'No, maybe, oh go on then'

And what is Ed Miliband's explanation for the labour MEPs who voted for the 6% rise?

It's a great time to be a tory...

I suppose a sense of humour is essential to the Leader of the Labour Party. With their record in government you just wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Can't believe we're giving away an extra 2.9% to Europe. Can't believe DC gave it away, but that's diplomacy for you! Perhaps if someone, just for once, could spend just a few minutes explaining exactly why this rise needs to happen, then I and maybe the rest of the UK, would be satisfied.

Of course we dont know what Labour would have done under Brown but we can infer that Mr Miliband is in favour of a cash budget freeze - or can we? Europe is just one of many fault lines developing in the coalition along with public spending, controlling the banks, managing the economy and not to mention proportional representation. When Lib Dem councils have to face the flack from the public and their own party for the swingeing (where have I heard that word before?) cuts in local services these fault lines will start to seriously shear.

And what is really stirring agian is the issue of labour party apologists and MPs descending to personal insults and gutter journalism.

So Harriet thinks it's okay to insult rodents and red heads; a labour councillor is happy for Thatcher to 'burn in hell' and a certain kleft leaning newspaper had to issue a retraction and apology for a piece that claimed the welfare cuts were the coalition's 'final solution'.

This kind of shrill and deeply personal attack is exactly what turned the British public away from the labour party for eighteen years.

Let's hope they keep it up.

It's a great time to be tory...

Interesting no blog on Ms Eqaulity and PC about the comments about a ginger rodant ?

#4 many are waking up and smelling the coffee for the first time in 13 years what going to happen to the labour councils when the tipping point is reached and they are removed as all they are doing is spend spend spend of other people money in an irresponsible manner.

RockRobin7

The point was not about what Labour would have done, but about the fact that your leader promised something and seemed to have given way so easily. The point also is that as France and Germany seem to agree with him he was going to go into battle with strong allies. When he tries and is successful against the wishes of the Germans and French then he can claim to be truly fighting Britain's corner. It was just a pathetic attempt to convince the Eurosceptic wing of his party that he could handle Eurocrats. What he could have done was to force a 4 year deal which would have lead a reduction in the budget, like every member state has had to do with their domestic budgets.

You believe it is a good time to be Tory, but DC giving way so easily hardly supports the claim.

I thought it was Tony Blair who originally agreed to the EU budget increase to pay for the extra powers the EU took on from the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the new EU diplomatic corp)? I'm sure he also did that deal at the same time he gave away much of the UK's rebate!

boilerbill...

It's a great time to be a tory because the spendthrifts in the labour party have been booted out of power and are demonstrating their distaste for opposition.

That'll do for me, ta.

Tricky issue for the tories, Europe. Gets them dangerously worked up. Wonder how long they can keep a lid on it.

#1 Robin: I imagine that his explanation would be to point out that they didn't vote for the 6% rise. They voted against it (as did the ConDems). Both Cameron and the Squirrel got this wrong, and now you appear to have fallen into the same hole.

The eurosceptics are not going to be provoked by Ed Miliband - you need to be taken seriously by an opponent before you react to obvious taunting.

The sceptics know that in the initial flurry of cuts they cannot force the issue to try to expose fault lines in the coalition and drive an election which they may lose to a Labour party who would do nothing about the EU.
They can afford to wait until the EU fails to control itself in the budget negiotiations for 2013-2020 and then push for the in/out referendum which is what they want at the end of the day. Opening up the potential effects (the risk is what cannot be quantified) of an exit to a free trade agreement at this point in recovery is too risky to the overall programme and they know it.

sagamix..

Really, that comment is below you. 'Tricky issue for the tories????'

Like handing back half our rebate with nothing in exchange? Oh, yes. Absolutely nothing. The Eurocrats must have been falling around with laughter at that one.

Why did the 13 labour meps vote against the freeze in the budget, effectively a drop in real terms when the conservative meps tabled the amendment? Surely this is unacceptable and more to the point why is Nick Robinson not highlighting this? I am assuming that Cameron has limited powers when it comes to Brussels budget beyond saying, no we will not pay. Also, Baroness Ashton, a labour peer in europe seems to be spending money like water. What world are all these meps living in?

Of course if Blair had not given away our rebate, we might not be having this discussion.

The ridiculous coalition will not be around for much longer. Both sides of the supposed government have been breaking promises hand over fist since May and the public will not put up with it. Watch what happens in May with the local elections - labour will win back a number of councils, one of which will be in my constituency. keep going Ed - we're all behind you. Keep making gaffes Cleggeron!

Its a great time to be a labourite!

Desperation and frustration are certainly kicking in as they are beginning to wake up to find they were actually kicked out of office.

If the best they are capable of is the infantile abuse of those trying to be serious about the job they are doing then its time they all cleared off back to the playground where they belong.

Like Cathy Ashton. I think she's got some title in Europe like Foreign Affairs Commissioner. Her interview next to Hilary Clinton was just so embarassing. All that money she's paid and all she wanted to talk about was 'shopping'. She can certainly afford plenty of that.

For the Cringe Factor I give them all ten out of ten.

rockrobin7

Glad you are so easily pleased. I was glad that Labour was kicked out, but was hoping for something better. Most people have moved on from the election and are inspecting coalition policies and coalition actions. If they are found to be good then it is indeed a great time to be Tory. But if they aren't, simply saying that labour would have done even worse shows a remarkable lack of ambition and scant regard for the prospects of the country.

Despite the BBC's best efforts, there's not going to be a massive party split in the coalition regarding Europe.

Sorry Nick, but your blatent goading and your constant attempts at inventing rifts that don't even exist isn't working.

And the main reason for that is that no matter what the tories do, it can never be worse than what labour's done. So most tories will compromise and take pragmatic views in a reasonable and fair way purely in order to make sure that labour never get anywhere near power ever again.

Anyway, who's going to take economic advice from someone leading a party that created £4trillion of debt and had a structural annual deficit of around £70billion BEFORE the recession/bank-collapse even started ?

Sorry Nick, but nobody apart from their "core vote" and the BBC is taking labour seriously. They're a sick joke that most of us wish would disappear into the night and never ever come back again.

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

All departments to see their budgets slashed apart form the NHS and Overseas Aid. But hold on Europe getting a 2.9% rise.

One can only make the assumption that the Tories have overcome their past difficulties, seen the light and are now all pro-Europeans.

Shame it took so long but they got there eventually.

Great Time to be a Tory...

#16 if you that and its truth , what chance or any form of PR then, as that will alway happen and maybe Joe Public will not stand for that, unless you are in the camp that see PR = Lab +lib coalition. So why did that not occur in May then ? Labour not prepared to face the music then ,

Your right another election soon a a Tory super majority required and a CUT CUT in the euro budget. which like the licence Fee is a transfer of wealth from the por to the very rich

A strange blog, which at best can be decribed as tangential to the real issue, and a fairly limp attempt to talk up the minor aspects of the.

You should give the politics of reality a go.

Ed Milliband should be able to do humour, he is a dead ringer for Bernie Winters, part of the old cockney comedy duo. Hopefully Cameron will get enough courage to stand on Clegg while he gives Britain a referendum on remaining in membership of the EU. I'm not holding my breath .

Europe is just one of many fault lines in the UK and not just for the coalition. Labour is not prepared for the Europe issue.

2.9% budget rise just shows Europe is not in the real world, the Europe project will fail if it does not start working for the voters and not its self.

Lets all just wait and see, Recent polls have labour in the lead and quite rightly too. What I find laughable is the coalition blame game. Are labour also responsible for the deficits in so many other countries. Get real and get a life.

Its a great time to be a labourite.................

Has anyone done any maths on the percentage of ultra hostile Euro sceptics on the Conservative benches?

My sense is that David Cameron is no fool on this matter. He probably realises that with the general support of the majority of the Conservative cohort and Lib Dems he can successfully navigate his way through all this. The government has more important issues to sort out than cross channel molehills.

GillieBollie 26

"What I find laughable is the coalition blame game. Are labour also responsible for the deficits in so many other countries."

No, they are not. What Labour is resposible for is how big our deficit is by comparison with the other developed economies in the world. As a proportion of GDP, our deficit is only beaten by Iceland and Greece, both of which had their own special, local problems. It isn't the existence of a problem that is Labour's fault, it is the scale of the problem.

rr7 @ 14

Off topic, Robin. Topic is the Conservatives' difficulty with the whole idea of "Europe". A very significant portion of both the party and its supporters hanker for the Floating Bulldog. Nothing to be ashamed of in that. Passionate, narrow-minded views are to be respected, so long as they don't involve anything unsavoury.

23 - and what is the "real issue", Mr P?

It is hard to see how this news represents anything other than a capitulation on the part of the PM. On the 12th August this year he stated publically that he wanted to see the EU budget brought down over time. This was a clear statement of his intent and followed George Osbourne's calls for an EU budget freeze. I agree with the comments made by David Cameron in his interview broadcast on ITV news on the 12th August and therefore, as per his comments, I find it hard understand how the British Public can be expected to stomach EU budget increases at a time when the government are making fundemental (but necissary) cuts in social services, housing benefit and child benefit payments. Seems odd to me...

"It isn't the existence of a problem that is Labour's fault, it is the scale of the problem." - jrp @ 28

A true statement. The interesting question is then what proportion of the "crisis element" of our debt/deficit position is attributable to specific Labour policies (97 to 10) as opposed to (i) global factors, (ii) US sub-prime and associated credit derivatives meltdown factors, iii) domestic factors not Labour policy related, and (iv) AOB.

It's worth trying to quantify. If you have a bash, busy as I am, I'll make the time to review and correct.

A lot of previous posts make reference to the structural defict left by labour. What should be noted is that in 2007 *before the crunch" the tories were saying labour should be spending more money. After the crunch, suddenly we get Labour spent all the money and that the tories were tellng the govt this for years.

I therefore feel the constant argument the tories make regarding labour spending to much is not valid since they were saying labour was not spending enough before the recession.

Indeed so, Mark (33).

Gilliebollie@ 26
I am interested in other countries defecits, but currently I am only interersted on how we got where we are, not all can be blamed on Labour in a global recession but a good chunk can be by the policies they pursued, in 1997 total UK debt was 270% of GDP, in Q2 of 2009 it was just under 470% of GDP*, there was an awful lot of unsustainable borrowing going on! fueled by the approach of the Government of the day.

In 2000 Residential borrowing (mortages) was 54% of GDP, in 2007 it was 81% of GDP
In 2000 total household debt was 105% of disposable income in 2008 it was 160%

*SOURCE:Central Banks, McKinsey Global Institute,

32 sagamix

I'll give you about six out of ten for your effort at 29 to recognize the merit of posts being on topic (you would have got a higher mark had you then quoted the topic correctly). Unfortunately, you then drop a further mark for failing to recognise that my quick exchange with GB is also off the main thoroughfare. For all that his/hers got through moderation, and so did mine, that's as far as any reasonably intelligent poster should be prepared to push it.

If you are seeing this as an opportunity to make your umpteenth re-post of your "12%" fiction, then I would counsel you towards a rethink. If you were to do that it would be both off-topic AND spam.

"....I'll make the time to review and correct."

That's enough of your efforts at comedy, thank you.

33 Mark Burrell

It is the qualitive things that you spend money on that counts, Infrastructure projects that deliver assets for the country, along with jobs during the delivery of those assets are good things for any country and a good use of borrowed money, as is improved education and health standards, the interest to be paid is worth it, but other projects that delivered no benefit to the country as a whole, are in the main good for the recipient of that benefit only or the public sector industry created to provide that benefit, but at a detriment to the country.

I tend to agree with Stricktlypickled at 23. This is a starnge blog trying to make something out of nothing . Part proved by only attracting 37 posts in 5 hours plus.

Nicks previous Boris blog was getting going in a big way and was closed at 4pm on Friday meaning only the dayshift got to join in. The same in the other place which usually runs for months it was Modzillered and closed prematurely . At least we all, Mods included got the weekend free.

And now we have this strange piece to whet our appetite.

Cant get wound up about it somehow.

jr @ 36

Just inviting you to make something meaningful out of your otherwise facile observation that Labour aren't to blame for the problem itself but for the scale of it (compared to other countries, or to alternative policies, or to what we know of what tory policies would have been ... whichever, all of those are valid analyses).

Clues: you can look at government spending, or tax policy ... or perhaps more at kowtowing to the City and "Business", the tolerance of an economy more and more overweight property and financial services, of British banks' absurdly ballooning balance sheets, of London becoming the centre of the credit derivatives market and of funny money generally. Maybe there's other points burning a hole in your trousers?

You need to weigh these things up, JR. Stack them up against each other and come to a view on relative importance. Compare to other countries and compare Labour policies versus tory stated alternatives (at the time). Also think about the UK domestic factors which pre-dated 1997. All of this will give you a fair idea of how much political blame for our current debt/deficit position can be rightfully attached to the Labour government 97/10. I won't pre-judge the exercise (since it's your exercise) but the answer won't be 100%. Or 50% - it'll be quite a bit less than that. You should have a go, JR. Don't even publish the results on here if you don't want to, but please do it. Do it for me.

Or you can just leave it as a nothing statement - whatever suits.

So you support the 2.9% increase then Robin ?
If control orders are a ******* car crash then Europe is a motorway pile up waiting to happen....I shall look forward to it....

sagamix 39

Like I wrote before, you are off-topic - by the proverbial country mile, in fact. I'm more than a little surprised that I have to remind you of this. Get a grip, for goodness sake!

41 - Okay JR, I see. Perhaps you've got more thrilling things to do than assess the percentage blame for our fiscal crisis which can fairly be attributed to the Labour government. Take the Battle of Hastings and deduct a marque Porsche; now subtract lucky for some and add a pair - take square root. We can leave it there for now.

I think it's fair for Ed to be putting some humour in as he may as well cheer the whole situation up a bit. Let's be honest, they have no chance of getting into power at the moment after what they've done to the country. However, I think he is playing a dangerous game because no one is going to vote for a joker who can't make serious political points and seems to be childish. What the country really needs is an opposition who understand the need for cuts and can sway the Tories to think first. We have that in the Lib Dems, why do we need Labour again?

The Eurosceptics are going to do for Cameron as they did for Thatcher, Major and all.

They'll never change.

GillieBollie

'Its a great time to be a labourite!'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely that must be a comment made in jest?!

The party you support has just suffered its worst election result since the days of Michael Foot and is now reduced to shouting from the sidelines after 13 (in)glorious years in power. I would have thought the events of the last few years, in particular the last few months, would make this a thoroughly depressing time to be a Labourite.

As for the issue at hand, I'm of course disappointed to see a 2.9% increase in the budget of a scandalously wasteful organisation; all the more galling given that the member states individually are having to tighten their belts.

Do I blame Cameron? No. I don't think for one minute that if a freeze were achievable that he, with the support of other influential nations, wouldn't have got it. The issue was, lamentably, the size of the budget increase. With this is mind, 2.9% is quite obviously better than 6%. The lesser of two evils.

For the leader of a party which made numerous unwarranted concessions to Europe, and which foisted on us a Treaty without the promised referendum, to make capital out of this issue would be opportunistic in the extreme. This is precisely why I expect Ed Miliband to bang on about it. But perhaps amid all this politicking he could be so kind as to explain why Labour MEPs voted against freezing the EU budget? I won't hold my breath...

I have always been pro Europe. That we dally with our ex colony across the pond is a bit of a mystery to me when we are so close to and interwoven with the continent of which we are part, Europe. Mind you "we" have always refered to it as "the continent" as though we were not part of it. Why ?

Much to my surprise I have found some good, robust, political discussion on Yahoo news talking politics at:

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

"26. At 7:34pm on 01 Nov 2010, GillieBollie wrote:
.... What I find laughable is the coalition blame game. Are labour also responsible for the deficits in so many other countries. Get real and get a life."

No, Labour are only responsible for the deficit in the UK. But isn't that enough?

It is real and it is affecting all our lives.

"All of this will give you a fair idea of how much political blame for our current debt/deficit position can be rightfully attached to the Labour government 97/10. I won't pre-judge the exercise (since it's your exercise) but the answer won't be 100%. Or 50% - it'll be quite a bit less than that."

Hopeless, truly hopeless. Labour are 100% responsible for the mess the UK economy is in and you know it. First of all, you can't shift blame by imagining what the Tories might have done. That IS a facile argument. Labour were in power. Were you running around shouting that the Tories deserved the credit for the boom of the early part of the decade because of what they might have done? No. Secondly, despite Brown's maniacal belief, recessions ans slow downs do happen. Might have been the banks, might have been something else. When the inevitable happened, the state of the UK's finances was always going to be key to how we were able to cope and Labour were 100% responsible for that. The rest is you desperately trying to muddy the waters.

# 46 xTunbridge

"we are so close to and interwoven with the continent of which we are part, Europe."

I don't think this is right. Our European 'partners' have much more in common with each other than they do with us. For one thing, they are all foreign.

The Tory eurosceps are unstirred because there's absolutely no substance in anything DCam says. Nothing has been finalised. I don't know how he can conclude the EU Parliament will concede to 2.9% from 5.9%, perhaps he should tell us why and how he can be so sure of himself.

30. sagamix

23 - and what is the "real issue", Mr P?
==============================================

Surprised that you have to ask sagamix (actually we both know that you know the answer!), but I'll tell you anyway.

The real issue concerning the story is the payment to the EU, and the reasons (or lack of)and background behind it, along with the EI itself.. The humour of the leader of the opposition, however funny it may be, is not really central to this. And as such Nicks blog is probably not very relevant to the actual story - this would appear to be confirmed by the lukewarm rate of posting on here, several of which are "off topic" anyway.

In the words of Ed Balls.... "so what?"

This is the best you can do, Nick? Of all the things that are going on, with the economy, with defence, with the court case about voting rights for prisoners, the CIPD report, of all the things that deserve your attention that you ought to be telling us about, this weak effort is the sum total?


Feeble. Really, really feeble.

"Labour are 100% responsible for the mess the UK economy is in" - andy @ 48

The political responsibility, yes, since they were in charge, but I'm talking about blame. Looking at the real causes. On that score, it's a far lower percentage. The collapse of the western financial system, infected by madness around US mortgage bonds and associated derivatives, was a factor for example. A big one. Silly to dispute this sort of totally true stuff, Andy.

The issue for me is the poor political judgement on Mr Cameron's part. He was very bullish in saying he would get a freeze on the E.U. budget, he's come back with an increase that will probably be around 2.9%, something that had been agreed back in August.
Either the freeze on the budget was never on the cards and he was politically foolish in making such projections. Or it was possible to get a freeze and he fluffed it. Either way he has not come well put of this.
My own view is that a freeze was never going to happen and he misjudged the issue, hopefully he will learn from this.

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

"Of course we dont know what Labour would have done under Brown but we can infer that Mr Miliband is in favour of a cash budget freeze - or can we?"

We cant infer anything of what Ed stands for. I doubt even he knows. He'd better ask Jack Dromey. I'm sure he'll tell him. Or Lord Kinnochio, now he thinks he's got his party back.

#32

1) minimum wage
2) Imigration policy
3) Stratigic defence policy or lack of
4 )Parenting policy

That is interesting (51), Mr P, thank you. Almost as interesting as the current blog topic - the Conservatives' political difficulties with Europe.

Re the economy: the line that the tories would have been worse is not, I agree, particularly potent (hence why I don't make great play of this aspect). It is, however, a killer riposte to partisan criticism from a Conservative.

Hope everyone was okay solving the little riddle at 42. I tried to make it easy.

16#

Ah, another recycled punchline. More hackneyed, recycled slogans. Isnt it half term week?

11. At 5:48pm on 01 Nov 2010, sagamix wrote:
Tricky issue for the tories, Europe. Gets them dangerously worked up. Wonder how long they can keep a lid on it.
=========================================================================
Not just a difficult time for the Tories but also for the rest of us along with the rest of Europe.

For the first time since it's inception the whole institution is looking very rocky. Yes it looks for the sixteenth year running their accounts are not to be signed off. This for an institution that is trying to impose stringent regulation on its own members.

An ex colleague of mine who now works in Brussels tells me that there is little control of any of the budgets and this comes from a man who used to work in the treasury. He jokingly tells me that one department made a payment to an organisation that ceased to operate some ten years earlier. This error was only discovered when the transfer was returned as the account was now dormant. But did that stop them, no! They went on to send payment to one of the ex officials. When questioned why, it was explained that it would have caused too much hassle and raised too many questions. A rare occasion, he fears not as he has come across many other examples. And how much are we talking about? Tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands.

What the EU needs to do is get its act together but there are too many skeletons in the closet. There are even ones that have been exposed but no action was ever taken. Their expenses scandal would make our parliament look like a bunch of Scrooges.

And all this before we even start to look at the economics and social dynamics of the current and future members. Then you can add the Euro into the mix. It reminds us of post cold war Russia but without the natural resources.

The final issue is going to be Germany's and France's ability and willingness to hand over power to the majority while bankrolling the failing nations. The revolution may well come from closer to home as Germany in particular realises that the drivers for the global economy do not sit within the EU or even the US. But further afield.......

I read a lot of comment about Europe, and there is no doubt that the British Isles are physically placed just off the coast.

That is the only relationship we should have with Europe - consistently our enemies over several hundred years.

Why not cast ourselves adrift from them and ally ourselves with NAFTA - North American Free Trade Association? We speak the same language, well, nearly.

The EU is a corrupt regime - always was, always will be.
The bigger its budget, the greater the scope for waste and 'graft' from MEPs expenses to that obscene 'palace' being built in Brussels for the non-President of the USE.

This artificial construct will collapse under the weight of its own incompetence and the only question is when?

A straight vote of the citizens of the EU as to whether they would prefer an EEC/Common Market-style trading block ONLY to the current EU (and future USE project) would produce a 70%+ vote in favour of the Common Market option.

No-one, but no-one wants power anywhere further away than the local Town Hall ('cos you can riot/storm/protest/rally/vote them out) and the further the centre of power moves away from you, personally, the less you trust, respect, and support them.

And when they a foreigners, the issue becomes far greater and far deeper in what the PC-brigade would call 'instinctive, endemic racism', but which is, in reality, a natural and instinctive distrust of strangers.

No - it's as doomed as The Third Reich, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and even Iraq and Afghanistan (as single countries).

Just how many trillions has it cost us Europeans?

'..stirring again.'

That, for sure, is amply borne out.

Almost makes one dewy-eyed for Mr. Crick's chicken bone 'analyses' based on 'sources'.

xTun @ 46 wrote:
Mind you "we" have always refered to it as "the continent" as though we were not part of it. Why ?

>>

It's correct to refer to "the continent" meaning the main land mass near an island (us). But referring to Europe as if we weren't part of it is a national quirk. There's a part of our psyche which still considers GB to be a power block equivalent to all the other European nations put together. This delusion is particularly strong among some Tory back-benchers - mainly the ones who can't stand Cameron.

#52 rapist and murderer etc to be given the vote but
father not allowed to parent what about thier human rights

I would almost give up the right to vote so that I could have parented by children, except many peopel have died to maintain the vote 70 years ago etc

Ps any more on HH being arrested by the PC police now that would be funny.

53 - "The political responsibility, yes, since they were in charge, but I'm talking about blame. Looking at the real causes. On that score, it's a far lower percentage."

No, just won't do. 400 billion reasons why you're wrong. The collective overspend of Labour during the decade. 100% Labour. The abandonment of the 'golden rule' on borrowing. 100% Brown. The abandonment of the 'golden rule' on debt to GDP. 100% Brown.

That was in the 'boom' years. The unregulated banking boom years which were unregulated....because of Brown.

It remains an undeniable fact that the position the UK economy was in when the banking crisis started is 100% the responsibility of Labour.

You've fallen into the trap of blaming the particular iceberg that the Labour Titanic struck rather than wondering what the ship was doing steaming at full speed at night with too few lifeboats on board.

67#

Wouldnt it just. Also for her to be tried by her own court of public opinion.... What I wouldnt give to be the hanging judge at THAT trial. Make Nuremburg look like one of Hutton's white-washes.

"67. At 09:37am on 02 Nov 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Ps any more on HH being arrested by the PC police now that would be funny."

Interesting point.

Saga, is it now OK to take the mickey out of people because of their genetic make-up?

You know, ginger, afro-caribean, jewish. That sort of thing? OK now that HH happily dishes it out?

Andy @ 68 wrote:
It remains an undeniable fact that the position the UK economy was in when the banking crisis started is 100% the responsibility of Labour.

>>

Really? Are you saying that there are absolutely no other factors which influence the economy in any way at all - not even a tiny bit - except for government policy? This is an 'undeniable fact' you say?

71 - So who are you blaming? Pixies?

OK, for clarification, I guess 'UK Government finances' is the better description. The deficit. The debt. Who else could possibly be responsible?

Talking of Ed Milliband (if we must). I heard him at the Labour conference in Scotland making a big issue of the public servant job cuts. A huge issue of it. So, Nick, are you going to ask him how many public sector jobs would have gone under Labour? You know, put him on the spot a bit, doing your job, that sort of thing.

Seems to me that all Labour can say at the moment is "yes, we would have made cuts but no we can't actually tell you what we would have cut" leaving them, in the absence of any challenging interviews, in the position of being able to criticise each and every cut without having to say what the alternative is.

Andy @ 72

Well the pixies certainly don't help. But what I was getting at was that there are many factors outside the government's control. Government sets tax rates, for example, but tax revenue cannot be directly controlled - or even predicted with great accuracy - and it's the revenue that affects the deficit, not the rates. Spending levels are also at the mercy of events, to some extent. For example, welfare spending rises in times of high unemployment, whatever plans the government may have to cut it. So I'm afraid your clarification is also unacceptable.

Europe is a scab that the tory party can't resist picking to make it bleed. Remember Europe led to Howe resigning that ultimately led to them defenestrating the blessed Margaret. It was Europe that broke the Major Government and led to him resigning as party leader and fighting a leadership election whilst still being PM of the UK. I would be really surprised if DC isn't a tad concerned about the politics of this. After all he can be changed as Tory leader without the Government falling. Recent tory party history is not really on his side.
Ed Miliband is just playing good politics, as leaders of the opposition should, and as DC did against GB. Taking the mick out of a PM who hates anyone doing that and tends to respond to teasing as a bit of a patronising Oxbridge graduate know all (which the non politically minded public hate, but makes me laugh as its like a trip back to the 19th century)and reminding the eurosceptics that DC says one thing and does another and is not to be trusted. I think Nick was right to raise this as it is a story that will grow over this parliament.

74 - "Government sets tax rates, for example, but tax revenue cannot be directly controlled - or even predicted with great accuracy - and it's the revenue that affects the deficit, not the rates."

I thought it was Labour spending more than it was receiving that affected the deficit? Are you trying the say that Brown expected £40 billion a year more in taxes than he got in the year 2000? and then again in 2001? and again in 2002. And 2003? And every year until he was finally booted out? That his abandoning of his so called golden rules on borrowing and debt was down to some unavoidable mistake made by not quite getting the amount of tax he was expecting right?

Whatever the revenues, if you spend more than you receive, you get into debt.

Andy @ 76 wrote:
Whatever the revenues, if you spend more than you receive, you get into debt.

>>

This part is true. (Well done!) The untrue part is to suggest that the last government is 100% responsible for the state of the UK's finances. No government is ever 100% to blame for the state of the economy - that would imply they are 100% in control of it. Patent nonsense. Flimsy propaganda. If you adopt that position, you also have to give the government 100% of the credit for all the years of growth - whereas I would prefer to allocate a large percentage of it to the businesses and employees (in the private and public sectors) who created the wealth.

58 sagamix
That is interesting (51), Mr P, thank you. Almost as interesting as the current blog topic - the Conservatives' political difficulties with Europe.
================================================

And what are the "difficulties" you mention, which are so ground breakingly new and significant that they warrant a blog of their own ? In fact if you actually read the blog, this is only mentioned towards end third of the text. Many of the posts are now well off topic. Glad you find this interesting, I can barely contain my indifference personally.

By the way, nice to see your political favourite back in the news at the weekend making her "ginger rodent" comment. Is she still known as "Batty Hatty" or is it now "Ratty Hatty" ??? A truly remarkable performance - even for her - in which she managed to display why she was not fit to be in government, not fit to be in opposition but also why she is not fit to hold public office of any sort. Her efforts were not wasted though, she reminded us all of the current intellectual level of the labour party. If this is the best they can offer, then Ed Miliband is going to need some really good jokes really soon.

"26. At 7:34pm on 01 Nov 2010, GillieBollie wrote:
.... What I find laughable is the coalition blame game. Are labour also responsible for the deficits in so many other countries. Get real and get a life."

I accept that the blame game is to a point irrelevant but what is laughable is labour politicians who don't believe that the deficit is a problem!

Doing yourself no favours, Andy, with your mantra that the UK's debt/deficit crisis is completely the fault of the Labour government to the exclusion of all other actors and factors. Patently ridiculous claim; by clinging to it, you devalue the occasional valid point you do make regarding the economy. Pains me to say this but it needs saying.

Pickled @ 78 wrote:
A truly remarkable performance - even for her - in which she managed to display why she was not fit to be in government, not fit to be in opposition but also why she is not fit to hold public office of any sort.

>>

A rather OTT reaction, if I may say so. I sense you don't like her anyway. I'd say it shows she is unfit to make jokes and should probably stop trying. Ironically, this actually makes her more fit to be in government, where taking everything seriously is an asset.

@70:
"Saga, is it now OK to take the mickey out of people because of their genetic make-up?

You know, ginger, afro-caribean, jewish. That sort of thing? OK now that HH happily dishes it out?"
---

Of course it is! That's why it's called positive discrimination!

81. pdavies65 wrote:

"A rather OTT reaction, if I may say so. I sense you don't like her anyway. I'd say it shows she is unfit to make jokes and should probably stop trying. "
=======================================================

I don't think it's OTT at all. Do you really think that referring to someone as a "ginger rodent" - even in jest or otherwise - is an acceptable standard to for someone to conduct themselves ? Your comments seem to imply that you. Why don't you try this out at work, by going to referring to one of your senior managers in such a manner. I'm sure they'll get the joke. On the other hand, it's more likely that you'll be out of a job tomorrow. Or try it on your gardener, and see what he thinks.


"Ironically, this actually makes her more fit to be in government, where taking everything seriously is an asset."
==========================================
I've no idea what you are talking about here. If you think this is an acceptable way to conduct herself, then it is entirely a matter for you, and your own standards or lack of. I don't think it's acceptable, and I want our politics raised above the gutter level insults you seem to think are such an asset.

You're right that I don't like her style of politics, and for good reason. The only thing she has ever taken seriously is herself.

"77. At 12:21pm on 02 Nov 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
Andy @ 76 wrote:
Whatever the revenues, if you spend more than you receive, you get into debt.

>>

This part is true. (Well done!) The untrue part is to suggest that the last government is 100% responsible for the state of the UK's finances. No government is ever 100% to blame for the state of the economy"

Since this started with Saga's ludicrous claim that Labour were a lot less than 50% to blame, perhaps you'd like to give your % score?

Hopefully, you're not as deliberately blind to events as Saga is?

"80. At 1:24pm on 02 Nov 2010, sagamix wrote:
Doing yourself no favours, Andy"

If you're going to persist with your claims that labour had hardly anything to do with the current state of the UK's finances, I'll continue with mine.

No comment on HH's genetic jibes, I see. I guess she can do no wrong in your eyes. What next for HH? Taking the micky out of a jewish nose? Or Afro curly hair?

Seems Labour give only lip service to equality.

83 - "You're right that I don't like her style of politics, and for good reason. The only thing she has ever taken seriously is herself."

Hardly fair.

She also took seriously getting her husband a cushy safe Labour seat to see him through to retirement and gurantee that the Harman household will have a nice big next egg to see them into retirement.

Pickled @ 83
Personal insults are not unheard of in politics (and are rather different from insulting your boss, or your gardener). If your righteous indignation is aroused every time, then fine. That's admirable. A bit dull, but admirable. However, I suspect you're being especially hard on Harriet for the reasons you allude to in your final paragraph.

"87. At 2:27pm on 02 Nov 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
Pickled @ 83
Personal insults are not unheard of in politics (and are rather different from insulting your boss, or your gardener). If your righteous indignation is aroused every time, then fine. That's admirable. A bit dull, but admirable. However, I suspect you're being especially hard on Harriet for the reasons you allude to in your final paragraph."

It's just the rank hypocrisy of Harman that grates so, I'm sure you agree. All shrill screechings about equality and being politically correct but then in practice she shoehorns her husband into a safe Labour seat and makes cheap jibes. If she SAID that sort of thing was fine, that would be one thing but she doesn't. It's all very Animal Farm, don't you think?

87. pdavies65

"Personal insults are not unheard of in politics (and are rather different from insulting your boss, or your gardener). "
=====================================
True, but I don't think that makes it right or acceptable. I would have thought that someone holding the deputy leader of the opposition would conduct themselves with a more mature, dignified and progressive attitude. Not sure why you think it's different either. Lack of respect is ... well,lack of respect.

"If your righteous indignation is aroused every time, then fine. That's admirable. A bit dull, but admirable. "
=======================================
You're right its a bit dull. I'm not sure about "righteous indignation". She's basically yesterdays politician from yesterdays party, and really not worth thinking about really. Sorry I mentioned her.

"However, I suspect you're being especially hard on Harriet for the reasons you allude to in your final paragraph."
============================================

Hypocrisy and double standards, coupled with her self righteous preaching on political correctness are a summary of my reasons. I could go on but it's not worth the effort as descibed above.

Pdavies/strictlypickled.

I think we can safely say that we all agree that HH is a screeching hypocritical harridan of a woman. Time was when I wouldn't have said such a thing but I understand from HH herself that such comments are OK.

90#

+1.

Therefore perfectly suited to the Deputy Leadership of a screeching, hypocritical, grasping, political party.

Everyones happy.

91
+1

Was it you that made the point that HH is an advocate of Freedom of Screech?

rockrobin7 @1 and 5

Why do you sign off most of your post's with "it's a great time to be a tory"?

Its as grating as "we're all in this together" and "the mess Labour left us"

But seriously though, why is it a great time to be a Tory?

"93. At 4:18pm on 02 Nov 2010, capt-price wrote:
rockrobin7 @1 and 5

Why do you sign off most of your post's with "it's a great time to be a tory"?

Its as grating as "we're all in this together" and "the mess Labour left us""

It's possible to argue against the first two statements but is there any denying that Labour left behind a financial mess?

No86 AndyPandy,
Only a fool would think than an individual would have sufficient influence to guarantee a 'cushy seat' for anyone in the House of Commons. I would imagine the person involved and chosen to stand in the election was chosen under the rules of the organisation of which he was a member. Time to grow up.

95 - Let me get this right. HH is in favour of all-women shortlists for safe Labour seats. A vacancy exists in a safe Labour seat. Instead of an all-woman shortlist, ta-da....it's HH's husband who gets to fight the seat. HH says not a word in protest. And you believe she had nothing to do with it?

You must be even more simple than your childish name-calling suggests.

"HH is a screeching hypocritical harridan of a woman. Time was when I wouldn't have said such a thing" - 90

Oh really, Andy. What time was that then?

andy @ 85

"If you're going to persist with your claims that labour had hardly anything to do with the current state of the UK's finances, I'll continue with mine."

I make a couple of very powerful and relevant points below:

12% is NOT the same as "hardly anything". It's actually quite a chunk of blame ... almost an eighth. One eighth of something massive is in itself big. I'm not, unlike you, being all tribal about this.

And you admit that you're making what you know is a false claim purely because you think (although you misunderstand ... pls see above) that I'm doing the same. This is disreputable blogging and thus is damaging your reputation. Your reputation is being damaged by this, Andy.

97 - Glad to see you made no effort to defend her.

What's the last round in Fighting Talk on Radio 5? Defend the indefensible. Be tough to get HH to talk about, eh Saga.

Strictly P,

I didn't at all like H's "ginger rodent" remark (ill judged, bad taste, not funny*) but I wouldn't take it quite as seriously as you seem to be doing. You sound on the verge of tears!

* surprisingly unfunny, in fact, when you consider it came from the person who, with her "Lehman Sisters" crack, set the standard.