry. in similar fashion to Osborne’s “Powerhouse of the North” I’ve consistently been in favour of doing some thing productive to assist in regeneration.

            “I would be happy to see the North of England secede with Scotland.”

            The novelty would soon wear off – when the money ran out. Personally I’m pretty sure most of Central and Southern England would be happy for you in the North to cede as well given the expense of welfare amongst other things.

            “Despite most readers of the Mirror declaring Farage as winner of the debate! It was merely a place to watch a clip of the debate.”

            A conveniently chosen slither of the debate which showed Sturgeon making unsubstantiated claims with no evidence.Nor has such evidence been provided to date.

            We shall soon see which claim is truth

            “Cast iron evidence of your moronic pigeon skittering.”

            How’s that in anyway evidence? The Mirror is Left wing, you admit such. The clip was merely Sturgeon claiming, that England doesn’t subsidise Scotland.Unsubstantiated opinion.

            You really need to broaden your vocabulary as your idiocy and inadequacy is shining through – surely you can find an alternative for the repetitive use “moronic”

            Anyway, it could’ve been alot worse. A LAB / SNP coalition would see the country finally go cap in hand t0 the IMF as a result of even more excessive spending.

            Cuts are coming, it’s inevitable. A good place to start would be in Northern England, intoxicated on welfare as it is – Housing benefit, Child tax credit/Child benefit, income support etc etc. Perhaps the Scots can sub you – I’d wager not.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            OK seeing as you are clearly intellectually bankrupt I’ll
            give you one last chance to make sense of what happened and realise how foolish
            you are. You had originally asked for evidence on Sturgeon putting Farage in
            his place. I gave you a link to see the clip you asked for that just happened
            to be on the Mirror website. Are you suggesting that because the Mirror is a “lefty”
            newspaper that they have in some way edited the clip to make it look as if
            Farage had no comeback? Because I watched it live and the same thing happened.
            So where is the bias? There is none. The source is irrelevant. You *are* a
            moron. Of course I have plenty of other words I could use to describe you but I
            am assuming you know what moron means?

            Here are the facts that show why Farage had no comeback and
            why you constantly spout mistruths. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881

            Are you going to claim that these facts are somehow made up
            by lefty spin-doctors such is your stock solution for contesting anything that
            challenges your patronising, right wing, pompous git worldview?

            I notice you had no comeback on the Britain First reference. Loser.

            56-2. Loser.

            “Pathetic attempt at diversion”
            – no just a presumed justification for your terrible grammar and spelling e.g.
            “I don’t drink whiskey. And if I did
            I certainly would drink Scottish.” – Firstly, Whiskey is an American drink, and secondly are
            you sure that’s what you wanted to say?! Pillock.

            “Surely you can find an alternative for the repetitive use “moronic””
            Oh the irony! You can’t even formulate a sentence!

            Your opinions built on prejudice and
            lies are far more offensive than historical expletives of a now impressive MP. Its
            pointless going through them all. You would just skitter all over the board again.

            Write a reply if you are a moron!

          • Bertie

            The link to the clip isnt evidence though.It merely shows Sturgeon telling Farage he is wrong. How’s that evidence that she is correct in how she concludes?? She is voicing her opinion, unsubstantiated, that England doesnt subsidise Scotland.

            Most people claim it does – how are “most people” deemed incorrect purely because she says it is so??

            “Are you suggesting that because the Mirror is a “lefty”newspaper that they have in some way edited the clip to make it look as if Farage had no comeback?

            No – I’m not saying that they edited it because they’re lefty.Their whole line of attack has always been anti Tory,anti Right wing since time immemorial. Hence my questioning it as a valid source per se.

            So when Sturgeon made her claim was Farage given any opportunity to respond and negate her claim? No – he wasn’t – they moved on. That’s not equivalent to him having no comeback.It is well known that England subsidises both Wales and Scotland.

            “So where is the bias? There is none.”

            One could actually argue that the bias was the Beeb’s in that it didn’t give him the opportunity to respond to her claim – thus leaving many with the impression she had scored a point.

            In similar fashion to Farage’s claim at the leader’s questions that the audience was even more biased than he expected of the BBC – to which Dimbleby replied – you are wrong, it has been selected according to the rough polling percentages etc etc. Not two days later the BBC confessed that is had, in fact, been a very biased,and predominantly left wing audience!

            ” The source is irrelevant.”

            The source of information is ALWAYS RELEVANT!!! For obvious reasons. If you cant see that then it’s even more incredulous that you think you are, in some way, winning the intellectual debate.

            Here’s an example for you.
            ONS gives National Debt at £1.5-1.8 trillion pounds.
            Daily Star claims it is only £575 billion.
            Some joe bloggs down t’pub in Manchester claims its all a lie, and the country really has no debt – it’s a conspiracy to enslave us all.

            And you’re telling me the source doesn’t matter. Who are you going to believe in the above situation?

            “You *are* a moron. Of course I have plenty of other words I could use to describe you but I am assuming you know what moron means?”

            For someone who sees himself as smarter than a moron you really are utterly bereft of any intelligence whatsoever. Source of information doesn’t matter – rofl.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            The link to the clip is evidence that Sturgeon put Farage in his place. The BBC had no influence on Farage saying nothing unless there was a gun off camera we don’t know about!

            You really are grasping at straws. I notice you didnt even respond to me showing you the figures that Sturgeon was referring to- just put your head down like Farage and pretend it isnt there. Or indeed the Britain First article that you can’t contest because it’s not printed in what you perceive to be a lefty newspaper!

            “It is well known that England subsidises both Wales and Scotland.” It’s a popular misconception peddled by right wing papers like the Torygraph I’ll give you that but I have also given you the facts proving it’s wrong. Get your head out your ass and read them.

            Still trying to dig your way out of a hole of your own making that a clip showing something is invalid because it is on a “left wing” paper’s webpage! You might as well say a football result is invalid if you read it on the Mirror’s page you complete and utter moron! Just because you failed to understand my point in the first place.

            You seem to laugh at the most bizarre of things that don’t even exist. I’d be surprised if you didn’t die of a heart attack watching Bernard Manning one day.

          • Bertie

            “The link to the clip is evidence that Sturgeon put Farage in his place. The BBC had no influence on Farage saying nothing unless there was a gun off camera we don’t know about!”

            Eh – the clip is cut off and there is no way Farage is given time to respond, nor do we see what he’d said previously that led Sturgeon to make her claim – Sturgeon just saying that Scotland subsidises England doesn’t make it so – where’s the evidence.

            “You really are grasping at straws.”

            Not at all – I’ve still been shown no evidence,despite your protestations that a video clip of Sturgeon making a claim is evidence, that this is so – keep reaching though.

            ” I notice you didnt even respond to me showing you the figures that Sturgeon was referring to”

            Unlike some people I have a life and don’t spend my day trolling people on bulletin boards. Scotland is insignificant in the big scheme of things so you go scurry along to Nicola and tell her to give England & Wales a vote on Scottish independence as its a sure fire win she’ll get the result she wants. And then we’ll how misguided and reliant on subsidies Scotland really is.

            I notice that you have no retort to my claim “the source matters” – funny that. because the source always does matter and only a moron would take the line that you do

            It is well known that England subsidises both Wales and Scotland.

            “It’s
            a popular misconception peddled by right wing papers like the Torygraph
            I’ll give you that but I have also given you the facts proving it’s
            wrong. Get your head out your ass and read them.”

            You’ve not given me any facts whatsoever.

            “Still trying to dig your way out of a hole of your own making that a
            clip showing something is invalid because it is on a “left wing” paper’s
            webpage!”

            It’s not evidence because
            1) it merely shows someone verbally making a claim, with no evidence to back up the claim.

            2) It gave the other panellists no opportunity to dissect and negate the claim as it panned away and onto another topic fairly sharpish.

            “something is invalid because it is on a “left wing” paper’s webpage!”

            So you likewise don’t dispute that what the Daily Mail covers is invalid purely because its the Mail?? As is the want of all you lefties.

            “You might as well say a football result is invalid if you read it on the Mirror’s page you complete and utter moron!”

            A football result is indisputable after the game is over.It’s in black n white, the result not subject to debate you imbecile.

            Sturgeon’s claim that England doesn’t subsidise Scotland,but that its the other way around is open to debate and is disputed.She provided no evidence to illustrate and back up her claim.

            Your football analogy falls flat because you’ve the IQ of a 15yr old.

            “Just because you failed to understand my point in the first place.”

            Misrepresenting yet again I see – that’s all you can do.

            “You seem to laugh at the most bizarre of things that don’t even exist.”

            What would those bizarre things that don’t exist that I’m laughing at be then?

            “I’d be surprised if you didn’t die of a heart attack watching Bernard
            Manning one day.”

            Ah you left wingers are just so pleasant – you’d fight right in with those poor losers that have been protesting and daubing war memorials with graffiti because they didn’t get the election result they wanted.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            There are two evidences being talked about here. Your original question was for evidence on Sturgeon putting Farage in his place not evidence of the statistics but again here is the EVIDENCE of the facts of Scotland more than paying its way and from a reliable non-political source-

            http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881

            Now I hope you read it this time, I posted it before but your head has been so wedged up your pompous ass that you continually refuse to read it.

            The EVIDENCE I was referring to that the clip provides is of Sturgeon putting Farage in his place. He makes a stifled noise but doesn´t attempt to refute the claim because as you can see from the evidence he can not. In the rest of the show he makes no attempt to do so either, The declaration Farage makes is that the UK subsidises Scotland which is what he has brainwashed idiots like you into believing and precipitates Sturgeon´s reply.

            Read the facts I posted, they are not opinions or estimates, they are the truth. And dont come back with your pish about it being the UK´s oil, that only dissolves your argument that it is possible to subsidise Scotland at all as that would be saying that it doesn´t exist.

            All your arguments are based on mistruths and misunderstandings. If you think I have an IQ of a 15-year old why is it that you can´t follow the very basics of a discussion and I have to point these things out to you? It is getting tiresome reading your gurgling and making a constant idiot out of yourself.

          • Bertie

            “There are two evidences being talked about here. Your original question was for evidence on Sturgeon putting Farage in his place not evidence of the statistics ”

            Wrong – There you go misrepresenting again. I asked for “Evidence” that what Sturgeon claimed was true! Not that she put Farage in his place, which she didn’t because we neither saw the clip prior where Farage laid out the case, to which she was responding, nor was he allowed a response to her twittering. I questioned your claim that what she said was true and that it negated Farage’s prior comments, and the understanding of most of the UK that Scotland is subsidised by England.

            “but again here is the EVIDENCE of the facts of Scotland more than paying its way and from a reliable non-political source-”

            Scot tax revenue £7100 per head. UK Per capita spend has been,and is still , higher per capita on Scotland than it is in rest of UK.

            So why do you need the Barnett Formula then which sees Scotland get significantly more per head than it should?

            Is it a bribe to stay in the Union?

            “Now I hope you read it this time, I posted it before but your head has been so wedged up your pompous ass that you continually refuse to read it.”

            I didn’t see it posted before because I was wading through mountains of your childish drivel and name calling. Ah.predictably there you go again.

            Quite strange that nearly everyone , bar you, the SNP and a smattering of other lefties seems to think Scotland aren’t subsidised.What a conspiracy by everyone else. Still, well find out when you leave – just make sure we English get the vote and we can send you ungrateful obnoxious sweaties on your way.

            “Read the facts I posted, they are not opinions or estimates, they are the truth. And dont come back with your pish about it being the UK´s oil,”

            Ahso your argument is based solely on the Oil being all Scotland’s – which clearly it isnt. And what of the English money that has underwritten the exploration, drilling,and extraction of said oil?

            As an aside, with what do you hope to defend your Oil interests when you secede?

            And there’s nothing pish about disputing that the OIL is all Scotland’s, for doing so is not the equivalent of saying it doesnt exist!

            “All your arguments are based on mistruths and misunderstandings”

            Simply not true – there you go misleading yet again.

            “If you think I have an IQ of a 15-year old why is it that you can´t follow the very basics of a discussion and I have to point these things out to you?”

            You’re the one that has had trouble following our discussion,straying off piste as you regularly do, to engage in pointless name calling…If you spent less time being a child,and more on the subject at hand, you’d see that the Union is in severe difficult because so many English hate you whiny arseholes now who continually claim the assets are all yours,but perish the thought of any debts…

            “It is getting tiresome reading your gurgling and making a constant idiot out of yourself.”

            Not half as amusing seeing what a tiresome hibbert you are who doesn’t seem to realise without an amenable England,you sweaties would have nothing,as we’d simply walk in and take it if you started behaving badly! It’s rich you call me pompous yet it’s clear you have such an over inflated opinion of yourself.

            Perhaps we should have left you to rot in 18th century when you skirt wearers begged to bailed out as a result of your imprudent attempt at colonialism.

          • Bertie

            “All your arguments are based on mistruths and misunderstandings”

            In 2012/13 total public spending in Scotland was estimated to be £65.2bn, or 9.3% of total UK spending, with a population of 8.3%.

            So, even by the most generous measure, Scotland raised £53.1bn in 2012/13 and spent £65.2bn, leaving the country £12.1bn short.

            Where’s that “extra money comeing from?”

            Note
            – the most generous measure takes the assumption that assume that 84.2%
            of taxes from North Sea Oil&Gas accrued to Scotland – a share
            calculated by the, chuckle, completely objective experts from the Uni of
            Aberdeen!!

            So where’s all that extra money comign from? It’s even more money if one doesnt assume so much North Sea O&G tax take!!

            Allocate
            the oil on a population basis (8.3% rather than 84.2%) and Scotland’s
            tax receipts for 2012/13 were £48.1bn (rather than £53.1bn), equivalent
            to 8.2% of the UK total tax take.

            So, for FACTS and actual evidence.

            Scottish spending – £ 65.2bn
            Scottish tax revenue – £ 48.1bn – 53.1bn

            But if Scotland is spending beyond its means –
            “and clearly it is” – then so too is the UK.

            And with brent at $64/bbl, you’l be requiring even more subsidy.

            Glad to educate you on the numbers.

            Res Ipsa Loquitur.

            Scotland is subsidised.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            For each one of the last 34 years Scotland has paid in more in tax per person than the average for the UK.

            If you minus Scotland’s total tax receipts generated per person since 1980 from the average for the UK, they’ve contributed a surplus of £222 billion in today’s prices.

            The UK is subsidised.

          • Bertie

            “The UK is subsidised.”

            Simply UNTRUE

            As the figures showed –

            I know mathematical ability and reasoning are not your stong points but even you can see that there is no way Scotland subsidies England when , for 2012/2013 as an example:

            In 2012/13 total public spending in Scotland was estimated to be £65.2bn, or 9.3% of total UK spending, with a population of 8.3%.

            So, even by the most generous measure, Scotland raised £53.1bn in 2012/13 and spent £65.2bn, leaving the country £12.1bn short.

            And that was, as I illustrated, with facts ona best case scenario where

            “- the most generous measure takes the assumption that assume that 84.2% of taxes from North Sea Oil&Gas accrued to Scotland – a share calculated by the, chuckle, completely objective experts from the Uni of Aberdeen!!

            So if England/RuK are not subsidising Scotland, but its the other way round, where did Scotland get that “extra £12.1billion from then for that financial year? And this is a scenario that plays out,on a regular basis, for most years since England bailing Scotland out all those centuries ago!!!!

            Dont let the facts get in th way of your bitter nationalism.

            Here’s another one for you.

            How is it in any way consistent that England should not have a vote in whether Scotland stays in the UK BUT, accoridng to Sturgeon, it’s perfectly okay for Europeans(ie Non Brits) to vote on whether Britain stays in the EU or not?

            Consistency? No of course not.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            “In every single one of the last 30 years, the amount of tax revenues generated per person in Scotland was greater than for the UK as a whole.”

            “in 2011/12 Scotland contributed £56.9 billion in tax revenue, which is equivalent to £10,700 per person, compared to £9,000 per person for the UK as a whole”

            ” since 1980/81 Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax revenues ”

            http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00418381.pdf

            England didnt bail out Scotland. We’ve been over this before I believe. You can read it all here.

            http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

            Anybody not just people in Aberdeen would arrive at a similar figure considering the oil is in Scottish waters so I don’t see your point of chuckling there. It is more expensive to build roads per head of capita in the vast expanses of the Scottish Highlands and any tax raised an English supermarket based in Scotland gets counted as English. All the money gets pumped down south anyway but despite all that Scotland have still paid £222billion more up until 2014.

            I am interested in fairness and for Scotland to govern its own affairs instead of being on the periphery of the British Empire. I would not call that being bitter or do I consider myself a nationalist nor do any French people living in France etc. As for your question for Sturgeon, you’d better ask her. My personal opinion is that Scotland- the people living in Scotland- should decide whether it stays in the EU or not and the same for rUK- the people living there. Maybe that is the consistency seek and that Sturgeon is referring to?

          • Bertie

            I appreciate it’s very hard for you to work logically but let’s try this again.

            In 2012/13 total public spending in Scotland was estimated to be £65.2bn

            In the same period, 2012/13 Scotland raised £53.1bn (assuming, generously, that that 84.2% of taxes from North Sea Oil&Gas accrued to Scotland)

            Spend £65.2bn
            Revenue £ 53.1bn

            Shortfall £12.1bn

            Where did the shortfall come from? England subsidy.

            I note from your link that
            1) Only a Tax revenue figure is given for your example.
            Namely £56.9bn

            There is no corresponding “SPENDING” figure.

            Which, sa it does in 2012/2013, will also show that in 2011/2012 financial year Scotland yet again lived beyond its means. As ,m it in fact, has done since 1707.

            “” since 1980/81 Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax revenues “”

            Utter tosh – evidence please.

            Annual Spend / Revenue receipts – Your table on page 2, conveniently supplied by the Scottish Govt(Aka SNOP) roflmao…….seems to omit the spending figures.

            I say aain, in financial tax year 2012/2013 where did that £12.1bn mysteriously come from then? And if we assumed that the North Sea allocation isnt 84%, then that “not insignificant sum” is even larger!!!

            England bailed out Scotland – the Scottish nobs had over extended themselves engaging in colonial pursuits similar to England,but jsut werent anywhere near as successful.

            “By the time the Darien adventure had ended in disaster, investors’
            capital equal to half the gross domestic product of Scotland had been
            wiped out. No wonder its impoverished nobles and merchants were only too
            happy to support the Act of Union in 1707 as they struggled to rebuild
            their battered balance sheets. It was not so much a marriage of
            convenience as one born of financial necessity.”

            Scottish independence, the Darien disaster and financial warnings from history
            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100020733/scottish-independence-the-darien-disaster-and-financial-warnings-from-history/

            “Anybody not just people in Aberdeen would arrive at a similar figure
            considering the oil is in Scottish waters so I don’t see your point of
            chuckling there.”

            I’d challenge that 84% of the Oil is Scottish,and doubt everybody would agree as you claim – it’s certainly kore Scottish than English that I do concur with, just as its certainly more Shetland isles than Scottish to a great degree as well…

            But that still doesnt negate the fact that in 2012/2013 Scotland spent at least £12.1billion more than it raised. Where did that money come from if it wasnt from the taxpayers of England/RuK???

            “but despite all that Scotland have still paid £222billion more up until 2014”

            I’ve not seen anyevidence of that other than the claim in that 2 page PDF you link too, produced by the SNP.There are no SPEND figures – why not? No mention of SPend,no mention of needing the Barnett formula etc.

            The claim Scotland has paid in more than its taken out rings very very hollow as my example 2012/2013 illustrates quite usefully.

            “I am interested in fairness and for Scotland to govern its own affairs instead of being on the periphery of the British Empire.”

            I dont disagree but I am for ensuring England doesnt get screwed over yet again.

            There should be a fair split of assets, a fair split of liabilities, (and no, Pound sterling is not an asset – its the currency of the “Union” so if you leave the Union you lose the currency.), Trident should be moved South, Naval ship yards & their work should be moved south(they were given to Clyde for Politicial reasons), the Scottish element of British Army should be retired to Scotland(and paid forf by Scotland) with English soldiers being rehired.

            And lastly – border controls should be implemented.

            “My personal opinion is that Scotland- the people living in Scotland-
            should decide whether it stays in the EU or not and the same for rUK- ”

            And why not Scots living in England & Wales?

            I’m all for a vote for Every legitimaite British citizens(English,Scottish,Welsh, Irish) to vote on
            1) Britain remaining in the EU
            2) Each nation remaining in the Union

            The caveat to former being that if Scotland, for example, votes to leave the Union, they have no say on whether the Rest of UK stay in EU, or not. Common sense really – just as it is that EU nationals should have no say in whether Britain remains in EU or not as they are not British.

            Sturgeon’s idea of consistency is whatever will get her the votes she requires. So drop her a memo to get to to agree to allowing the English to vote on Scottish independence then we can put this neverendum to bed permanently.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            “I appreciate it’s very hard for you to work logically but let’s try this again.”

            Let’s just see how you fair in that respect.

            “Where did the shortfall come from? England subsidy.”

            Already you fail to mention the shortfall of the UK! Do you think Scotland were alone in that year’s deficit?!

            “Namely £56.9bn

            There is no corresponding “SPENDING” figure.”

            Income for 2011/12 in Scotland 56.9bn, spending 64.9bn, deficit -7.6bn

            Income for 2011/12 in UK 573bn, spending 694bn, deficit -121bn

            Now with a population of 8.3%, Scotland raised 9.9% and spent 9.3%

            For that year Scotland put an extra 8.9bn into the treasury.

            “” since 1980/81 Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax revenues “”

            “Utter tosh – evidence please.”

            Where is your counter evidence?!

            There are number of reasons why public expenditure per capita for Scotland is above the UK average. In some cases, it reflects the vastly lower population density in Scotland relative to the UK, increasing the cost of providing the same level of public service activity, particularly in areas such as education, health and transport.

            A further explanation is that the figures don’t compare like with like. For example, unlike south of the border, Scotland hasn’t privatised its water and sewage treatment. This means that those services are included in Scottish public expenditure, whilst in England and Wales they’re operated by the private sector for profit and charge the public directly, taking them off the public-sector books. This alone adds a substantial sum to the Scottish per-capita figure.

            ” its certainly more Shetland isles than Scottish to a great degree as well”

            Which is part of Scotland and itself only has a 12mile radius surrounding its maritime borders. We have been over this before. There really is no point going round in circles with this discussion.

            “if you leave the Union you lose the currency”

            There would no longer be a union and therefore England would lose it too. Its as much Scotland’s as it is England’s.

            ” I am for ensuring England doesnt get screwed over yet again.”

            “Scotland “pays its fair share” and that “these myths” are simply perpetuated by those that oppose independence”. And that “Scotland’s oil wealth had been squandered by Westminster rather than invested, while being underplayed (in value terms) by the UK government to subdue calls for Scottish independence”. Dennis Healey http://www.holyrood.com/2013/05/still-raising-eyebrows/

            As the Mccrone report has revealed- it has been quite the opposite for decades and what could have been a massive oil fund as saved by Norway instead it has been continually squeezed out and squandered by Westminster.
            http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-then-and-lies-now/

            “And why not Scots living in England & Wales?”

            if you leave home you get no say in what colour the curtains are I suppose!

            “Sturgeon’s idea of consistency is whatever will get her the votes she requires.”

            thats called democracy- what the public wants the public gets!

          • Bertie

            It’s pretty straight forward – both Scotland, and the UK , are living well beyond their means…

            Hence I didn’t think it relevant to mention that,again

            “Already you fail to mention the shortfall of the UK! Do you think Scotland were alone in that year’s deficit?!

            Perhaps you missed my comments on the ever burgeoning National Debt which continues to rise inexorably.

            So you dont dispute the figures..which clearly show Scotland is spending well beyond its means, the difference between Spending and Revenue being topped up by a cheque from England/Wales as Scotland has no borrowing powers!

            In 2012/13 total public spending in Scotland was estimated to be £65.2bn. In the same period, 2012/13 Scotland raised £53.1bn (assuming, generously, that that 84.2% of taxes from North Sea Oil&Gas accrued to Scotland)

            Spend £65.2bn
            Revenue £ 53.1bn
            Shortfall £12.1bn

            Where’s that coming from.

            Note I have given you revenue based on 84% of North Sea Oil tax take.

            “Income for 2011/12 in Scotland 56.9bn, spending 64.9bn, deficit -7.6bn”

            Vis your example where’s that extra £7.6bn coming from then?

            Whichever way you look at it England subsidises the rest of the UK. Whilst Scotland would be economically viable on its own two feet, Wales wouldnt.

            “Where is your counter evidence?!”

            I’ve given you the evidence – facts. Indisputable Spending & revenue figs which clearly show you are spending far more than you take in tax revenue(incl North Sea) , and that money has to come from somewhere. It certainly doesnt come from Scottish borrowing!

            “There are number of reasons why public expenditure per capita for Scotland is above the UK average. In some cases, it reflects the vastly lower population density in Scotland relative to the UK, increasing the cost of providing the same level of public service activity, particularly in areas such as education, health and transport.”

            So what – when independent you’ve got the worry of paying for that yourself as England will no longer be obligated.

            “Which is part of Scotland and itself only has a 12mile radius surrounding its maritime borders. We have been over this before. There really is no point going round in circles with this discussion.”

            No Shetlands is part of Britain, just as Scotland is part of Britain.

            If you want to leave Britain,then on the basis Sturgeon is demanding that Scots have a say on EU membership why is no comment being made on Shetlands right to have their own say on whether they want to be part of the UK, part of an Independent Scotland, or part of Norway. Not a sausage, wonder why.

            Hypocrisy or what.

            With regard to:

            If you leave the Union you lose the currency”

            “There would no longer be a union”

            Sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI – if you Scots choose to leave,tough. You only represent 10% of the Unions population.

            England,Wales and NI will still represent 60million – why would sterling no longer be the currency for the rest of us.

            Tad arrogant of you to assume that a country with 5.,29 million determines whether rest of UK continues to use Sterling or not.

            ” and therefore England would lose it too. Its as much Scotland’s as it is England’s.”

            I think you’l find it is more the UK’s and seeing as the rest of the UK minus Scotland will make up 60 out of 65 million people I’m pretty confident that the rest of us will be telling you sweaties to get stuffed.

            ““Scotland “pays its fair share” and that “these myths” are simply perpetuated by those that oppose independence”. ”

            Simply untrue. You dont pay your fair share you get a subsidy, and this alleged myth you claim is utter tosh – and I’m all for you leaving the Union and securing Independence. Which makes an utter mockery of your claim on that point of clarification as well….

            As I said regarding Sturgeon’s idea of consistency is whatever will get her the votes she requires.

            “thats called democracy- what the public wants the public gets!”

            Not quite how you obviously felt when you lost the Independence referendum now is it!!! And the resultant “Neverendum” we will experience, in true anti democratic EU form.

            Again you Scottish nationalists are an utter bunch of self serving hypocrites.

          • Bertie

            2013/2014

            Scotland revenue estimated as £50.0 billion (8.1 per cent of UK onshore revenue)

            or, taking the more generous

            Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, total public sector revenue is estimated at £54.0 billion

            Total expenditure for the benefit of Scotland
            (by the Scottish Government, UK Government) was

            £66.4 billion.

            Again,

            Spending £66.4bn
            Revenue (Pop Shareof North Sea £50bn)
            Revenue(Geographical share of North Sea £54bn)

            That means £11.6bn to £16.4bn more spending than revenue has brought in.W

            Where’s that extra money coming from??

            So another English taxpayer subsidy to Scotland in the financial tax year following my previous example 2013/2014!!!

            Figures dont lie in this instance. it’s black n white.

            Scotland gets given significantly more money than it raises in revenue/gets as a share of North Sea tax take (the latter regardless on which basis it is calculated)

          • Wolf Sternhammer
          • Bertie

            Good job I’m not using second dubious information sources as you clearly are…

            NewStatemen, rofl…..

            How about official Scottish Government figures.

            Public Sector Revenue 2013-14
            Scottish onshore revenue was estimated as £50.0 billion
            Including a population share of North Sea revenue, the estimate is £50.4 billion

            Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, total public sector revenue is estimated at £54.0 billion

            Total Public Sector Expenditure 2013-14

            Total expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the Scottish

            Government, UK Government, and all other parts of the public sector was
            £66.4 billion.

            Net Fiscal Balance 2013-14

            This is the difference
            between current revenue and total public sector expenditure including
            capital investment. The net fiscal balance:

            Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £16.4 billion (12.2 per cent of GDP).

            Including a population share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £16.0 billion (11.7 per cent of GDP).

            Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).

            Cough cough splutter, so with an 84% share of the North Sea tax take Scotland was still £12.4billion in the red in 2013/2014.

            Fact- according to figures from the Scottish Govt.Not newstateman(some rampant lefty publication), not WingsoverScotland, some mouthpiece no doubt for the SNP.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            According to Scotland’s national accounts – Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) – every single year for the last 34 years Scotland’s tax revenue generation per head has been higher than all the other UK nations.

            “Cough cough splutter, so with an 84% share of the North Sea tax take Scotland was still £12.4billion in the red in 2013/2014.”

            Are you going to argue about the amount of coal in Wales belonging to the Welsh or not?

            Anyway, you completely missed my point again and quite a straight forward one it is too.

            You point out the 12.4 billion deficit but fail to mention the deficit of the UK for that year which was 108 billion making Scotland´s percentage of the borrowing for that year at 8.7% of the UK´s total despite putting in more tax than any other part of the UK.

            Look a the year before perfectly explained for you on the BBC website. Is that too “rampantly lefty” and organisation for you? As if that suddenly demeans its validity from your right wing ones! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28879267

            Amusing that when YOU type something including numbers you consider it automatically becomes evidence! Again there is that problem you have. Facts printed in “lefty newspapers cant be true” Check the tennis scores today- see if Federer managed to beat Wawrinka in any of the papers!!

            So where is that extra money coming from for the whole of the UK? Why are we in 1.5 trillion debt and why do Scotland have to pay 5 billion a year in interest when we should have amassed a gigantic oil fund by now? Havent you heard of the McCrone Report? The South of England has been drinking the milkshake for decades.

          • Bertie

            “According to Scotland’s national accounts – Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) – every single year for the last 34 years Scotland’s tax revenue eneration per head has been higher than all the other UK nations.”

            According to Scottish national accoutns you , Scotland, have been consistently spending far more than the revenue you’ve received, regardless of whether revenue metric was based on North Sea Oil tax take share ona geographical(84%) or a population(8%) basis.

            FACT.

            So youve been covered by England and rest of UK for that £10bn+ odd shortfall each year.

            “Are you going to argue about the amount of coal in Wales belonging to the Welsh or not?”

            What’s the relevance of that remark – it would be akin to me saying are you , Scots, going to argue about the amount of “protection” the British Armed Forces(80%+ English) provides for Scotland, as well as England.Whcih you will note I didnt.

            “Anyway, you completely missed my point again and quite a straight forward one it is too.”

            No, the point is clear – in black and white. Regardless of whether your share of the North Sea Oil tax take is 84%(based on geopraphical concerns) or on population percentages(8%) you still spend far more than you get in revenue. Seeing as you cant borrow, or issue Gilts,that means the deficit that you need is covered by the rest of the UK(ie predominantly English taxpayers)

            “You point out the 12.4 billion deficit but fail to mention the deficit of the UK for that year”

            Which is completely irrelevant to the argument that England subsidies Scotland. The fact the RUK is over borrowing and spending beyond its means is utterly irreleant to the point of order. Namely England subsidies Scotland.

            “Look a the year before perfectly explained for you on the BBC website. Is that too “rampantly lefty” and organisation for you? As if that suddenly demeans its validity from your right wing ones! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco…Amusing that when YOU type something including numbers you consider it automatically becomes evidence! Again there is that problem you have.
            Facts printed in “lefty newspapers cant be true””

            It is explained in black and white on the government website. You spend more than you make in revenue, ergo someone has to pay that shortfall….

            Im not quoting a newspaper in regard to the figures I have gfiven you in my last two responses. They come direct from the horses mouth – the Scottish Govt.

            “In 2012-13, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of
            £17.6 billion (14.0% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit
            of £17.1 billion (13.3% of GDP) when including a per capita share of
            North Sea revenue or a deficit of £12.1 billion (8.3% of GDP) when a
            geographical share of North Sea revenue is included. ”

            Pretty clear..Whether North Sea Oil is included or not, and at various percentages, you are still getting subbed by the rest of the UK.

            If you think Scotland subs England then there’s no need for the Barnet Forumla for starters.

            http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/03/7888

            http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422

            “So where is that extra money coming from for the whole of the UK? Why are we in 1.5 trillion debt and why do Scotland have to pay 5 billion a year in interest when we should have amassed a gigantic oil fund by now?”

            Clearly it’s borrowed! Duh.
            As to why UK has £1.5trillion debt plus, obvious surely. Just as Scotland over spends, so does the rest of the UK.

            Why should you have amassed a gigantic Oil fund? It’s british Oil, the explo, research, development and production of which was with English money…It certaionly isnt Scottish.

            I notice you didnt respond to my comment vis Shetlands and it not beign part of Scotland,but part of the UK – so why no referendum for them to decide on what they want to do as SNP is requesting fo Scotland..

            Consistency?Not a jot from your.

            Ultimately, when it boils down to it it’d be better we went our separate ways as weve had enough of your bloody whinging.

            As to Scottish Oil – Well, the apportionment is incidental – lets see you defend it with a miniscule Armed forces.

            80% of British Army is English – and post Independence most of the Navy/Airforce and Army will be English. Dont rate the chances of a tinpoint “up its arse” Socialist inclined,high tax Scotland with a population of 5.2m people holding off 55million!!

            Good luck.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            You really are thick as fuck.

            The amount of spending in Scotland is less than the amount of spending the UK has made.
            Scotland spend more by borrowing and so do the UK but to an even greater extent. That has been my point in the last 3 responses but you never seem to be able to pick up on that point.

            Can you not get that into your thick skull? Try reading lines 2 and 3 a few times.

            The oil is in Scottish waters not Shetland waters not English waters. We have been over that point in great detail before. I have also told you before its not my job to educate you. I can lead you to the information but you dont understand it so whats the point?!

            We can easily send a fucking nuclear bomb dwon south if you like. Whats your address?
            45 Arsehole Crescent?

            Reply back if you are last word freak. I wont read it so ever word you type you will know it to be a waste of time.

          • Bertie

            “You really are thick as fuck.”

            Temper temper, no need to swear you ignoramus.

            The facts are obvious.Scotland gets subsidised – the degree to which depends on what proportion of the North Sea tax revenue (ie whether it be 8% as per population,or a dubious 84% as per geography)

            If you’re so financially secure why do you need the Barnet Formula – let’s end that right now then shall we.

            As to your tone,is it any wonder that so many English people hate you arrogant vulgar sweaties – you’re so ungrateful – England bailed you out in 1707, your nobility having bust themselves on a poor attempt at Colonialism.

            “The oil is in Scottish waters not Shetland waters not English waters.”

            Not true – the Oil is Britains first and foremost. And much of it is owned by Shetlands should that country be independent in its own right – which of course we wont see a referendum offered on by Sturgeon,Salmond or any other fishy Scottish First Minister. For obvious reasons.

            “We have been over that point in great detail before. I have also told
            you before its not my job to educate you. I can lead you to the
            information but you dont understand it so whats the point?!”

            Where have you shown any evidence as to the allocation of Oil should Shetlands be an independent nation – you have merely claimed that Shetlands is part of Scotland, so what is theirs, is Scottish!Hilariously you fail to se that this extends to what is Scotland’s is therefore British.

            Ultimately however, ownership will be decided by force should it be merited. How are you 5.29million Scots going to defend such as large coast given Scotland accounts for 33% of the land mass of United Kingdom.

            “We can easily send a fucking nuclear bomb dwon south if you like”

            With what? You wont own any!!!! Laughable holoow threat.

            “Whats your address?45 Arsehole Crescent?”

            How stupid are you – why would I reveal it on a public board.

            I see you’re losing your rag..

            Very amusing.

            keep your head in the sand believing incorrectly that England/Wales don’t subsidise you Scots.

            “Reply back if you are last word freak.”

            Any chance of that in English???? (Guffaw)

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            I haven´t read your latest pigeon skittering except the hypocritical last paragraph coming from someone who types as if they have drunk bottle or two of gin and a pencil held in their beak.

            But here is one of your own admitting Scotland isnt subsidised.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VOuSN2j5iU&feature=youtu.be

            Our argument is simple. Westminster will continue to believe that the oil revenues are on the “continental shelf” should be split on a per capita basis. They will only issue figures on that basis.

            Holyrood will publish figures based on both per capita and geographic allocation. That way Scots can see how much London is stealing from us.

            Since Westminster will never admit that we have any right to those revenues on a geographical basis the argument will never be resolved.

            Do remember, the concept of “continental shelf” was unknown before he discovery of North sea oil. It is purely a WM bookkeeping device and is not used in any other jurisdiction.

            It is the same tactic that had most Scottish whisky being counted as an English export because it was loaded on board ship in an English port. Another purely WM bookkeeping device that was not used in any other jurisdiction.

            For the last time here is the evidence.
            https://fullfact.org/factchecks/public_spending_welfare_scotland_eu_uk-28892

          • Bertie

            “Our argument is simple. Westminster will continue to believe that the oil revenues are on the “continental shelf” should be split on a per capita basis. They will only issue figures on that basis.”

            I gave you the North Sea Oil tax revenue figures on a per capita and a geographical share basis(84%)

            You were even more in debt (Spending vs revenue) on a per capita 8% allocation of North Sea tax revenue than the figs I gave for a 84% allocation!

            So your claim is a porkie.

            “”In 2012-13, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.6 billion (14.0% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue,

            a deficit of £17.1 billion (13.3% of GDP) when including a PER CAPITA share of North Sea revenue or

            a deficit of £12.1 billion (8.3% of GDP) when a
            GEOGRAPHICAL SHARE(ie 84%) of North Sea revenue is included. ”

            Stealing from you? It’s British Oil not Scottish. Nor Shetlands,Not England’s

            “Holyrood will publish figures based on both per capita and geographic allocation. That way Scots can see how much London is stealing from us.”

            Bloody cheek – and how much did your bloody Scottish banks cost England then ?

            Scottish Banks, run by Scots into the ground – bailed out, yet again, by English tax payer to the tune of hundreds of billions. As indeed the English bailed out Scottish nobles back in 1770’s….

            “For the last time here is the evidence.
            https://fullfact.org/factcheck…”

            I’ve already given you evidence that shows the Revenue/Spending equation.But you’ve clearly chosen to ignore it as it made sure that such figures were based on a per capita as well as on a geographical basis vis North Sea tax revenues.

            That’s before we consider the cost of bailing out Scottish banks, run by Scots, into the ground.

            That’s before we consider the fact that Tony Blair/Gordon “prudent” Brown, Scots, took the British finances in 1997 and added £350billion of the national debt by 2010,much of it(£270bn was before the Lehman moment in late 2007)

            The bank bailout added hundreds of billions more.

            Added to that you get the benefit of low borrowing rates being part of the Uk – who knows what interest rates youd have to pay to finance the excessive spending you seem so wedded to ……and that’s before we even consider how you’ll finance an Army to protect your 1/3 of the island!!!

            Hopefully we will see how things stand once we split. Make sure the English get a vote now, dont rely on those 16-17year olds….

          • Bertie

            “The sources are irrelevant. Its the information thats important.”

            Utterly hilarious – and you have the gall to label me a moron. Of course the source is relevant as it determines whether there’s bias or not you muppet!

            “”TNI” Transnational Institute? Toy News International?”

            TNI = Trinity Mirror you twit.

            http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=TNI:LSE

            Owner of the rag that is the Mirror.

            “Again you focus on one MP and their age as your only perceived weakness
            in the armour.”

            I actually gave you a list of several points!!! And I could elaborate on the numerous other imbeciles this nationalist one issue party now have in parliament but couldnt be arsed.

            “The pathetic moron that you are.”

            Au contraire your continued deliberate inability to read what I scribbled, and your determination to avoid confirming the resounding lack of experience of most SNP MP’s says it all.

            There’s that use of “Moron” yet again. Your vocabulary really is lacking isnt it.

            “The tweets you refer to
            are by a 15 year old version of her.”

            So? She said it – you can dispute that. Pottymouthesque – cant say its an attribute I had at her age,nor now.

            “You’re in your 40s whats your
            excuse?!””

            Eh? Where’s evidence of my “consistent” pottymouth behaviour? Link please.

            “Lay off the whisky next time you write something and we might get some sense out of you.”

            Pathetic attempt at diversion. I don’t drink whiskey.And if I did I certainly would drink Scottish.

            Keep up the smears – it’s all you have as you lost the argument a long long time ago.

            p.s Some alternatives for Moron which you are over using.

            idiot, imbecile, dimwit,dope, simpleton, halfwit.

            Have a good day!

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            I am not alone in saying UKIP are fascists- even Nick Griffin lost his seat to them largely because of their intolerance to immigrants attracting the fascist vote. They may not be fascists in all respects but definitely have some of their policies are. Just ask any breastfeeding mother.

            UKIP have two seats to show for their votes. Compared to the political earthquake boasted and predicted by Farage and by anyone´s book, that is being crushed. So keep flapping about on the chess board over that one as long as you like! ; )

            You may also notice that, The SNP contested 59 seats and got 1.45M votes securing 56 seats (av 24651 per seat). UKIP contested 624 seats and got 3.8M (av 6220 per seat). That´s a landslide would you not agree?

            Pointing out someone is 20 years old- is that the best you can muster?! She has not been elected purely for being in the party with the most appealing policies, but it is precisely the policies of the party that make the landslide progressive. As satisfying to see Alexander ousted as it was- he was a part of the rotten core of a party that needs to reinvent itself in a clear and obvious way.

            I agree with you on Labour otherwise why are they being so quiet on the issue?

            The SNP will have to be kept happy or the Tories will have to change their party name and stationary quite soon.

            The clip of Farage silenced on the subsidy myth by Sturgeon is available on the Mirror website. I cant type any links here apparently.

            Quite a lot to be happy about. A shame you can´t detect people´s moods very well.

          • Wolf Sternhammer

            I am not alone in saying UKIP are fascists- even Nick Griffin lost his seat to them largely because of their intolerance to immigrants attracting the fascist vote. They may not be fascists in all respects but definitely have some of their policies are. Just ask any breastfeeding mother.

            UKIP have two seats to show for their votes. Compared to the political earthquake boasted and predicted by Farage and by anyone´s book, that is being crushed. So keep flapping about on the chess board over that one as long as you like! ; )

            You may also notice that, The SNP contested 59 seats and got 1.45M votes securing 56 seats (av 24651 per seat). UKIP contested 624 seats and got 3.8M (av 6220 per seat). That´s a landslide would you not agree?

            Pointing out someone is 20 years old- is that the best you can muster?! She has not been elected purely for being in the party with the most appealing policies, but it is precisely the policies of the party that make the landslide progressive. As satisfying to see Alexander ousted as it was- he was a part of the rotten core of a party that needs to reinvent itself in a clear and obvious way.

            I agree with you on Labour otherwise why are they being so quiet on the issue?

            The SNP will have to be kept happy or the Tories will have to change their party name and stationary quite soon.

            The clip of Farage silenced on the subsidy myth by Sturgeon is available on the Mirror website. I cant type any links here apparently.

            Quite a lot to be happy about. A shame you can´t detect people´s moods very well.

          • Pacificweather

            I have been trying to find a war which was started for the right to vote. A few in South America and North America but the only one the British and their mercenaries fought in they were trying to prevent people having the vote. I do feel my ancestors may have had a hand in that.

            Any country that subsidises its farming industry, its aircraft industry and pumps money into supporting its car industry and banks is socialist. Add Medicare and you have put the icing on the cake.

            Far from being a Labour voter do I need to remind you that I spoilt my ballot with a pointless gesture today and had an ineffective vote in a Labour constituency for many years. You have a short memory. Perhaps that is why you have trouble with facts.

          • Bertie

            “I have been trying to find a war which was started for the right to vote.”

            Both Wars were for freedom and democracy (and by association your ability to vote your own opinion and have a say in how the coutnry was run)

            So you’re clearly not doing your research properly.

            “I do feel my ancestors may have had a hand in that.”

            I very much doubt your ancestors had any military experience or involvement – you sound pretty smug with that comment btw.

            “Any country that subsidises its farming industry, its aircraft industry
            and pumps money into supporting its car industry and banks is socialist.
            Add Medicare and you have put the icing on the cake.”

            Utter tripe.

            So Britain is socialsit is it because of the NHS?

            You really haven’t a scooby – just a troll. Why am I not surprised.

            Had a late night as well I see.

            “Far from being a Labour voter do I need to remind you that I spoilt my ballot with a pointless gesture today and had an ineffective vote in a Labour constituency for many years. You have a short memory.”

            Oh really – I know you spoiled your ballot paper, that was clear.But you have an ineffective vote in a Labour Constituency do you? So which party do you vote for then if it isnt Labour? It certainly isnt Conservative as you dont vote for them remember!!!

            “Pacificweather
            16 days ago
            Like you, I don’t vote Conservative. I have an ineffective vote, if you remember, so I can’t vote for anyone to any effect except in the EU elections.”

            Clearly you’re the one who has a short memory and is visibly incapable of dealing with facts!!!!

            Laughable.

            Goodbye

          • Pacificweather

            Why did you not assume I voted LibDem. Why would you assume I voted Labour when I felt disenfranchised in a Labour constituency. That would be more logical. Logic isn’t your strong point; that’s rhetoric. In fact I used to vote tactically but without success. I also told you I voted Conservative in EU elections before I voted UKIP. So why you think I might support Labour is a mystery locked away in your set of misbeliefs.

          • Bertie

            “Why would you assume I voted Labour when I felt disenfranchised in a Labour constituency”

            You only just revealed you were in a Labour constituency!!!!

            “That would be more logical. Logic isn’t your strong point; that’s rhetoric.”

            Wow that’s rich. You’re more evasive and slippery than a bar of soap.

            “”Pacificweather16 days ago Like you, I don’t vote Conservative. ”

            So clearly you’re either Labour, or Libdem (but you don’t seem dimwitted enough to vote for the latter)

            Accepting you’re incorrect, not being slippery and dishonest are clearly beyond you. As for logic, at least mine is superior to your mathematical ability.
            Norway spends more per capita,on EU contribution..

            Roflamo. You’re an idiot.

            You claim my logic is suspect with:

            “I also told you I voted Conservative in EU elections before I voted UKIP.”

            Because you have consistently NOT SAID who you voted for in the General Elections.

            In addition to which you claimed

            “””Pacificweather
            16 days ago Like you, I don’t vote Conservative. ”

            So – do you vote Conservative?
            Or do you NOT vote Conservative?

            Logic is the least of your worries !!!

          • Pacificweather

            You still have that problem processing information. Perhaps you should visit your GP.

          • Bertie

            Only one person struggling to process information here Mister “Norway pays more per capita” than UK…Wrong, er, I meant , erm,more as a percentage of income, er, got that wrong again!!!

            As to the other comments

            “That spreadsheet frightens you doesn’t it? Is it the arithmetic or the loss of prejudice you fear?”

            Not at all – I just cant be bothered as I’ve better things to do unlike persons such as yourself – clearly

            “Far from being grudging, I generously admitted when I made a mistake in complete contrast to you.”

            Your apology was grudging. And I dont recall you proving me utterly incorrect in any of my claims.

            “The primary source figures are:-
            Net contribution to the EU budget £9,807 million in 2014.
            UK population 64.1 million
            £152.99″

            Norway direct payments to EU countries averages €327 million plus €24 million to Interreg totalling €351 millionNorway population 5.084million
            €69.04 per capita”

            Have a link for that as it seems the NET UK contribution is even higher than my understanding of £8.6bn. Must be part of the rebate Bliar gave away then!

            “I know your magnanimity will know no bounds for this generous contribution to the debate and sincere apology for my error.”

            I will behave likewise if you prove I was similarly so erroneous.

          • Pacificweather

            You are a gentleman and a scholar.

          • Pacificweather

            Britain will still be paying the smallest amount relative to its income of any of the EU countries after the referendum because the British will vote for the status quo as they always do.

          • Bertie

            Irrelevant – it’s still £12billion pound.
            We cant afford it.
            And I note you dont dispute my numbers – you per capita example was WRONG!

            Notice no apology for talking out of your proverbial yet again.

          • Pacificweather

            Your numbers were slightly out but you were correct in principle. I did your trick of using second hand data and paid the price. Always use primary sources.

            We shall meet again on disqus after 2017 to see what we end up paying.

          • Bertie

            “Your numbers were slightly out but you were correct in principle.”

            Ah yes, a grudging admittal that you were WRONG!

            ” I did your trick of using second hand data and paid the price. Always use primary sources.”

            Okay then – using primary sources how do the per capita numbers change? Bet they only change marginally,and my point that your ability analyse the facts, dissect the numbers and draw logical conclusions is flawed

          • Pacificweather

            Far from being grudging, I generously admitted when I made a mistake in complete contrast to you. The primary source figures are:-

            Net contribution to the EU budget £9,807 million in 2014.
            UK population 64.1 million
            £152.99

            Norway direct payments to EU countries averages €327 million plus €24 million to  Interreg totalling €351 million
            Norway population 5.084million
            €69.04 per capita

            I know your magnanimity will know no bounds for this generous contribution to the debate and sincere apology for my error.

          • Pacificweather

            If we had not joined the French in WW1 there would have been not WW2 but if we had lost we would still be voting after 1918. It was not possible for us to have lost WW2 because we had too many allies but to make the assumption that millions of British people died for FPTP is an insult to their memory.

          • Bertie

            “If we had not joined the French in WW1 there would have been not WW2 but if we had lost we would still be voting after 1918. ”

            How do you know there wouldn’t have been a WW2 if we hadn’t entered WW1?

            If we’d lost WW2 do you think we’d get a democracy? How misguided are you.

            “It was not possible for us to have lost WW2 because we had too many allies but to make the assumption that millions of British people died for FPTP is an insult to their memory.”

            Not quite what I said so please stop twisting words as is your want.

            They died for our Democracy and Freedom. I challenge you to show where I said they died for FPTP.

            You really are utterly deceitful

          • Pacificweather

            There is one thing with which I must agree with you. It is important, particularly, at the time of a general election, that no platitude remains unspoken.

            Bombast is the last refuge of the man who has no more worthy arguments as you have shown once again.

          • Bertie

            “Bombast is the last refuge of the man who has no more worthy arguments as you have shown once again.”

            I’m not the one engaging in disinformation nor tactics of obtuseness!

            So tad rich for you to claim I’ve no more worthy arguments as you clearly ran out of them ages ago.

          • Pacificweather

            How was the UKIP result for you? FPTP certainly did its job in keeping the lunatic parties out of government. Saved us from a UKIP/Tory coalition.

          • Bertie

            “It is sinful how those constituency boundaries benefited Labour as you predicted.”

            The Labour result would have been even worse with the boundary anomaly taken care of. FACT.

            **In
            addition, we can expect further institutional changes that will harden
            the separation of Scotland and England and raise structural obstacles
            for the Labour Party. Two in particular are likely to be implemented by
            the Conservative government that will shortly take office. The first of
            these is a set of revisions to the boundaries of the UK’s parliamentary
            districts, aimed at ensuring a more equitable distribution of seats
            according to population. The consensus is that these changes will
            provide the Conservatives with another 15-20 seats, further extending
            their lead over Labour. **

            Inconvenient fact for you – but there
            you go. Current boundaries are worth 15-20 seats to Labour, which, with a
            small majority would be priceless.

            Puts to bed your continual claim that the boundaries are irrelevant.

            PR
            is not the answer unfortunately no matter how much I’d like to see 85
            UKIP MPs…too unstable, and gives too much power to extremist
            groups.Only have to look to Israel/Italy etc for PR coalition issues.

            And in an effort to cut down the number of replies….I’ll respond to your last 4 on one..

            “Pacificweather
            Bertie•a day ago
            How was the UKIP result for you? FPTP certainly did its job in keeping the lunatic parties out of government. Saved us from a UKIP/Tory coalition”

            The
            result was a tad disappointing, only one seat, but surprisingly we had a
            Conservative majority which was nearly as good -that and the fact that
            Ed Balls lost his seat(thanks to UKIP voters) and the odious George
            Galloway was sent packing. We dodged a bullet that was a Labour / SNP
            coalition of the loons

            “Pacificweather Bertie•2 days ago You are a gentleman and a scholar.”

            At least I’m not disingenuous so there’s no need to be facetious thank you very much.

            Anyway, I think we are done………

          • Pacificweather

            Excellent. Labour had an an electoral advantage but the Conservatives won by 36.9% of the vote. UKIP had more votes than SNP but only got 1 seat which is entirely as it should be. We dodged a bullet of Conservative UKIP coalition. I feel the surge of mutual respect and agreement flowing through us.

          • Bertie

            Labour has an electoral advantage – that is clear. And yes, they blew it big time.
            ” UKIP had more votes than SNP but only got 1 seat which is entirely as it should be. ”

            And why do you think that is how it should be? You’re the one for PR aren’t you so you’d be up in arms about such unfairness?

            “We dodged a bullet of Conservative UKIP coalition”

            In actual fact we dodged the bullet that was Lab/SNP which wouldve been far far worse!

            ” I feel the surge of mutual respect and agreement flowing through us.”

            Zedsville – now you’re reaching

          • Pacificweather

            He, he, he. It’s all a bit of a lark eh? I’m taking bets on the 2017 referendum outcome. Fancy a bit of a flutter?

          • Bertie

            The outcome is obvious – the British people will be scared into voting YES – after which Scotland will get its Independence vote and go its own way(after all the bastards have voted “Yes” of course)

            We might even get it next year!

          • Pacificweather

            Oh happy day….

          • Pacificweather

            It is sinful how those constituency boundaries benefited Labour as you predicted. The BBC were so incensed they produced a graph.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

          • Pacificweather

            An after thought. If the status quo is usually the least worst option does that mean Britain staying in the EU is the least worst option?

          • Bertie

            After you sure you have time for “after thoughts” given your erroneous claims???

            National Debt was not £1.8 trillion in November 2014 for two simple facts

            1) It’s currently at £1.,521 trillion

            2) Given we had to borrowed another £100bn over the last year, how on earth would we have reduced it from YOUR £1.8 trillion to the actual £1.52 trillion..

            Am all ears.

            Come on..Facts please, no bullshit, lies or other obtuseness.

            “If the status quo is usually the least worst option does that mean Britain staying in the EU is the least worst option?”

            Quite possibly YES but then that wouldnt be democratic to deprive people of this country a vote on the matter

      • Mary Ann

        Oh dear, that is not a wise decision, tories, bad. ukip, worse.

        • Damon

          Tories bad, eh? You’re right. Socialism and anti-austerity politics is what we need. After all, look how it’s succeeded in France.

        • Bertie

          Well they’re hardly worse than Labour, Libdems or those dreadful sweaties, SNP.

          I suspect my decision is far wiser than yours Mary. Libdem are you?

    • John Carins

      Does it matter if he wins or not? The country is well and truly f**cked if the polls are to be believed.

      • Kennie

        It is anyway, no matter who gets in. Putin, together with the Chinese and others, are well on the way to f***k**g up the US$. As we are hanging on to O’barmy’s coat-tails, we will quickly follow.
        No coincidence that Milliband’s rating went up last week when he said that he had said “No” to Obama over Syria.

        • Grace Ironwood

          I see Putin is one of the few restraints upon the EU. Its soviet qualities are not lost on him.

          In that respect, I wish him well.

    • jaz

      “Nigel Farage, has pointed out one simple fact – that our politics is dominated by careerist politicians who all have the same background.”

      You mean someone who attended public school, worked in the City, and then been a career politician for 15 years.

      • Kennie

        No, he means those (the great majority) who have never worked, just sat in the HoC making out their expense claims.

      • Mary Ann

        And takes money from an institution he doesn’t believe in.

        • Kennie

          You take money from Scotland and the rest of the UK, but you don’t believe in them. That is why you want to be supported by the EU.

      • Grace Ironwood

        I think he means those from both parties that participate in the entrenched hegemony.

        If any of them have worked in the city that would be a positive.

    • Mary Ann

      Farage’s background is not dissimilar to other politicians, only he didn’t get to Oxbridge, the majority of people in this country are intelligent enough to realise that Britain is better off in the EU, the referendum was only offered because Cameron was trying to outkip ukip, a silly thing to do. Just listened to Farage going on about controlling immigration from the EU totally ignoring the fact that there are almost as many Britons living in mainland Europe as there are mainland Europeans living in Britain, and a lot of those Britions living in mainland Europe are not exactly what most of us would call desirable citizens.

      • Damon

        “… [A]nd a lot of those Britons living in mainland Europe are not exactly what most of us would call desirable citizens.”
        Meaning? If you’re talking about criminals in Spain or tax exiles in Switzerland, this is a tiny minority, dwarfed by pensioners and the tens of thousands of people doing assorted honest jobs. What a strange comment.

  • Molly NooNar

    Not a Labour fan, but I have to query the first paragraph, “the calibre of his opponent.” Perhaps the Spectator can enlighten us, what were Cameron’s qualifications and credentials to be PM?

    • Simon de Lancey

      Perhaps the Spectator can enlighten us, what were Cameron’s qualifications and credentials to be PM?

      Attending the right school and university?

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        Being approved of by the CoLC and their paymasters in Cayman and Jersey

      • Mary Ann

        Bullingdon club

        • Simon de Lancey

          How could I forget!?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      The ability to persuade the traitorous, lickspittle, two faced ,conniving LibDems to prop him up in power.

    • Derek Robinson

      As he said, “He thought he’d be rather good at it” …..
      Oh how we laugh, ….. all the way to the food bank.

  • Simon Lock

    The list of achievements claimed in this article are absolute nonsense.

    Employment only looks high if the figures include unpaid placements via the workfare slavery scheme, and zero hours contracts that people have been forced to accept on threat of starvation by the DWP.

    The economy has completely tanked, deficit and national debt are both higher than they were when the tories took over, in spite of the world-wide recession that was still taking in effect at the time (and which Labour could not have prevented from reaching the UK). Believe it or not we were in recovery as at the last election, but 3 just months later the double dip began.

    Deflation is not a good thing, it’s a downward spiral which could lead to worse stagnation and shrinkage then the Austerity cuts already have. One only has to look at Japan post WW2. Lower prices mean less profits, and therefore less jobs at lower wages. and therefore lower prices still.

    Privatisation of NHS and school services is also a bad thing, with services being inevitably compromised for the sake of shareholder profits as they have with public transport.

    And as a university technician I can assure you that the tuition fee system most definitely has not worked. Universities are struggling to attract suitable candidates as entry is limited to those who can afford it, while more capable students are excluded because they can’t

    • Totally agree with you on the University side of things – I got my HND back in 1999, and have since looked at going for a degree, it was quite expensive back then to even get the HND, but the amount it costs now to go for a degree is so high I get scared just at the thought of looking. I have noticed though I could go to Sweden and get a degree there for a lot less than here, especially as we’re still part of the EU for now.

    • jray

      The company he keeps also is a problem,IDS.McVey,both have lied to Parliament and the PAC,twisted the statistics and been caught,refuse to come clean about Universal Credit and the Providers of the Work Programme that are creaming off Taxpayer money,while failing the unemployed that they were contracted to help.MWA.CWP and useless courses in order to massage the unemployment figures,,,and the list goes on.

      • Derek Robinson

        Does Cameron actually know anyone honest ?

    • Grace Ironwood

      On the university fees thing,

      How do you know that capable poor students are being excluded across the sector?

      Why are the universities and discouraging poor students if they’re short of enrolments? Are they failing their equity requirements? Is the fee lender making it difficult for these students to get a loan? What’s going on?

      What can you point to ?

      I for one would like to know if the design of the design of the new policy is excluding capable poor students, contra Fraser’s claim, above.

      • slickmoon

        We have tried our best to encourage applications across the board, but our published statistics show little to no success in attracting students from disadvantaged backgrounds, recruitment rates for them having dropped immediately the policy came into effect.

        The harsh truth is that most students from poorer working class families won’t even look into how they could get their studies financed. A loan that puts them 9k in debt before they’re even in work is just not something young people from poorer backgrounds will even consider long enough to be told how friendly the terms are, nor even that they may not have to pay it back if they don’t earn over £X.

        • Grace Ironwood

          Give it time, there are other factors at work, we don’t have that issue so much in Australia & have had ffes(paid back once earn $50k). Uni is “countercyclical” – economy good= uni bad.

    • Derek Robinson

      Correct Simon, but the Tories don’t like facts.

  • Matt Wood

    He’s not winning because the era of two party politics is over. The Tories CAN’T win. Neither can Labour. The Coalition was not a blip, it is the end result of a 50 year trend away from both parties, and even if one party manages to scrape a majority or single party minority government, THAT will be the blip. I know most Tory and Labour supporters are in denial over this, but they won’t be able to deny it for long.

  • Vote for non of the above

    Who wrote this.. His Mum?
    What a load of total gargabe biased rubbish claptrap

    • Zanderz

      Suicide deaths? How many suicides were due to the Labour created credit crunch and how many actual deaths by the Gulf war. Labour’s got more blood on it’s hands than any party.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        The credit crunch is well known to have been caused by the international banking industry and it’s burgeoning greed.Please explain how the UK Labour party caused the economies of the USA ,Canada, Europe and Japan to implode.

        • Zanderz

          I don’t know if you’re being serious?

          When the UK was cash rich Brown borrowed massively. His spending was simply to keep him in power and didn’t actually do anything to help this country. Throwing money at a problem rarely makes it go away.

          When the crunch hit our country had huge debt burdens that we – yes, that you and I – had to repay. All Brown’s spending came from our pockets and achieved nothing.

          Sure, the banking crisis was real, but our country nearly went under solely because Brown arrogantly spent rather than managed the budget correctly. If Labour get in it’ll happen again.

          I don’t care for Blair, but I absolutely hate Brown for the lies lies lies he told about being prudent. He turned out to be a complete idiot.

          From a lot of your comments I really don’t think you have a grasp on the realities of most things.

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            Labour borrowed £485 billion in 13 years. Cameron has managed £600 billion in 5 years.

          • Gerschwin

            Labour bankrupt the country. Luckily a competent government and exchequer saved the day borrowing only 600 billion – far less than the estimated 1.2 trillion Labour proposed to borrow for its barking mad ‘spend your way out of recession’ policy. Always takes a Tory to show the Socialist scum how to govern.

          • Derek Robinson

            Estimated by who ?

          • Derek Robinson

            Your lack of economic knowledge is embarrassing to you.
            Your assertions are incorrect and Labour’s spending has been cleared as not excessive by at least two economic bodies.
            Do you suggest that Labour should not have repaired the devastated NHS and Schools after Thatchers onslaught .

  • Lee RavenGod Ingram

    All I can really sum this article up as is: sycophancy! Skew the facts, twist the figures (of which none have been supplied) and you can make a fantastic story. Record high employment? I don’t think so, perhaps record number of people contracted to work, but what is a contract when you are guaranteed no hours, and receive almost that much? When people hold 5 employment contracts simultaneously, that’s not record employment. The author has gone to great lengths to paint D.C and the Cons (that could be a band name) as progressive and liberating, but they are not!

    You say they want to sell off all the houses? Where will poor folk live? In private residences at the mercy of greedy unscrupulous capitalists? Oh that’s right, f**k the poor!

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      What a surprise. The magazine that was edited by Ian Gilmour, Nigel Lawson and Boris Johnson supports the Toffs.

      • Gerschwin

        The Spectator is backing the Labour Party!? Amazing. Never thought I would see the day.

  • Blindsideflanker

    Forget the lack of passion for their dodgy set of national statistics, it is the complete lack of heart and soul that gets me. The future they offer us is no more than being items of production on a non descript piece of land, and that is it. They don’t offer us a national identity, let alone a national purpose.

    • Derek Robinson

      They don’t care about the nation, that is why.

  • Rob Kay

    The so-called welfare reforms have been an unmitigated disaster, and whilst the wealthy have gained, the poor are now relying on foodbanks and handouts. Chuild poverty has increased. Thats why I’ll not be voting Tory: they are pitiless, cruel and unBritish.

    • WFB56

      The Labour party trolls appear to be out in force this morning.

      • Paul Wilson

        You use that word but seem to not know what it means.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          A troll is a horrid beast ,usually living under a river bridge, and consuming a limited diet of young and naive goats.

      • You’re incredibly ignorant. I’m a member of the Green Party of Scotland, thank you. What are you, exactly?

        • WFB56

          You admit to being a member of the Green Party? That explains a lot. I’m not tribal so I’m not a “party member”.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          ….and I vote Mebyon Kernow.

    • Blindsideflanker

      Welfare is just sticking plaster solutions to other problems, as is the minimum wage.

      The most cruel and nasty policy inflicted on the working classes has been Labour’s mass immigration no borders policy, which has driven down wages pushing people onto state welfare.

      If you are going to attack the Conservatives welfare reforms you should do it in conjunction with attacking them for not getting control on immigration.

      • If you wish to see the NHS stripped of many of its most effective staff, and the Bank of England forced to look for a new Director, then by all means ban immigration.

        • Blindsideflanker

          80,000 British people are turned away from Nursing courses as they have cut the place numbers while they hire nurses from overseas

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            180,000 British are neglected in nursing homes as they don’t provide care for the old.

  • WTF

    The Tories should be miles ahead given the state of the economy, schools, the NHS — Really ?

    I should have thought thats exactly why they are in the mess they are in because mass immigration and all the adverse aspects and costs it brings, is fully recognised by the electorate but ignored by all parties except UKIP. It has cost us a fortune in welfare benefits hence Osbornes deficit promises failed and our schools and the NHS & schools are collapsing as they were never equipped to handle this sort of immigration we’ve seen happen for 20+ years.

    Why wont any party leaders except Farage talk about immigration issue ? Because they know they cant justify what has happened under Labour and now the Tories and any honest debate about the true costs of mass immigration will see them crucified by UKIP.

    • OliC

      The reason other parties are not talking about this is because the things you mention are not a problem:

      1. It has been shown independently that immigrants generally have contributed more through taxes than they have received in benefits (including “benefits in kind”, i.e., NHS treatment). Therefore you have not paid for any immigrants’ benefits and nor have I.

      2. If all immigrants were deported tomorrow, there would be 9 people applying for every job instead of 10. This would not improve the outcomes of the successful applicants with respect to higher wages or hours: There would still be a stagnation or lowering of wages. This is how “business” works with simple supply and demand of a workforce. It can even be easily demonstrated that it is in the “pro business lobby”‘s interests to maintain high unemployment so as to keep demand outstripping supply and keep wages low. This is not something that UKIP, being mainly ex-tories with strong links to the ultra-conservative “Tea Party UK”, will be minded to “fix”. This is unfortunate because it lowers our tax revenues and keeps our debts artificially high, thus perpetuating the recession cycle.

      • WTF

        Lets dispel this false argument that ‘immigrants’ generally contribute more than they receive and we’ll look at this according to ethnic groupings.

        A recent study in Australia which should not be any different in the UK and due to the much higher benefits in the UK will probably be far worse, demonstrates the highest rate of unemployment in any ethnic group are Muslims. Clearly at those rates of unemployment where there’s no money coming in to fund benefits or with low income levels its not that different, the disparity is enormous. Very little money coming in to the treasury but shed loads going out !

        http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/high-unemployment-among-muslims-linked-to-war-on-terror/story-e6frfm9r-1226516162590

        Next we can look at eastern European workers. Some don’t work because they’re to busy committing criminal acts, some work in the black economy and pay no tax or NI, some are on low income so again they pay little of no taxation and those who may pay contributions, end up funding their wives and childrens back home with child credits. In essence, not much difference to the first group who contribute little if anything.

        Thirdly, lets look at a European family moving to the UK with just the husband working. They get free health, free education, housing benefits & child tax credits. Health care costs the tax payer 3,500 pounds per year based on the amount that the treasury pays for ex-pat EU pensioners. For a family of 4, thats 14k just for health care. Now add on education costs for 2 children. In the private sector it costs around 50k a year for two kids so lets halve that and say a state school costs 25 k for the kids.

        So far we have annual real costs of 14k for health care (4 people) and education at 25k (2 kids) Thats almost 40k a year of state hand outs without even looking at housing and tax credits. This suggests that this immigrant bread winner is earning over 120k a year just to cover two items and that also presumes he is on PAYE to pay it anyway.

        Please go away and do some real arithmetic instead of claiming they pay for their own way !

        Here’s a quick link to help you !

        http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_cost_of_immigration

        When you’ve replied to this I’ll look at your 2nd paragraph.

        • OliC

          “Let’s dispel your argument using facts which apply only to Australia and are nothing to do with the UK, and then waffle on a bit to create a straw man ‘foreign family’ who want to steal your job AND your benefits at the same”

          Hahahahaha, you are a clown, aren’t you.

          Here’s something much more applicable to the UK – because it was written in the UK and is actually about the UK:

          http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6399/economics/impact-of-immigration-on-uk-economy/

          I draw your attention particularly to part 6.

          And I wouldn’t get too bogged down with the bit about immigrants “being a drain” because it is talking there of NON-EEA migrants. The kind who need to apply for a visa and prove they will be of value to the country. You know, the kind of points system that Faridge things would make everything better if applied to EEA migrants.

          • WTF

            Nice one but lets look at it more closely –

            1/ Migrants are likely to be of working age – A nice supposition but where are the facts to support it as a family of 4 let alone 6 by definition should have one bread winner (perhaps 2) but the 4 kids cost the country in welfare, health costs, education and housing benefits.

            Conclusion – Hope over reality !

            2/ Increase in aggregate demand and hence GDP – Totally agree but who pays for this increase in costs for health care, welfare, education and housing as the recipients that create this demand don’t purchse these services privately out of their own pockets, the tax payer has to fund it.

            Conclusion – No fiscal gain to the UK economy as the increased GDP has to be funded from somewhere and most of it doesn’t come from the immigrants.

            3/ Labour Market Flexibility – Possibly true but the debate was not this but the cost to the country in fiscal terms of mass immigration. UKIP’s policy on letting in people whose jobs we need due to skill shortage matches this point BUT for every person who we need and actually contributes to the coffers, 100 do NOT as it currently stands.

            This report seems to be very lacking in actual numbers such as the a real cost to the state for education, the actual medical costs and general welfare benefits compared to the actual income tax and NI contributions. It makes sweeping assumptions much like yourself without nailing down a proper balance sheet just like Cameron & Miliband.

            The graph showing costs vs contributions of UK, EEA and non EEA whilst probably true if you take a snap shot in time, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Quite obviously non UK/EEA people cost the country dear but for those EEA people with a surplus, where does that surplus end up ? Does it stay in the UK or does it get transferred back to their own country. No one knows as it isn’t tracked. Throwing a cheap graph in the article does not provide any true facts or costs vs tax & NI. Does it include costs of dependents for instance, its so vague as to be useless.

            In contrast, its quite possible that figures Farage uses may be questionable but we’ll never know that whilst
            Cameron chickens out from debating hard facts. Just saying immigration is beneficial doesn’t make it so across the board.

            Not sure what you mean about point 6 as its obvious there are social issues due to over crowding which is another good reason to only let in those we want and need just like America & Australia.

            I have lived in Spain for 11 years and I haven’t cost the Spanish tax payer a single centimos but have contributed to their tax take. In a few months time I hope to be emigrating to the USA and its the same deal, I wont cost the US taxpayer a dime as their immigration process demanded that my American wife and myself can support ourselves on our pension incomes. Again, we will be net contributors to the US treasury and local taxes unlike millions of immigrants to the UK who are a drain.

            Its three simple question that are unanswered by your URL

            What is the individual cost for an immigrant child in welfare, medical & education ?

            What is the individual cost for a non working spouse in welfare, medical ?

            How much (if any) does the average bread winner of that family contribute in taxation & NI contributions ?

            You can cut it anyway you like by ethnicity, UK, EAA or non EAA but so far, no answers !

          • OliC

            I have sent you a link to a study based on facts, giving you the tools to research the subject fully.

            You have responded with hyperbole written using bullet points and conclusions to sum up the hyperbole. I think I’ll name this “cargo cult hyperbole” (look up “cargo cult”, especially “cargo cult science”)

            If this is the level of debate and critical thinking on offer, I think it would be a waste of time us carry this on, don’t you think?

            p.s. I do apologise, I meant 8, not 6. Though I suspect this wouldn’t have changed your response one iota.

          • WTF

            The problem is, I couldn’t find any facts on what each immigrant costs the country in health costs, education, welfare etc or what they contribute in taxes in that study and I was hoping you could expand your point by providing those facts.

            Clearly you are unable to provide that information given your response so my original point still stands unchallenged. Either provide the facts or concede you don’t have any to justify your position just as Cameron failed to do.

            On your revised point 8, once again sweeping statements are made without any back up facts. Weasel politicians make these sort of statements time and again without providing clearly substantiated facts to back their statements, I had hoped better of you in providing those facts.

            I have quoted aggregated health costs based on real numbers that the UK pays EU member states for ex-pats and a fair approximation for education costs for children, but where are your figures (or anyy one elses) that challenge these?

            Deathly silence !!!!

            Its no good a report saying and I quote from your link –

            “Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011”

            and then

            “However, despite the positive figures in the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes”

            without any figures to back it. Talk is cheap, but where are the facts. I’ve provided my facts and have substantiated them but where are yours ?

          • Mary Ann

            You are wasting your time, he doesn’t allow a few facts to get in the way of an argument.

          • WTF

            Form the person who hasn’t supplied a single fact !

          • Mary Ann

            Still denying the facts about EU migrants putting more into the system than they take out, you will never win the argument because you are using false information.

          • WTF

            Already disproved that, check my previous link !

          • WTF

            Where are your facts, you’ve posted 10 replies to my points and you didn’t give a single fact in any of them. If you cant back anything up with hard facts how do you expect to be taken seriously !

            Just go on a sabbatical from here for a while and spend a little time researching on the internet. Even a 7 year old could find many facts and figures on immigration inside an hour so why don’t you try ?

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            I assume from her comments that Mary Ann is well educated, and knows what she is posting about. She does not need to rely on the Wiki crutch and the selective goggles like you desperate cheats.

          • WTF

            If she is that well educated she could supply facts rather than ad-hominem attacks based on her fantasies. I don’t base my facts on wikipedia and if you checked, one was a link to the NHS about the rise in TB coming from immigrants. Their words, not my fantasies !

          • Mary Ann

            And of course if we apply a points system to the EEA migrants the same will be done to British people wanting to live in EEA countries, and half of them wouldn’t be allowed in.

          • WTF

            A EEA points system just like America & Australian immigration requires means to support yourself. In actuality Spain has had this requirement in their legislation for decades but its not that well advertised.

            Considering probably 85% or more of Brits living in Spain are retired there on pensions and at least half have purchased their villa outright, they wouldn’t have a problem under any points based scheme.

            Your problem as with all liberal fascists is that you don’t falsely accuse Spain, France of racism or bigotry for having financial constraints or qualifying rules for EU immigrants BUT when Farage wants exactly the same, you immediately accuse him and UKIP supporters of being the worst scum around.

            Hypocrisy doesn’t even come close !

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          Why should Australia be anything like the UK? Just because they speak English and play Cricket, so does Jamaica. Immigrants tend to be young (often childless) and seeking work, or well qualified seeking professional jobs. The drags on the benefit/healthcare system are the over 70’s , few come here at that age.

          • WTF

            TB was eradicated many years ago, now its back in the UK and that’s without the healthcare tourism we see frequently !

            Perhaps if we practiced some of their controls the country would be in better shape.

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            UKIP shorthand for dirty foreigners. Bloody racists.

          • Kennie

            Occasionally you send a sensible post, but this time you are being deliberately stupid and provocative.

          • WTF

            TB on the rise, a fact not a racist innuendo which liberal fascists deny !

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5182/British-TB-cases-rise.html

          • Mary Ann

            You shouldn’t quote from the daily hate mail, they are as false as the Murdoch press.

          • WTF

            I’ve been sourcing this information from everywhere, pity your too f****** idle to do a bit of internet surfing yourself !

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            The Mail is a pile of bile and bias spewed out by barely literate oafs, for an aufdience of gullible old bigots.

          • Cosmo

            Then I’m pleased that you and your species are available to give us the benefit of your boundless wisdom and insight (and unwittingly provide hours of entertainment with your delusional ramblings).

          • WTF
          • WTF

            Lets see now, you’ve now accused Americas Immigration Service of gross racism for demanding X-rays to check for TB in potential immigrants before allowing them entry. Well done, I suppose you aren’t bothered about checks for Ebola either !

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            No I haven’t. Where have I said that?

          • WTF

            By implication you said we would be bloody racists if we practiced immigration controls like Australia (USA is similar) to prevent TB coming into the country. Read your response to my statement.

          • Mary Ann

            What percentage of people admitted to hospital are healthcare tourists, not as many as you seem to believe.

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            On the TV debate that disgusting man Faridge claimed 60% of those receiving HIV medication were foreigners. He wants compassion to be based on birthplace not illness. The sooner this vile piece of work is sidelined the better.

          • WTF

            If you feel so compassionate to foreign HIV sufferers then go to their countries and help them. Why should we have to pay for healthcare for non UK citizens ?

            HIV in foreign countries is due to their lack of proper healthcare and education. Prevention is better than cure and Farage believes we want benefits to be based on contribution to the system which is only fair.

            Do you expect the state to pay for your house if it burns down in a fire or you crash your car ? get real !!!

          • Derek Robinson

            It’s also not helped by Britain filching all the poor countries doctors and Nurses on the cheap because we refuse to fund our own NHS fully ……..

          • WTF

            True, there’s a big difference with losing skilled people by ‘natural wastage’ and losing them by an active recruitment drive as the NHS does in other countries. That would cause some friction I think.

            Along the Spanish Costas there’s a large percentage of ex-pats from various EU countries and the economy for that strip of coast is very dependent on ex-pat money and has far more than say small villages in the interirior. I suspect there is proportionately far more money available for say hospitals / health care which can attract and retain Spanish staff and maybe other nationalities as well.

            Despite all of Spains fiscal woes, the cost of fresh food is significantly lower than the UK or the USA and it keeps for far longer. Salads keep for 2-4 weeks in the fridge whilst my experience of tomatoes from Tescos in the UK is 2 days.

          • Derek Robinson

            My point was really to point out that the ex-pats have been getting some of the same treatment, that some in this country feel it’s OK to dish out to others.

          • WTF

            It should be 0% just like it is in other EU countries, Australia, USA & Canada. If you need emergency treatment you should pay for it with insurance cover or use a credit card.
            As an example. all other countries charge so why should the UK hand out freebies to pregnant Nigerian woman who deliberately arrive in the UK to get free birthing.

          • Derek Robinson

            Health care tourism is a fallacy ….. an invention of the right wing press. I am married to someone who knows the ropes on this, and assures me it a crock of shit

          • Mary Ann

            But elderly British people go to France and Spain.

          • WTF

            They sure do and I’m one of them. However, I do not draw any benefits from the Spanish tax payers because they are “so racist and bigoted” they wont give me any. I have to pay Spanish tax on my UK pension and they don’t pay for my health care either.

            My god, what a bunch of racists those Spanish must be !

            (Sorry Spain, just joking as I love your country and its people, but I have to get the point across to our liberal fascists).

          • Derek Robinson

            I notice that the latest reports suggest that the Spanish peoples attitude toward the British ex-pat has been disintegrating somewhat.
            Maybe the boot on the other foot will be good for you :-/

          • WTF

            Not my experience and having spent 5 days in my local hospital in February, they couldn’t have been more caring or helpful even with my fractured Spanish. I guess there are always exceptions to the rule with all nationalities and I know one or two Brits in Spain that have this quaint notion that the Spanish should all speak English and then they wonder why they get the cold shoulder treatment. I don’t and by trying to speak their language I find they respect you for the effort and if they can speak English well, they will switch to English.

        • Mary Ann

          Hate to remind you, we are talking about a British general election not an Australian one, they are not the same.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      We don’t have mass immigration. 600,000 is less than 1% of the population. If a village with 1,000 residents sees 9 new folk move in ,that is not mass immigration.

      • WTF

        But we don’t see 9 new folk move into a village of 1000, thats the whole point. We see clusters of ghetto towns around the country which have no-go areas, there is no integration, they have brought TB back to this country along with barbaric customs and they are net recipients of all manner of benefits !

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          Is that your UKIP way of saying foreign folk are dirty? Accusing them of bringing back TB. What them, not badgers. Shabby bunch of racists.

          • Kennie

            It is a known fact that TB, once eradicated in the UK, was re-introduced by third world immigrants, mainly a large country near India.

          • Mary Ann

            And as ukip want closer ties with the Commonwealth while cutting immigration from Europe, that’s really going to help.

          • Kennie

            Closer ties with the Commonwealth means the freedom to trade directly with those countries. Within the EU, the UK cannot carry out such direct trade, we have to conduct all our trade as “Product of EU” and we can only trade Under the “deals” set by Brussels. We cannot, under EU rules, make our own trade deals with any countries at all.

          • WTF

            Australia & New Zealand has strict health controls and TB is not a problem from there !

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            Where, Badgerland?

          • WTF

            Rather than posting a daily mail link about TB rising in the UK or one from UKIP, here’s one from the NHS with commentary from the Guardian.

            http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/12december/pages/tb-tuberculosis-cases-rise-london-uk.aspx

            Hardly a source of racism & bigotry but a genuine health concern which the NHS states is due to immigration from the Indian continent !

          • WTF

            Sorry, that racist or bigot label is worn out and meaningless these days. Stating inconvenient facts is todays mantra to combat liberal fascists and just Google cases of TB in the UK and you’ll see I’m just stating the facts. Suck up the truth even though you might choke on it !

          • Mary Ann
          • WTF

            You seem to be as bereft of any facts as Monty Pythons Norwegian Blue parrot, do you want to debate the subject or just reply with dumb responses like “Oh yeah, whatever, etc”

        • Mary Ann

          They are not a net recipients of benefits, they put more into the system than they take out.

          • Kennie

            Not true.

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            Yes it is, UKIP spin doctor.

          • WTF

            Study the figures I produced and show me where I’m wrong !

          • WTF

            Back it up with facts on how much Tax & NI they pay on average to the treasury.

            I’ve already demonstrated that a family of 4 cost the country 14k a year on health care and around 25k on education for the kids, so how about some real facts on what they contribute in return !

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            Typical education spend per child is under £5,000 per year.Typical health spend per person is £2,000. So you have lied.

          • WTF

            I haven’t lied at all as I quoted figures supplied by the government.

            The treasury pays 3k5 for health care to the host nation per UK citizen who is living in another EU and I find it very hard to believe that state education costs only 1/10th of that in the private sector but to humour you, I’ll use your figures.

            Take a typical family in say Bradford with one wife and 4 kids. Thats just under 30k per annum just in education and health care (YOUR FIGURES). Tax credits adds another 2k75 for EACH child bringing the total to 36k per family and there’s probably housing benefit on top but I’ll let that one go for now.

            The average wage in the UK is somewhere around 25k of which 15k is taxable. I’ll be fair and assume the man of the house is actually working and paying tax & NI. Clearly with a taxable income of 15k which contributes at most 5k in tax & NI, that doesn’t even come close to the 36k in family direct & indirect benefits.

            So there we have it, an immigrant family of 6 receives seven times more in benefit than they contribute. Those darn inconvenient facts, they’re a bloody nuisance aren’t they ?

            I rest my case !

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            You said a family of 4. Now you quote a family of 6. Average UK income is £34,000, not £25k.Let alone if one of the kids becomes a heart surgeon and savessaves the life of a billionaire entrepreneur. Stupid argument.

          • WTF

            The average UK income for highly skilled people would be around that figure and higher BUT it is not an average figure based on this link below that shows gross/ net incomes where teachers get perhaps 30k.

            http://www.netsalarycalculator.co.uk/

            Thats said, for the purposes of this discussion I’ll happily use your figures. 2 x 5k for education,4 x 2k for health, 2 x 2k75 for tax credits, a grand total excluding any other benefits of 23k5 in benefits.

            A person earning 34k according to the charts would take home about 26k and pay 8k in tax and NI. Even using your figures this family receives 3 times as much in benefits (23k5) as they pay out in tax & NI (8k).

            Once again, those damn inconvenient facts spoil immigration fantasies the liberal fascists try to make up.

          • Grace Ironwood

            My goodness, Mary Ann, your enthusiasm has caused you tp stick your neck out there .I challenge you to find a reputable source for this proposition that people from Pakistan are a net benefit.

            Even their best friends don’t claim that one for them. 🙂

    • Mary Ann

      If we had the truth about immigration people would realise that immigration is good for Britain, and ukip would fade away.

      • WTF

        The only people that have benefited from mass immigration are Camerons mates who wanted cheap labor in a similar manner to the days of plantation and house slaves. I would have thought that the liberal fascists would have objected to exploitation of vulnerable workers but apparently it doesn’t bother their faux morals.

        As for the rest of Britain, mass immigration has brought over-crowding in schools, transport, housing and long wait times for health care. Its brought TB back to the country and introduced for the first time such diverse practices as sexual grooming, FGM, polygamy, honour killing and now Jihadists & their Ho’s wanting to destroy their host country.

        Its been a great success hasn’t it ?

  • Diggery Whiggery

    I think you’ll find that it’s a question of trust, or lack of it.

    When a Prime Minister has set a personal precedent of being repeatedly dishonest with the electorate, he can promise all kinds of goodies and bribes in his manifesto and no-one will believe him.

    Dave’s problem is doubly difficult as no-one trusts him either on a personal level or on a political level. They don’t believe he’ll get a majority and even if he did they don’t believe that he’ll implement the policies that he has pledged to.

    • Zanderz

      I agree. Who knows what he actually believes. We all have a sense where the other party leaders stand. Especially the SNP and UKIP leaders.

      However, what does Cameron actually stand for – the middle ground? reasonableness? What does that mean?

      The electorate need to hold on to a rock of values, and we know that Cameron is a feather in the wind.

      • Derek Robinson

        Murdoch’s man is what he is

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Lack of trust is important but the economy is in a total mess. Over £1,400 billion of debt, half of it taken on in the last 5 years. Debt is at its highest relative to GDP since 1966. We have deflation ,which until a month ago was to be avoided at all costs, hence the BoE target of 2%.
      We have incomes stagnant since 2011, the NHS in admistrative chaos, the railways abysmally run, the utilities profiteering and our international standing demeaned by Putin and the IS thugs.

      • Des Demona

        On the plus side though, I believe classical orchestras are getting a tax break. That’s nice.

      • Pacificweather

        And they are spending £12.9 billion a year on employer subsidies.

      • Damon

        “Lack of trust is important but the economy is in a total mess.”
        Utterly hilarious. Don’t you know that the leaders of virtually every EU state would give their eye-teeth for our economy? You should live in Rome, like I do, to realise how lucky you are. And if you’re worried about debt, try blaming the idiots who ran it up in the first place. Incidentally, one way to deal with debt is to grow the economy, thereby increasing tax receipts. That’s what the government (virtually alone in Europe) has succeeded in doing. Think you’ve got problems now, eh? Just wait til your pal Ed gets in. Then you’ll be bu–ered.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          The idiots who ran it up being mainly Tories.1979 to 1997 increased from £95 billin to £410 billion. A quadrupling. 1997 to 2010 under Labour, it moved to £900 billion. Osborne has since pushed it to £1,480 billion today.
          So £900 billion for the Tories and only £500 billion for Labour.

          • Tiberii_filius

            You have to distinguish between the reasons each administration ran up debt. Brown did it during years of plenty which is economic insanity.
            The one thing New Labour did get right was to demonize the word Tory. Cameron is still living with that inherited problem. The Spectator still doesn’t acknowledge this hindrance, and why it accounts for the softly-softly approach the Tories are forced to adopt, even in delivering their list of fine achievement.

          • Derek Robinson

            Popycock …. The spend that Brown done was to rebuild the NHS and Schools after Thatchers destruction of them.
            A feat Labour will have to do again, if their is anything left at all.

          • Damon

            And yet Standard & Poor (hardly noted for their sentimentality) continue to give us a triple A credit rating. (In Europe, shared only by Germany and Scandinavia.) This presumably reflects their view that a competent government is administering the right medicine.

            “The idiots who ran it up being mainly Tories.1979 to 1997… .”

            By implication you seem to suggest that the Wilson/Callaghan regime of 1974-79 was more competent than its successor. To anybody who actually remembers that regime, and its attendant horrors, this notion is beyond parody.

          • Derek Robinson

            clearly not so … the facts speak for themselves

          • tjamesjones

            Yvon and Barry could both use a little education in the relationship between the deficit and the debt. The deficit is established by the policies of the government, and can’t be magicked away by the next government: each step back towards a balanced budget requires changing the law, dealing with the squeals, and managing the transition. Or to put it another way, when New Labour committed to spending more money through some scheme or another, that was a multi-year commitment.

            The debt then is a side effect of an ongoing deficit.

      • Pacificweather

        I think you meant £1.4 trillion of debt not billion. In fact it is now over £1.8 trillion.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          No wonder we are in a mess . You people cannot do maths. In Britain £1,400 billion is same as £1.4 trillion.

          • Pacificweather

            Nice edit.

    • tjamesjones

      ah the breathless naivety of the BTLers. It’d be touching if they couldn’t also vote.

  • A_Hidell

    Are you really all in that much of a bubble?? The “state of the economy” – that means two different things to two different sets of people. Rich people are getting richer and poor people are getting poorer. This is a fact. His task is to convince the poor and working class that their situation is not as bad as it is/others have it worse/its the immigrants’ fault. He is actually doing remarkably well in this regard.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      It is now possible to win the election with 33% of the votes of those who turnout. The turnout is under 70% of the 42 million who register, of 50 million adults. So he only needs to make 9.2 million of the 50 million richer to win.

  • WFB56

    Not sure that this hits the mark with its praise for Cameron and sideways swipe at British conservatives. Most of the initiatives that have succeeded, notably those by Gove and IDS, were not requested by Cameron, and when Gove, in particular, delivered, he was sacked. The problem is that many Conservatives don’t trust Cameron and don’t believe that his actions are the reason for the Government’s successes.
    By diagnosing the problem incorrectly, as I believe this article does, you can’t develop appropriate solutions to solve it.

  • Teacher

    I thought it all came down to the numbers. The LibDems reneged on their promise to support electoral reform so we are heading into an election where it takes many more voters to elect a Conservative than it takes to elect a Labour member as the Socialist strongholds are urban with smaller wards and the Conservatives generally dominate the shires where large areas require many more voters to secure their M.P. of choice. The densely packed cities and suburbs generally vote red and the country is, overall, blue. Thus, most of the country will cast its vote for the Conservatives but a Labour government will be elected. The problem will be further compounded when disaffected Tories split the vote by opting for UKIP allowing Labour to triumph. This election more than most will be down to the digits.

  • dramocles

    Don’t forget the drip, drip, drip of pro-socialist doctrine fed to us via the BBC and the various labour-placemen led quangos (led by the “sleepers” that Gordon left behind as elephant traps for any future tory government).

    The overall narrative can be easily warped by propaganda.

    • Derek Robinson

      That is seriously deluded nonsense. I don’t know what your taking but you need to stop.
      Please name all these Socialists at the BBC …

      • dramocles

        That’s the sort of reply I would have expected from a member of the bbc lobby – attack the messenger rather than debate the message (I’ve noticed this tactic a lot from the left).

        There is plenty of evidence of bbc bias towards the left – it has been raised in parliament (by George Osborne) for example. You only have to look at the number of copies of The Guardian purchased by the bbc compared with other newspapers to understand the general nature of the constituency there (see below).

        But don’t take it from me – here’s what Andrew Marr thinks for example:

        “The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an
        abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

        All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

        And Jeff Randall (former Business Editor):

        “By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.”

        • Derek Robinson

          Andrew Marr, the man who demonstrably lets Tory ministers table on, but interrupts any Labour politician at 10 second intervals.
          Again, where are all the left wingers presenting and commenting on behalf of the left.
          All we have these days is a politician making a statement and some right wing pundit telling people how they should think.
          I want to return to politician versus politicians and the viewer make his mind up.
          As for your assertion that I am a member of the bbc lobby -The lobbying I do is against their obvious bias these days.
          The list of their biased reporting crimes is too long to list on here.

  • Bert

    They have done pretty well against a backdrop of having to be in coalition with a bunch of moronic and divisive “progressives”.
    Also, to have won a majority at the last election was virtually impossible given Browns imported and bribed voter base. They had to play the cards they were dealt.
    Spectator seems to have become colonised by Labour trolls. Some overt and many pretending to be UKIP’rs.
    If you vote UKIP you will not get a referendum you will get Miliband who will share the poverty of socialism with you.

    • Bert

      Hello Bert.
      Surprised Disgus allow two people with the same ID to post as I dont recall posting the message you have in the last two hours as I hadnt even opened this Speccie page at 10.30am this morning…

      • Bert

        True.
        I’ve been a regular for about 6 years though!

        • Bertie

          I’m the imposter – relatively new. Didnt see that you already had the name. Is it easy to change?

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          A diet of pulp and straw keeps you regular, but it can’t cure innate idiocy.

  • davidofkent

    An incumbent Party will always face a backlash if it has had to do things which are necessary for the country but which opposition Parties can seize upon to denigrate them. Even though, we have barely had any austerity, the disreputable Labour Party has been able to pretend that everyone is suffering. It is up to the voters to cut through the nonsense and make reasoned choices. Unfortunately, I am not confident that this will happen. We are too wedded to the ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ format of democracy for us to expect people to use the little grey cells. History has shown us time and time again how a once-great nation eventually fails. Even without much history under our belts, Greece is staring us in the face, so we cannot claim we don’t know.

  • He is not winning on a number of things – his attack on disabled people, forcing them to pay bedroom tax when some of them need the extra bedroom, reducing DLA, having them dragged in by a French company who didn’t know anything about disability and accusing them that they aren’t disabled ignoring all doctors notes and reports, and even leading to some people with serious medical conditions being forced into work and dying at work (take for example Jim Elliots who had a heart attack after Doctor’s advised him not to work but ATOS thought he was fine).

    Then we’ve also go the attack on other people who are in properties with too many bedrooms and who have to pay bedroom tax because the councils have no other properties available for them within the area – and also the bedroom tax was supposed to free up houses with more bedrooms, when in reality all it’s done is made councils and housing associations convert multi-bedroom properties into one bedroom properties reducing the number of multi-bedroom properties further as they’re easier to get rid of.

    The sell off of Royal Mail for a song – we could have got so much more for Royal Mail but Cameron sold it to his friends for absolutely next to nothing. Royal Mail is a private company now and it won’t be long before they start acting like other privatised companies – BT, bus companies, train companies, etc – screw everyone over for a quick profit and leave rural areas with no service ‘cos the shareholders might lose a bit of money if we cover rural areas, and next up is the plan to sell of the police force and the NHS – there has already been a trial with the police force and G4S – seriously after the olympics farce asking G4S to run a police force – your having a laugh aren’t you?

    Even with the economy appearing to “improve” you have to question whether or not some of this is just down to meddling with the accounts to make it appear this way in the hope they get another election win, or is it the Liberal Democrats being in joint power with them that helped keep things on track? Are we willing to risk 5 years of full Conservative go it alone to find out?

    • Blindsideflanker

      The biggest privatisation was done under Labour with PFI.

      Talking of French companies, Brown flogged off Westinghouse to Toshiba ( just before it won $60billion nuclear power statioin orders from China) , then went cap in the hand to the French Government owned EDF to beg them to build some nuclear power stations here. The price the French demanded was the part sale of British Energy to them, and a loan to finance the purchase made by the British Government owned RBS , which Gordon Brown allowed them to put down as a loan to British industry.

      • Derek Robinson

        Incorrect assertion. PFI does not transfer ownership.

    • Bert

      “forcing them to pay bedroom tax when some of them need the extra bedroom,”

      How is it a tax when they’re getting housing benefit and therefore a house for essentially free?

      Reduction in siubsidy surely…ie they got a generous freebie,now that freebie is being reduced. That isnt a tax.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        It has become known as the Bedroom tax by organisations like Shelter, Citizens Advice and Disability Rights because it is a direct charge on income. Think community charge, widely called Poll Tax.
        Many things are called taxes when not. Tax on fags is really Excise duty. VAT is a customs duty. National Insurance is a contribution. But they are all taxes.

        • Bertie

          How’s it a direct charge on income?

          You’re being given it for “free” in the first instance, it is not income in any normal sense of the word.

          All that is happening is you are getting given “less” for Free.

          Clearly very different from your VAT, NI, Excise duty. Which are taxes on spending and income.

          The Poll tax was similar to rates(except charged per head) so yes, a tax.

          This is a reduction is subsidy – it is disingenuous to call it a tax at all.

          If the individuals were actually PAYING for their own accomodation, ratehr than being subsidised, and were having to pay more for less, or pay more to keep their 3rd bedroom,then YES, I’d agree it was a tax.

          As it is – they’re given a subsidy. Or as some of us call it,a FREEBIE. So reducing said amount of the freebie is hardly a tax at all imo.

      • Derek Robinson

        It is not a reduction in subsidy as it doesn’t appear as a ‘subsidy’ on any documents. It was an act brought in to penalise, it is therefore a Tax …….. Simple

        • Bertie

          How’s it not a subsidy?

          They get a rent contribution – which is reduced WHEN the recipient has a larger property than is needed(and by association an empty bedroom)

          That rental contribution is not earned – it’s given free,by the taxpyer, to subsidise the recipients inability to earn enough to house themselves. Ergo they are subject to the whim of the person giving the subsidy. And a reduction is the amount they’re given for nothing is just that – a reduction in subsidy.There’ s bugger all tax

          Nor is it an act brought in to penalise – it’s brought in so that the taxpayer doesnt keep getting raped by people who cant afford to house themselves but think they’re entitled to live in a 3 bedroom property they no longer need that the rest of us have to pay for ourselves.. FACT.

          • Derek Robinson

            It’s not a subsidy because it never existed. It was made it up in order to hive a chunk of money away from those that need it the most.
            Your are simply trying to put the chicken before the egg.
            Any subsidy existed because it was needed.
            Your assumption that all these ‘rapists’ are not working shows your total pig ignorance.

          • Bertie

            Eh – what are you talking about..Rapists? Where did I even mention that in the comment immediately above yours. To call me pig ignorant,on the basis of a dubious claim that I’m of the view that all these rapists aren’t working, is bloody rich. And shows you simply don’t like the truth and anyone who has the nerve to say it.

            It is a subsidy because it is being GIVEN for nothing.
            What do you think “Housing benefit” is exactly if it isnt a subsidy. It isnt earned but given as a top up to those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to live in the council houses they do.

            Why should a single person have a 3 bedroom house paid for effectively by a subsidy from the local council.

            “It was made it up in order to hive a chunk of money away from those that need it the most.”

            Eh? It’s a subsidy “TO GIVE” a chunk of money to those that need it most. Hence my challenge that those claiming reducing said housing rent is in fact a tax is erroneous as it really is merely a reduction in a subsidy.

            You seem unsure of your line of argument – first you claim its not a subsidy because it never existed, then you said any subsidy existed because it was needed.

            And how did it never exist if it is now being reduced to much cries of unfair,unfair.

            Hilarious.

            Additionally if you can illustrate where I said Rapists didn’t work, or even mentioned rapists at all I’d be obliged. Saying the reduction was to prevent the taxpayer getting raped does not mean the people engaging in said use of housing benefits to fund properties far too big for the size of their households is not, of course, claiming they’re rapists, but is a FIGURE OF SPEECH!!!!

            Of course your modus operandi is clear – to claim I said or believe something so as to postulate a straw man with which to attempt to denigrate my observations – ie talking out of your proverbial.

  • revkevblue

    Still voting UKIP.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Why? They are racists.

      • Kennie

        still being silly. I am a UKIP member and if you call me a ‘racist’ one more time, you should pop round to your solicitor to start a defence.

      • revkevblue

        I see you have toned down your first response to me of “That we are racists”
        and you are now posing the question that we come across as racist?
        We only come across as racist, because the establishment controlled media wish to make it seem so. So please don’t allow the BBC, and certain papers manipulate you into what to think, try to practise self enlightenment
        and you will soon discover that you and I, and all the people of Europe are being subjected to population engineering, on a scale that is breath taking in its audacity. And are doing it under a seemingly benign EU policy called : Creating a Flexible Workforce.
        Do yourself and your Grand children a favour and get yourself enlightened.
        You have a google search engine, so use it.
        In this day and age, you have no excuse for being hoodwinked by the entrenched self serving establishment.

    • revkevblue
  • Anthorny

    I believe it is very simple. The detoxification of the Tories has pushed many Tory voters away, whilst it has converted zero or close to zero Guardian readers. It has been like the antithesis of the New Labour project.

    So simple maths means losses minus gains means a big negative number!

    • Blindsideflanker

      The detoxification of the Tories was a complete misreading of the situation , as is usual with Cameron’s mob. For rather than understanding that they needed to properly defend their political territory and record , they instead thought they had to accept Labour’s criticism of them and become more like Labour, the Heir to Blair.

  • Kennie

    “To lose an election in such circumstances takes quite some doing.”

    He managed to do that in 2010 and he will do it again in 2015. Perhaps he will stay on for the hat-trick in 2020?

    He cannot claim credit for lower petrol prices which should in fact be even lower, given that crude is diving towards $30pb. The low interest rates are a product of the financial crisis, and they are low throughout the world (did he do that?).

    He doesn’t say anything about the huge debt that he has piled up and tries to hide his excessive borrowing, saying he has halved the deficit, (half of £160BN is not £95+BN)

    He is telling porkies by claiming credit for these things.

    It’s simply that NOBODY trusts him and this link shows another reason.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2673621/PETER-HITCHENS-Can-spot-difference-two-men-No-neither.html

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      He can take credit for allowing the banking industry (who caused the credit crunch) to pay out £27 billion in bonuses under his watch and for failing to nationalise RBS and give it to the Post Office.

  • David silverman

    Why aren’t the Tories winning?
    Because their demography is dying out – literally.

    • Cyril Sneer

      You incorrectly assume that young people stick with the same political beliefs (mostly left) throughout life when in fact they’re likely to switch to the Right as they get older and have more responsibilities.

      This is well known.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        That is correct Cyril.But their concept of “right” moves too. Usually to the left.

    • Simon de Lancey

      Actually, the percentage of old people in the UK is increasing – the so-called “demographic timebomb”.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        But these are different elderly. The ones who stoically supported Thatcher were those born 1900 to 1945. With the inevitability of gradualness they are now departing this World.
        The World changed forever around 1965 and those aged under 20 at that time,or born since, are a very different group of people.

      • Derek Robinson

        But they are not the Tory fanbase of Yester-year

  • paul

    The UK Public do not like or trust The Nasty Party they are fatally damaged goods which they have brought on themselves by their continuing lying and deceitful practices they also use their right wing bully boy press to promote their right wing propaganda bilge essentially they are a spent force !!

    • Cyril Sneer

      Make the ‘Nasty Party’ Labour, and change right to left and your post would actually be accurate.

      • paul

        Your Knighthood for Services to Brown Nosing Flashman Cameron & his other Bully Boy Colleagues is in the post.

  • James

    Conservatives do not represent Britain – Lib/Lab/Con all serve the EU not Britain – our country is used as a cash cow for party donors and EU corporations. Voting for any of the Lib/Lab/Con cartel assures NHS privatisation, economic inequality, forced poverty, youth unemployment, increased education fees that deny most people access, mass uncontrolled immigration, more ghettos, more debts from the EU to keep us tied up in this empire.

    Alternatively, you can think about future generations and make this country a better place for them to grow up.

  • mixodorians

    Two years ago and directly because of “welfare reforms” I was so stressed over a four month period, I not only wore my carpets thin pacing and worrying myself sick..I awoke one morning in the middle of a big ole heart attack.

    You would think that after giving me a heart attack society (the government even) would provide me with a job huh..even if it is just to save my life..and to rescue me from more “Welfare Reform”. I mean I am a nice honest and decent and kind person…who has done lots of voluntary work, has lots of qualifications and has never been in any real trouble with the police.
    We don’t let people just die while we finger point at them to the grave?
    This stress we are putting the jobless under is supposed to be for a purpose is it not?

    Well no instead of that – society (through the job centre) decided that they would rather finger point at me and go all out and do their damnedest to give me another heart attack.

    I have recently signed on the sick for “Severe Stress secondary to extreme pressure from the job centre” – after coming of the work programme.

    That’s right someone who has suffered a heart attack (induced because of the stress of “Welfare reforms”)..has to a year or so later go on the sick to prevent them persecuting, stressing and making me feel incredibly anxious through daily threats of sanctions…in case they induce another one…and to basically prevent them “motivating me to death”.

    This shameful behavior and cruelty towards me is all being done in your name.

    I have done nothing to you apart form have the misfortune of being unemployed.

    If I ever get a job why would I ever credit the tories for it?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      It’s all about you though isn’t it? I’m sure you made all the right lifestyle choices ,but “the man” caused the heart attack.

  • ohforheavensake

    Why aren’t the Tories winning?

    Couple of quick points. First, from Steve Richards at the Independent a couple of days back. The Tories are fighting this election on essentially the same platform as 2010. It didn’t win then, because people didn’t like it, or them. It’s not going to win this time, for the same reasons. Everybody else has moved on; and the Tories haven’t.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/david-cameron-needs-to-learn-some-new-tricks–and-fast-10144606.html

    Secondly? It’s actually the economy. We’re recovering: but this is the worst recovery in centuries, and people don’t feel either that well off or that secure. Spotted this factcheck on the Channel 4 website this week-

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-wrong-george-osborne/20587

    • Blindsideflanker

      Not the worst recovery in centuries, but for a century, the last time we had a financial melt down and slump, the 1920’s. Then it took us decades to get out of the mess, as will it this time. And just as we had a fracturing of the political parties then, resulting in coalition Governments the same thing is happening this time.

      As for moving on, I am not sure you are correct there either. Where are people moving on to? There is no new political movement attracting people, all we are getting is the same political parties still failing to connect to people. The Conservatives are still offering us a globalist trade party and still for getting the concept of Nation, while Labour are still offering their supporters internationalism, while still forgetting about the British working classes.

      • Derek Robinson

        The depression of the 1920’s was languid because of the American austerity and recovery never started until they finally realised it and started to stimulate their economy..
        a lesson never learned !

  • lakelander

    The problem lies with the popularity of the Conservative party, whose motives are still not entirely trusted.

    No. The problem lies with the the fact that the Conservative party is competing with another party of the Right which has attracted formerly Tory support.

    Blame who you will but without division on the right Cameron and the Tories would be romping home.

    • English_Independence_Movement

      True, but Cameron cannot be trusted on Europe.

      He’ll integrate us further into the EU and not even bother to tell us what he’s doing.

      • lakelander

        I don’t think there’s much we can do about the EU problem. If UKIP get a huge vote Labour will win a majority and there will be no referendum and more integration. The best we can hope for is that the EU partially self-destructs, which could easily happen over the Greek crisis.

        • English_Independence_Movement

          Here’s hoping

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Or to put it another way, how can any right minded person possibly support Labour, the Paedophile Protection Party? Except for Islamic child rapists and those on benefits, obviously.

    • Blindsideflanker

      Indeed it is hard to understand how Labour can get any votes, especially in England.

    • WTF

      Unfortunately if you ignore UKIP, the choice is between a party that had Cyril Smith abusing kids, a party that supported the PIE or a party that’s into rent boys. Add to that, all three parties looked the other way over sexual grooming by Pakistani men.

      What a toxic choice !

    • Derek Robinson

      you clearly understand nothing of Labours so called affiliation with ~Pie. I think the Tories have nothing to crow about here…. as time will tell.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Time to call in the Dirty Tricks Department. Issue an extradition request for Brother Dave on facilitating torture charges.

  • English_Independence_Movement

    Why aren’t the Tories winning? Because the populace have discovered that they can vote for themselves money from the Treasury, so of course they are not going to vote for the party which tells them not to be so bloody irresponsible.

  • jtr89

    The main reason they’re not miles ahead in the polls is immigration. UKIP is taking mostly Tory votes. If the Government had brought net migration down to the “tens of thousands” Cameron promised, or at least brought it down significantly, then they’d probably be cruising to a majority. As it is, net migration has actually increased and people are fed up of it.

    Also, petrol and food prices have little to do with the Government.

  • Today is only 2nd of April… your dateline reads ‘4 April 2015’

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Still says it 5 hours later. Proof there is no moderator.

  • James

    Lets be honest – Westminster is a regional council office for Brussels – political parties represent the interests of corporations and banks not people – we need government not corporate lobbyists.

  • John Carins

    Desperate Dave.

  • Chingford Man

    How on earth can any competent journalist write an article entitled “Why aren’t the Tories winning?” without mentioning Immigration?

    Why is the Spectator trashing its reputation for good journalism by not dealing with the bleedin’ obvious?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      He said Spectator and good journalism in the same sentence. Classic.

  • misomiso

    Guys, you can’t seriously write articles like this and not address UKIP.

    The reason the Tories aren’t winning is because there is a split in the Right, and the reason the Tory party is being hollowed out is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to be the main Right of Center party of the UK and be in favour of EU membership.

    The Tories have effectively become the political wing of the City, as the parts of our society who want to stay in the EU are the unholy alliance of Big Business and North London Liberals.

    You guys have never really understood UKIP or their voters. If you write something like this again, please deal with the UKIP issue, and don’t just sweep it under the carpet in the fear of giving them more publicity.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      The only way Cameron will ever see power again is to offer Scotland Independence.

      • WTF

        But that opens another pandoras box of problems for Cameron.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          The only way.

          • Kennie

            There are those who believe that Call-me-Dave has secretly been dealing with SNP. If they (SNP) help keep out Labour & let the tories in, they can somehow wangle Scottish Independence afterwards. That way, Labour permanently lose 50+ seats, enabling the tories permanently to have an easier chance of winning.
            Call-me-dave is so sly that it is believeable. Plus, don’t forget he has an advisor who is inherantly criminally minded.

  • Des Demona

    It’s about money in the pocket, the ability to get on the housing ladder, decent jobs rather than low pay part time self employed and zero hour contracts. That’s why they are not winning, the electorate aren’t generally falling for the ludicrous spin in your second paragraph. Simple

  • Penny

    How do you manage to credit Cameron’s government with falling oil prices?

    That aside, I’m not sure you journalists and columnists have helped Cameron. You clearly think sniping and smearing the opposition has a place in the political battle but all you’ve done – in my view – is cause more people to disengage from the old order. I say this from the perspective of a one-time doorstep activist who, over the Blair years and beyond, saw this disengagement occur.

    • Blindsideflanker

      I suppose the same way Miliband and Balls criticised the Government for high oil prices.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        What you must remember is Labour caused the credit crunch and all the Jimmy Savile paedo behaviour. While Cameron is only responsible for cheap mortgages and lower petrol prices.

        • Blindsideflanker

          Though Labour have some odd connections to PIE , I wouldn’t say they are guilty of Savile’s behaviour, but they most definitely made a significant contribution to the credit crunch.

          • Mary Ann

            The recession was caused by the deregulation of lending, a Tory policy and Cameron is trying to stop the EU doing something about it. Sounds like a good reason for not voting Tory.

          • WTF

            I’m no supporter of Cameron as all three parties are as bad as each other on running the country and as for pedophilia, they all seem to indulge in that as well. However, Blair/Brown was in power for 11 years when it all went t*** up, I guess they were asleep at the wheel !

          • Derek Robinson

            “America sneezes the world catches a cold”, was the old saying.
            Well this time it was self inflicted Pneumonia.
            the fact that we were back in growth before 2010 is a massive testament to Labour and the election of the Tories will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunity ever self inflicted on a country. An absolute tragedy.

          • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

            Of course under Thatcher we had longer, warmer summers.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      I disengaged as soon as Blair won the Labour leadership. Being astute I saw the writing on the wall.

  • soapboxjoe

    ‘They should be miles ahead given the state of the economy, schools, the NHS’.

    I don’t have much confidence in the Polls.No information appears to be readily available of what exact questions were asked and where the Polls were conducted.
    Are they done by random stops in the street ? Or is it cold calls by phone?
    Those who have disclosed their voting intentions to me are stating that they will vote UKIP.The same people have also stated that if Labour were promising an in/out EU referendum they would be voting Labour. Ed Miliband is losing a lot of votes by refusing any chance of a referendum.
    The problem with Cameron is that he makes promises and then breaks them so what is the point in listening to any further hot air from this man?

  • “Real wages are finally creeping up” Inequality hasn’t stopped widening.

  • Oldsaver

    He’s not winning because he’s not addressing the immigration problem. I’ll not be voting UKIP, but I’ll not be surprised if a rather large number of people do.

  • Penny

    One possible reason might be that Cameron, and indeed, most MP’s, are always trying to be “on-message”. My (Tory) MP is a nice enough man and I know him personally from my time in local politics; but despite this, and despite having written to him a few times, I’ve absolutely no idea what he really thinks about any issue whatsoever. He’s either side-stepping it or offering up the government’s view.
    How is it possible to vote for people who appear to be human facsimiles of government policy rather than rounded, opinionated people? Why don’t MP’s look outwards for once and realise that the “on-message” stuff isn’t likely to work for the ordinary Joe and Joanne.

  • Mary Ann

    It’s hardly surprising that Cameron is doing badly, the poorest have been hit the hardest by the follies of the rich bankers, hospital waiting lists have got longer under the Tories, and selling of housing association properties is as bad as Maggie selling of council housing, no safety net for those who cannot manage, children bought up in poverty don’t do as well as children from more affluent backgrounds, our children are our future, we need to look after them for their own sakes.

    • WTF

      A good post to debate but lets look at it in detail –

      1/ the poorest have been hit the hardest – They sure have due to a very cheap wage economy due to mass immigration from eastern europe.

      2/ Hospital waiting lists have got longer – health tourism, mass immigration perhaps ?

      3/ Shortage of housing – mass immigration perhaps, Since 1964 the population of the UK has grown by over 10 million people
      (18.7%). About half of this growth has occurred since 2001. Well blow me down with a feather, I would never have guessed that listening to the limp wristed lefties !!!!

      4/ Children brought up in poverty – Ethnic groups refusing to integrate coupled with in-breeding and then suffering 10 times the mental and physical disability of everyone else.

      Perhaps immigration might be the clue here, do you think so ?

      • Agrippina

        “From 1066 -1950 immigration was almost non-existent – about 50,000 Huguenots in the 16th and 17th century, about 150,000 Jews in two waves, and perhaps one million or more Irish over 200 years, during which time they were internal migrants within one state.”

        More immigrants now arrive on our shores in a single year than they did in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime flows and the Irish, as per David Goodhart, The British Dream.

        • Agrippina

          GDP per capita – better indicator of the nation’s wealth – will be only marginally affected by the enormous population growth forecast for the coming century.

          Rowthorn cites the ONS stats’ high migration scenario, which sees growth in the UK population of 20 million over the next 50 years and 29 million over the next 75 years – entirely from migration. This is equivalent to adding a city almost the size of Birmingham to the UK population every two-and-a-half years for the next 75 years.

          “Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a
          negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity”.

          Robert Rowthorn is Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge. http://civitas.org.uk/immigrat

  • Hegelman

    Whaaat? The party of the poor taken for a party of fat cats? Can’t people use their eyes?

  • jeffersonian

    “Yet this was explained by his aides as a sign of the times; that people simply don’t join political parties nowadays. This is untrue, as the SNP and Ukip have proved.”

    Just a minor issue: why does the SNP merit capitals but UKIP (or Ukip) does not?

    • Mary Ann

      Because ukip are the hate party.

      • WTF

        Your short rants of hate are getting very tiresome. If you think a person or party are wrong, intelligent people debate their policies with facts, they don’t purely engage in ad-hominem attacks like you do all the time. Liberal fascist like you have played right into the hands of UKIP and I thank you for that, by accusing them of being racists or bigots, you’ve worn out those words to the point they are now meaningless and other than yourselves, no one else takes any notice.

        I’ll even give Cameron credit last night as he seemed to have finally woken up that calling names at UKIP increased their support and he didn’t attempt that last night. Perhaps you can learn something from him here !

        If you think UKIP are a hateful party, lets have some reasons backed up with facts or is that too difficult for you ?

      • jeffersonian

        What a ridiculous comment. Let me know if you’re ever capable of discussing like an adult.

        • WTF

          Quite, This poster reminds me of that ranting leftie ‘fish wife’ in the audience of QT who rambled on and on accusing Farage of crimes against society. That demented woman was so bigotted in her own views I was surprised she didn’t accuse Nigel of proposing that the first new born of all immigrants be sacrificed in some sort of religious rite. The BBC should have called a medic for her but didn’t.

          Just like this poster, she was full of hate rhetoric but short on facts !

          • Derek Robinson

            Of course they are a hate party…. name a group of people they don’t hate ….. There ranks are led by swivel eyed crackpots.

      • GraveDave

        At least they haven’t sent anyone off to their deaths yet. Unlike the Coalition.

  • CommonSense Matters

    Because he’s losing? Diggery Whiggery explains why very well.

  • DaveTheRave

    The Tories are not doing as well as some expect because the economy, schools and NHS are not doing as well as the Tories say they are – and the people know it. There is no feel good factor, unlike 1959 when we’d never had it so good. Education is an absolute joke, a mess, a disgrace. The NHS is being primed for full privatisation. So called ‘city regions’ are being primed for future bankruptcy. It ain’t at all good.
    That said I still think the Tories will have a small overall majority of between 5 – 15, with support from about half a dozen Ukip MPs. There will be a late turn (though hardly a surge) towards the Tories during the final few days.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Half a dozen UKIP MPs, very funny. Now do remind Nurse to double your dose of sedative tonight.

    • CommonSense Matters

      DaveTR – did you watch the debate? If the Tories get votes of the back of that gormless performance from Cameron it is a sad indictment of what tradition will consign people to in approving and continuing ruinous times and broken promise to the ordinary fellow. I think the voting people of our country are a bit smarter than you give them credit for.

      • WTF

        It was pretty dire and excruciating watching Cameron sticking to his script and never answering any question with honesty. Even Miliband (who I dont support) at least answered questions and didn’t just stick to a prepared set of answers that had little to do with the question.

        In essence its understandable why Cameron never wanted a real debate in the first place with this sort of performance and he certainly didn’t want to go head to head with Farage as he would have been chewed up into little pieces. The format of this program, I wont call it a debate as it wasn’t, saved Cameron as the time allowed prevented serious questioning. However, we could all see he wasn’t comfortable in that position !

        • CommonSense Matters

          Cameron as I mentioned before came across as an affronted elitist – as he cut public funding for judicial review you can see why – does not like the administration to be questioned when really he has a job in the public sector same as someone who works in Job Centre Plus. Perhaps he can get a job the on May 8th or be on the other side of that desk.

          • WTF

            Yep, you could almost ‘smell’ the arrogance exuding from his sweaty pores from the responses he made in a manner of “how dare you question me” !

  • LarryH77

    This piece sums up exactly why they’re not winning over the nation. The analysis above doesn’t extend beyond the M25 or to anyone below the age of 40.

    (In fact for all people under 50 Labour poll nearly twice as many votes as the Tories)

    For the younger generation inflation is rampant (house prices and rent). Student fees system isn’t working as claimed and already nearing the point where it costs more (because so much debt will be written off). The rich can pay them off quickly while the less well off have the debt hanging over them for decades.

    • WTF

      Don’t you dare count me in that group although I’m 70 years of age.

    • Derek Robinson

      The Tories are a dying species. Past their sell by date. Extinction is coming

  • WTF

    When Michael Foot was leader and the election loomed, it was an open goal for Thatcher to get into power and we should have a similar situation now with Miliband but where is Dodgy Dave, he couldn’t form a government on his own last time and this time he certainly wont.

    He should have swept into power last time around but has blown this chance by reneging on everything he promised, mass immigration through the roof and still a major annual deficit.

  • Ed

    Er… standards of living aren’t that great, lots of the new jobs are crappy, the NHS’s reorganization was disastrous, the poor and disabled get treated like shit, legal aid is cut by a moron at ‘Justice’, Universal Credit has been disastrous, he wobbles all over the shop on the EU.

    Sorry to break into the Spectator bubble, but the last five years have been awful. This is an incompetently run government, with endless U-turns, led by a rightwing ad-man who can give a speech but not run the country. And that’s why he’ll lose.

  • Chamber Pot

    Answer: Dave is not winning because he fails to connect with ordinary people outside the Westminster bubble, is going to lose Scotland because, reneged on a promise on the EU

    • Derek Robinson

      Yes Plenty 😀

  • Derek Robinson

    The answer is simple. It is explained by your entire diatribe in his defence being a tissue of lies … and people are waking up to it.
    The conservative party is as dishonest and downright dodgy as it has ever been, and that is saying something.
    You have only just got back to the position that Labour had returned us to in 2010, but we now have working people queueing at foodbanks. A five year hiatus during which you have massively increased the debt and are now pumping the housing market with Taxpayers money and considering a repeat of the Council house theft.
    Interest rates at this level are not good they are indicative of a broken economy.
    The only thing the Tories can do for Britain is get out and stay out.

  • pauljaymes

    I don’t recognise any of the “achievements” claimed in this article. The NHS is in crisis due to cuts to frontline staff and pointless reforms. Under 30s are largely underemployed with oodles of student debt and no real experience of anything useful. Inflation might be statistically zero but this is neither a good thing for growth, nor is it reflected in the cost of living which is at an all time high thanks to the overheated property market and the price of home energy. Cheap Chinese phones and TVs are not enough to live on – people need food, energy and housing.
    We need a government willing to tackle the real imbalances in the economy; the scandalous corporate tax dodging, the benefits paid to people in work because their pay is so bad, the blocks of buy-to-leave housing owned by foreign investors all over London and pushing up prices for people who actually need to live there to engage in productive employment. Tough. brave policies are required, and I’m not talking about more picking on immigrants and the poor. Cameron and co aren’t going to deliver, so people aren’t voting for them.

  • Wayne Leon

    Is this article for real? This Prime Minister has been the author of the most heinous policies this country has ever seen. This has resulted in THOUSANDS of INNOCENT BRITISH PEOPLE DYING DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF HIS HORRIFIC CUTS TO WELFARE THAT THEY NEEDED!

    Homelessness has gone through the roof, the Bedroom Tax is an absolute nightmare – again resulting in the deaths of innocent British people. Zero Hour Contracts have mushroomed, leaving people in a very unstable situation, and the sanctions of people by the DWP for the most ridiculous of reasons [resulting in starvation and death] HAS BECOME CHRONIC!

    They, Cameron and his ilk, have caused death, mayhem, heartache, starvation, homelessness the rise in food bank use, on a scale never before seen within this country of ours. I SAY, GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE LOT OF THEM COME THE ELECTION!

  • Guy

    So, you’re saying the only way to get people to vote Conservative is to bribe them, Says it all really.

Close