Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[Rado_N]

At least tell me why as opposed to just saying it. It quite clearly isn't massively ignorant, is it?

Suggesting that anyone could earn more if they could simply be arsed enough is very ignorant, yes. You think everyone earning minimum wage is doing so because they are just can't be bothered to better themselves? There are people working multiple jobs who probably put more effort into a working week than you ever have done who can't get themselves off the breadline because of circumstance, but hey they could earn a wedge if they REALLY wanted it, eh? Christ.

 

[alastair]

Suggesting that anyone could earn more if they could simply be arsed enough is very ignorant, yes. You think everyone earning minimum wage is doing so because they are just can't be bothered to better themselves? There are people working multiple jobs who probably put more effort into a working week than you ever have done who can't get themselves off the breadline because of circumstance, but hey they could earn a wedge if they REALLY wanted it, eh? Christ.

I say something relatively uncontroversial which is then twisted to make me sound like an ultra right-wing loon and everyone laps it up. It's bizarre.

In my view, it is possible for every person in this country to earn more than the minimum wage. At age 16, with no qualifications except a few GCSEs, I worked for more than the minimum wage.

That's not to say that people who earn more than the minimum wage can't be poor, but that's not the point here.

I lose the will sometimes with the way in which posts are deliberately misinterpreted in the CE forum.

 

[bsc]

Because minimum wage barely covers people's living costs and working tax credits was brought in to basically subsidise businesses employing workers on that lbasic evel of wage. It allows businesses to pay the bare minimum, while the state pays the rest to bring them up to a standard of income to pay the basics.

 

[Rado_N]

I say something relatively uncontroversial which is then twisted to make me sound like an ultra right-wing loon and everyone laps it up. It's bizarre.

In my view, it is possible for every person in this country to earn more than the minimum wage. At age 16, with no qualifications except a few GCSEs, I worked for more than the minimum wage.

That's not to say that people who earn more than the minimum wage can't be poor, but that's not the point here.

I lose the will sometimes with the way in which posts are deliberately misinterpreted in the CE forum.

Drop the victim card, it's pathetic, you made a stupid comment and you've been pulled up on it. If anyone could earn more than the minimum wage just by making more of an effort then no fecker would be on it. I swear you live in a different world sometimes.

 

[bsc]

To be fair, I really believe alastair thinks anyone can get up and just get a job if they really want it. In his leafy local area it might actually be possible.

My local supermarket was expanding and advertised for jobs recentlY: there was 3000+ applicants for something like 20 posts on the shop floor.

He just seems completely detached from the grim reality facing most people. Furthermore, similar jobs are being filled by 'workfare' making genuine employment even scarcer.

It's just thoroughly depressing.

 

[alastair]

Drop the victim card, it's pathetic, you made a stupid comment and you've been pulled up on it. If anyone could earn more than the minimum wage just by making more of an effort then no fecker would be on it. I swear you live in a different world sometimes.

But plenty of people are more than willing to work without any employment whatsoever. Who's the ignorant one here?

I don't know how to explain this to you. I went to work in Costa on the minimum wage for 6 months. Attendance and work ethic were perfect, and in six months, I got 'promoted' to a higher wage bracket. Are you telling me there are people who can't do this?

Clearly, there are people whose circumstances mean they can't work, and that's fine, but among those who do, there is always almost always potential for you to improve your circumstances, and I've had experience of a lot of terrible jobs so don't go down the route of 'you're too posh to know.'

 

[alastair]

To be fair, I really believe alastair thinks anyone can get up and just get a job if they really want it. In his leafy local area it might actually be possible.

My local supermarket was expanding and advertised for jobs recentlY: there was 3000+ applicants for something like 20 posts on the shop floor.

He just seems completely detached from the grim reality facing most people. Furthermore, similar jobs are being filled by 'workfare' making genuine employment even scarcer.

It's just thoroughly depressing.

Rural areas I'll accept. Surburban/urban areas I won't.

Yesterday I walked into my local town. 5 separate shops were advertising for potential employees, and they demanded no experience/special qualification.

There are jobs out there - they might not be what people dream of doing, but there are jobs. There are always places, especially in the major cities. Starbucks must recruits hundreds of people every month alone.

 

[bsc]

but plenty of people are more than willing to work without any employment whatsoever. Who's the ignorant one here?

I don't know how to explain this to you. I went to work in costa on the minimum wage for 6 months. Attendance and work ethic were perfect, and in six months, i got 'promoted' to a higher wage bracket. Are you telling me there are people who can't do this?

Clearly, there are people whose circumstances mean they can't work, and that's fine, but among those who do, there is always almost always potential for you to improve your circumstances, and i've had experience of a lot of terrible jobs so don't go down the route of 'you're too posh to know.'

****bangs head on desk*****

 

[alastair]

****bangs head on desk*****

One of the massive ironies of the discussions I have with people on the Caf is how they automatically assume that I have no idea what it's like to be this Dickensian image they project of downtrodden workers. I've probably had more jobs than 90% of the Caf.

 

[bsc]

Rural areas I'll accept. Surburban/urban areas I won't.

Yesterday I walked into my local town. 5 separate shops were advertising for potential employees, and they demanded no experience/special qualification.

There are jobs out there - they might not be what people dream of doing, but there are jobs. There are always places, especially in the major cities. Starbucks must recruits hundreds of people every month alone.

Seriously mate, with the greatest respect, you haven't a clue. Not one.

Honestly. you seem genuine in your beliefs, but it really is irritating that you would post such crass viewpoints, they seem entirely without empathy or understanding of the hardships facing millions of people.

Jesus Christ, if it was so easy to get a job, and behave yourself for the trial period, the entire economy would be booming. You seem to be, indirectly I should add, accusing the majority of Britain's unemployed to be workshy, scroungers, dodging low paid, menial jobs.

 

[Grinner]

People just need to get on their bloody bikes.

It was true then and it's true now, eh Al?

 

[bsc]

One of the massive ironies of the discussions I have with people on the Caf is how they automatically assume that I have no idea what it's like to be this Dickensian image they project of downtrodden workers. I've probably had more jobs than 90% of the Caf.

There's 1 million youths in this country, aged between 16 and 24, unemployed. You grew up, like I did(30), in an era of unprecedented growth. Jobs were plentiful, economy was booming. I've worked on a building site, factory, shop and now a decent office job. These jobs are not there anymore. Manufacturing is fecked, the building trade is threadbare and shops are closing across the UK.

The austerity cuts are self-defeating; the goverment is still borrowing the same, but jobs are being cut, money sucked out of local economies(shops etc) and it's a race to the bottom.

 

[alastair]

Seriously mate, with the greatest respect, you haven't a clue. Not one.

Honestly. you seem genuine in your beliefs, but it really is irritating that you would post such crass viewpoints, they seem entirely without empathy or understanding of the hardships facing millions of people.

Jesus Christ, if it was so easy to get a job, and behave yourself for the trial period, the entire economy would be booming. You seem to be, indirectly I should add, accusing the majority of Britain's unemployed to be workshy, scroungers, dodging low paid, menial jobs.

Yes, well on the subject of crass viewpoints, I refer you to your previous comments of a while ago where you claimed the Conservative Party were trying to kill off cancer sufferers. I mean, you're not one for hypocrisy are you?

Youth unemployment is a particularly big problem. Why? Because young people tend to be ambitious, and generally speaking, there are huge numbers now who have degrees but still can't find the jobs they want in the sectors they wish to enter.

I am accusing especially young people of not taking on low-paid, non-academic related jobs when they might well be able to, yes. This is not a remotely controversial point - both political parties have spoken of this problem, and it is hardly something which is possible to deny.

I have a huge amount of empathy for people who suffer from genuinely difficult conditions, and I'm not claiming for a second that the UK would have 0% unemployment if the public worked harder. It would be reduced to some extent though, especially in urban areas.

Are the British work-force lazy? I refer you to the ONS.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_258963.pdf

Make your own conclusions.

You must love the CE Forum here. It gets you away from the reality of the average member of the British public(with whom you claim to be in tune) who vote a lot further right than you do. It's you who's the odd one out here, and it's genuinely sad you can't see that. But of course, you won't mind being the odd one out, because you're a paragon of virtue who believes in justice for all. You're self-righteous and patronising beyond belief.

 

[bsc]

You must love the CE Forum here. It gets you away from the reality of the average member of the British public(with whom you claim to be in tune) who vote a lot further right than you do. It's you who's the odd one out here, and it's genuinely sad you can't see that. But of course, you won't mind being the odd one out, because you're a paragon of virtue who believes in justice for all. You're self-righteous and patronising beyond belief.

Na, mate. I basically believe in two things: a fair distribution of wealth and equality. If that makes me a sanctimonious, pious bellend in your eyes then that's your problem.

In your bubble you don't see inequality, you don't see injustice and you don't see poverty. You can't show empathy towards people at the bottom because you personally haven't experienced it. You live in a different world.

In his article today, when he was lambasted as a hypocrite for being born into a world of privilege and having the gall to criticise the system he should be defending, George Monbiot succinctly wrote under the comments:

"I have never denied my origins. But what do you suggest I do about them? Would you prefer that I devoted my life to perpetuating that inequality? Or should I not use the advantages - education, confidence - that this background has given me to press for a fairer system?"

 

[MikeUpNorth]

This idea that everyone could move up into a better paying job if they tried harder is simply nonsense.

Henning Wehn explains in a roundabout way (from 59 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkf5TVqusEc&t=0m59s

 

[Mockney]

It is so easy to cut yourself out of the job market. A criminal record will do that almost instantly for starters, and there are a shit load of people who aren't deviants or future Jeremy Kyle guests who end up doing that out of genuine desperation or naivety.

I sold drugs for a period at Uni, and I'm a nice middle class boy. There are a plethora of young kids who feel it's their only way to get any kind of good, sustainable income, and they do it without the safety net I, or you (alastair) enjoy. And once they're caught for it, the kind of nice Costa job you think is so easy to get goes out the window.

It's so, so easy to forget the role a safety net of a comfortable, stable, well off family life provides for people like you (or me) Al. You're standing on the shoulders of achievers and claiming those without such a support could easily reach your level if only they weren't so distracted. But they're distracted because they dont have that support. And the fact that you've done a service job means feck all. You didn't have to struggle your way out of oppression, persuasion, temptation, prejudice or a lack of support just to get to the point where you would be eligible for such a job. You already were exactly what Costa were looking for. A nice, polite, well brought up boy. And you're that because of your upbringing. An upbringing not everyone is afforded.

 

[Agent Red]

Actually, it should be income based. Everything should. Don't understand why pensions, heating allowance, and bus passes for high-income pensioners is a good use of government money. It's not.

alastair, I get your point that these people are paid their taxes and deserve their pensions/winter fuel/bus passes. However, given the fact that that almost everyone is getting benefits cut, including disabled people, sick people, unemployed.. across the spectrum, then surely benefits that are not necessary for survival or quality of life need to be abolished.

The reasoning behind it is that means testing is actually quite costly. With many of these policies, it actually works out cheaper to give such benefits to everyone than to means test and only give to those outside the high income bracket.

 

[bsc]

Just reading a relevant article in today's Financial Times perhaps worth reading for Al.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6735f21c-0719-11e2-92b5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz27WmjIHmk

Modern conservatives make plebs of us all

By Phillip Blond

Many on the right are puzzled as to why the “plebs” remark allegedly delivered by Andrew Mitchell to the police guarding Downing Street has had such traction with the press. I do not think the Tory chief whip should resign – we all lose our temper and say things we should not – but the incident nonetheless matters and resonates because of what it says about modern Britain.

The barb suggests that the Conservative party remains bound by class and privilege, cut off from the concerns of ordinary, decent people. There is some truth in this but that is not why it resonates. Boris Johnson is, if anything, more privileged than Mr Mitchell – yet the mayor of London revels in it and is one of the most popular politicians in the country.

Mr Johnson is liked because he is seen to represent an older class position that knew its privileges but understood its duties, too. Mr Mitchell’s alleged remark reverberates as it speaks to new lines of class and forms of privilege; an elite that cares not a damn for those below it and considers itself beyond the normal order that governs society. Just as Mitt Romney’s dismissal of 47 per cent of American voters as entitlement junkies making no contribution to the national good may well define and defeat his campaign, so senior Tories fear the “plebs” remark will also come to define and defeat them.

The trouble is that “47-per-centers” and “plebs” do define the modern order and do capture current reality. Much of this results unbeknown to themselves from centre right economics in both the US and the UK. Conservatives in both countries now represent vested over public interest, big business over small, international over national capital. They typify and defend an economic system that serves the minority rather than the majority.

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic are narrowing opportunity, concentrating wealth and protecting monopoly interests. The centre right has almost ceased to do majority politics. It defines national interest in terms of the already powerful and increasingly abandons the middle and lower classes to their fate. They are persuaded by past fictions that what is in the interest of the winners percolates to those below them. In short, conservatives are unknowingly creating an oligarchy, one which will make us all plebs. By following the interests of a vested minority, conservatives may not win a general election for years. Of course, this is not conservative intention or wish but the rhetoric should not conceal the reality.

UK official data show that in 2010 the top 10 per cent of households had income four to eight times larger than the bottom 10 per cent of households, but assets 100 times larger. In the same year, an OECD survey found that the UK and the US came first and third in social immobility. The US, with 24.8 per cent, and the UK, with, 20.6 per cent have the highest share of low-paid employees in their workforce.

Traditionally, the right has viewed education as the path to mobility but in the US education attainment has stagnated since 1975. The cost of attending a public, in-state college rose 268 per cent from 1981 to 2011. In the UK, college attendance is down 10 per cent after the introduction of tuition fees.

Now conservatives risk appearing indifferent to those left behind. The west used to have a self-sacrificing elite that believed in common values where everyone was important and had a role to play. Now we have a self-serving echelon that believes in nothing except itself and the results are all around us. Talk of plebs disturbs us not because it comes from our past but because it captures our present and increasingly describes our future.

I asked a senior army officer if the phrase could have come from Mr Mitchell’s military background. He said absolutely not. He recounted that when a government minister visited his regiment and asked how the “squaddies” were, the assembled officer corps cringed and angrily responded that they were highly trained soldiers, not squaddies. If the remark came from Mr Mitchell’s background, he opined, it was that of banking, not soldiering. The new elite speaks like this, not the old.

The red writing is nail on head

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Yes, well on the subject of crass viewpoints, I refer you to your previous comments of a while ago where you claimed the Conservative Party were trying to kill off cancer sufferers. I mean, you're not one for hypocrisy are you?

Youth unemployment is a particularly big problem. Why? Because young people tend to be ambitious, and generally speaking, there are huge numbers now who have degrees but still can't find the jobs they want in the sectors they wish to enter.

I am accusing especially young people of not taking on low-paid, non-academic related jobs when they might well be able to, yes. This is not a remotely controversial point - both political parties have spoken of this problem, and it is hardly something which is possible to deny.

I have a huge amount of empathy for people who suffer from genuinely difficult conditions, and I'm not claiming for a second that the UK would have 0% unemployment if the public worked harder. It would be reduced to some extent though, especially in urban areas.

Are the British work-force lazy? I refer you to the ONS.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_258963.pdf

Make your own conclusions.

You must love the CE Forum here. It gets you away from the reality of the average member of the British public(with whom you claim to be in tune) who vote a lot further right than you do. It's you who's the odd one out here, and it's genuinely sad you can't see that. But of course, you won't mind being the odd one out, because you're a paragon of virtue who believes in justice for all. You're self-righteous and patronising beyond belief.

I conclude that you are a lazy thinker if you think that British workers control and are solely responsible for their own productivity and that this is a fair measure of their capacity for hard work.

 

[Jaz]

The reasoning behind it is that means testing is actually quite costly. With many of these policies, it actually works out cheaper to give such benefits to everyone than to means test and only give to those outside the high income bracket.

So you're suggesting that mean-testing the entire population would be too expensive?

The ultimate problem is that this group of people is getting bigger and bigger every year. The amount of money involved.. free bus passes costs £1.1bn. The cost of the state pension is huge (60 billion). Winter fuel payments (Over 2bn). Some kind of means testing is needed...

 

[Jaz]

Don't want to get into another discussion about this but you know very well that it was the private sector paying politicians to set favourable conditions for property prices to rise by subsidising mortgages that caused it.

The banks were pressuring the government to help poor people buy homes so they would a) have access to new mortages to sell on in financial instruments b) force the prices to rise meaning when the borrower couldn't repay they had an asset that would still be in demand and be worth more than the mortgage they agreed.

It was bank corruption that caused the collapse, not the government attempting to control the market. You can argue that the politicians should have said no.. but you know very well any politician that did not agree would be at a serious financial disadvantage and potentially lose their seats to someone who would.

It's probably the other way around, it's the government forcing the banks to lend cheaply to risky borrowers. And people wanting to borrow cheaply. The fact is that it's a manipulation which the government was part of.

Bank corruption did NOT cause the collapse. Absolutely not. It's a distortion in the valuation of risk being passed on to people by banks. The banks also got their risk modelling and exposure totally wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy the conspiracy of bank corruption. No banks wants to lose money or make losses, or lose value, lots of banks did.

 

[711]

So you're suggesting that mean-testing the entire population would be too expensive?

The ultimate problem is that this group of people is getting bigger and bigger every year. The amount of money involved.. free bus passes costs £1.1bn. The cost of the state pension is huge (60 billion). Winter fuel payments (Over 2bn). Some kind of means testing is needed...

Why save extra for your old age then, when you can just spend it now instead, and then later get the benefits you wouldn't have got if you'd saved up?

You could set the means test so high that only extremely rich people who didn't care would miss out, but then you wouldn't actually save much money, so it would kind of miss the point.

 

[Jaz]

Why save extra for your old age then, when you can just spend it now instead, and then later get the benefits you wouldn't have got if you'd saved up?

You could set the means test so high that only extremely rich people who didn't care would miss out, but then you wouldn't actually save much money, so it would kind of miss the point.

Well actually, it's the reverse, people now know they get some benefits, and don't save properly.

Pension schemes are already taxed depending on how big it is, so it's probably sensible. So it's a bit weird to tax rich income pensioners, but then to give them their money back in universal and unneeded benefits.

 

[Mozza]

It's probably the other way around, it's the government forcing the banks to lend cheaply to risky borrowers. And people wanting to borrow cheaply. The fact is that it's a manipulation which the government was part of.

Bank corruption did NOT cause the collapse. Absolutely not. It's a distortion in the valuation of risk being passed on to people by banks. The banks also got their risk modelling and exposure totally wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy the conspiracy of bank corruption. No banks wants to lose money or make losses, or lose value, lots of banks did.

It was not the other way round. The crash was caused by the flawed business model of the financial sector. They paid companies to rate the debt they were selling, little could be more corrupt then that. Now everyone but them are being hammered to clean up their mess

 

[Jaz]

It was not the other way round. The crash was caused by the flawed business model of the financial sector. They paid companies to rate the debt they were selling, little could be. more corrupt then that. Now everyone but them are being hammered to clean up their mess

And yet the government, i.e. the federal reserve manipulate the core interest rates of borrowing. I would say that lax monetary policy was partially responsible for the crisis. It's was in the best interest of the government to reduce interest rates, for cheaper borrowing and higher growth.

I don't deny that the risk calculations were wrong in the banks, this doesn't make them corrupt. I don't think they deliberately constructured wrong models, deliberately make huge losses, go bankrupt, and lose value..

 

[Mozza]

The ones in charge of the banks prior to the crash didn't give a feck, they made millions and can resign with no consequence, they weren't looking to bankrupt their banks, they took huge risks becuase it didn't matter to them if they failed

 

[Drainy]

It's probably the other way around, it's the government forcing the banks to lend cheaply to risky borrowers. And people wanting to borrow cheaply. The fact is that it's a manipulation which the government was part of.

Bank corruption did NOT cause the collapse. Absolutely not. It's a distortion in the valuation of risk being passed on to people by banks. The banks also got their risk modelling and exposure totally wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy the conspiracy of bank corruption. No banks wants to lose money or make losses, or lose value, lots of banks did.

It was lobbyists who pressured Clinton to loosen regulations on leverage and wanted access to a new market of well less of people leading to the 'blueprint for the american dream' act. Who do you think are the key people in the government that make these decisions? It's mostly former chairmen of the big banks with connections within the banks, and possibly future jobs lined up once they leave government worth millions if they play ball.

It absolutely was corruption in the banking industry. They could choose the regulator who rated their financial assets so pressured the regulators to be lax and give AAA rating for crap otherwise they would go to someone else, meaning they would not have to play that regulator.

You say 'no bank wants to lose money' but do you really think Dick Fuld cares about Lehman Brother's shareholders getting fecked over? or do you think he's happy in his swimming pool filled with his cash monies?

I can't be bothered finding the ACCA report into it, but without saying the bankers were corrupt they were pretty much saying it. 'flaws in corporate governance, lack of interest in long term shareholder wealth due to an incentive scheme that rewarded high risk.'

 

[711]

Well actually, it's the reverse, people now know they get some benefits, and don't save properly.

So you accept means tested-benefits deter saving, yet want to increase means-testing. Ok.

 

[Agent Red]

So you're suggesting that mean-testing the entire population would be too expensive?

The ultimate problem is that this group of people is getting bigger and bigger every year. The amount of money involved.. free bus passes costs £1.1bn. The cost of the state pension is huge (60 billion). Winter fuel payments (Over 2bn). Some kind of means testing is needed...

Not suggesting, that is the reasoning behind it. I don't think it's operationally possible to do a means test of the entire country that covers every kind of benefit, plus people's circumstances are in constant flux. Even in retirement age there would be huge variation and you would have to regularly refresh the assessment results, at great expense.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

David Cameron has promised to seek the “fresh consent” of the British people for a new deal with the European Union, but stopped short of promising a referendum.

Cameron attempting to head off the threat posed by UKIP in marginal constituencies.


Labour will discuss plans to offer a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union at the next election, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

 

[evra]

Thought that DC came off very well on Letterman the other day, I know it's not a huge achievement but if he had made a gaffe there would probably be a 500 post thread on it already!

 

[Ubik]

Was fairly ridiculous that he didn't know what "Magna Carta" meant though.

 

[alastair]

He came across well except for the Magna Carta thing. What grates me is that he clearly knew what it meant. He did Classics at school. There's no way you couldn't take an educated guess at it either. He pretended not to know because it's become cool to act thick. Horrible stuff to watch. I consoled myself thinking what it would be like if Ed Miliband was on there. The mind boggles.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Why is Ed banging on about breaking up the banks as if it is bold and revelatory? Isn't a division between their retail and investment arms already out there as a proposal?

 

[Ubik]

He's talking about supporting the Vickers Report fully, alleging that the Government are going to be implementing a much watered down version (haven't examined the two in detail so I can't say if he's right or not).

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Secret police probe into Labour MP's £500,000

A police investigation into a high-profile Labour MP discovered that he apparently held hundreds of thousands of pounds in a series of bank accounts, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

By Robert Winnett, Holly Watt and Claire Newell
30 Sep 2012

The Scotland Yard inquiry said funds believed to have been “of a suspicious nature” were paid into current and savings accounts in the name of or linked to Keith Vaz, a minister in the previous Labour government.

Detectives found that over a six-year period, almost £500,000 was apparently deposited in the MP’s accounts — in addition to his salary between 1997 and 2001.

The source of the funds has not been declared publicly and the evidence gathered by police may contradict assurances given by Mr Vaz during an investigation into his finances between 2000 and 2001 carried out by parliament.

The Labour MP has denied any wrongdoing and claims that any money passing through his bank accounts came from the proceeds of property deals. The Metropolitan Police is facing calls to hand evidence it collected to the parliamentary commissioner for standards, who can reopen an inquiry into allegations first made a decade ago.

Mr Vaz is chairman of the home affairs select committee, charged with holding the police and Whitehall to account. Whitehall sources claimed that he had not been vetted for the role, unlike holders of other senior offices, and a Conservative MP called for him to step down while the matter was clarified.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...cret-police-probe-into-Labour-MPs-500000.html

 

[Jaz]

So labour's ed balls had virtually nothing to say about the deficit... or the eurozone..

 

[alastair]

Party political meet ups are normally quite dull, but this is particularly poor.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

So labour's ed balls had virtually nothing to say about the deficit... or the eurozone..

The Eurozone crisis is a bit of an ideological/political conflict for them, although whereas the Tories disagreements lie within, Labour's are without [popular opinion and a touch of reality].

Much of the time Balls makes a speech it sounds like he's running to be leader of the party.

They've put together an Ed Miliband movie for Wednesday so i hear.

 

[peterstorey]

Party political meet ups are normally quite dull, but this is particularly poor.

The Tories are fecking things up so badly that the trick is to not score any own goals.