Robert Peston seemed close to tears this evening on the Six O'Clock News on the BBC. He kept pausing, looking down and seemed close to tears - "For those of us who grew up on pick n'mix, this is a very sad day." Tory Bear doesn't recall him being so upset when announcing Citygroup job losses, in fact he was positively revelling in it. He stated that thousands of Woolworths job losses will effect the "real" people rather than mythical fat cat bankers.
Good on yesterday's Times for sticking it to Brown with this wounding cartoon on the front page:
Apologies for the light blogging today, here's why:
TB was rather surprised to find out he had been added to the
Tough competition today... Darling had some corkers but the prize really must go to Christian May:
TB sadly missed this afternoon's fun of games around the Pre Budget Report. Having now got home to SkyNews it is clear to see that this sham tactic will soon unravel. Labour today announced their long term election strategy that will culminate in Brown going to the country in spring 2010 having fobbed off and bribed voters with gimmicks and cheques here and there. He might as well just post £20 pound notes instead of election material. Labour's frenzied and desperate struggle to remain in power will wound this nation at a critical time and don't for one second believe that the Brown and co are in this for the good of the country. The leaks and briefings before today were specifically designed to knock the Tories of course and try make George Osborne slip up. He survived though and put up a good response to this farce.
Just spotted this on
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got one dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
CONSERVATIVES 42% (-1)
LABOUR 31% (+1)
LIB DEMS 19% (+1)
More Regional Coordinator rumours circulating, TB wasn't going to print the one about Dan Patterson signing off emails already as "Yorkshire Regional" as couldn't get secondary verification but seems the CF's blogging minx has
TB is exhausted after a hard day of leafleting some very high student tenement buildings, up and down the stairs all day. Just watching the X-Factor and having a quiet one tonight but a couple of things have caught his eye...
One member takes the news particularly badly:
YBF exists to directly combat this kind of left wing issue politics. The military are a proud and vital part of our country, and at a time when the are overstretched and poorly treat by the Government, they need all the support they can get back home. Students’ Unions that are trying to pass these motions should be ashamed of themselves.
YOU can help. If your university is trying to pass such motions, or if you know of campuses where this is going on, contact YBF immediately. Email Christian (christian@ybf.org.uk) and YBF can swing into action with its unique combination of resources, supporters and campaign experience. Don’t let them get away with it.
The CF press release after the last meeting confirmed that Regional Coordinators would be in place by 1st December. No reference to how they were being selected or how to apply for the position was included, or subsequently explained. Except to a certain chosen few it seems.
Continuing with the NUS debate, after a very amusing chat in the comments on Blaney's Blarney, Owen Meredith has weighed into the argument:
In a strongly
You can now read the "full" minutes of Saturday's meeting of the Conservative Future national executive
TB wants to kick start the debate about Conservative Future and the roll it should play within the NUS. Further to some NUS conference fall out last week, this post by
Cameron has finally hit the nail on the head this morning and offered a clear and precise narrative of Labour's failings on the economy and what the Conservatives would do about it. No more ridiculous ideas of matching Labour spending plans. Tory governments come to power at times of dire economic need and they a voted in to pick up the pieces left by Labour. It's what we do and hence why it has been so vital that we get our economic policy into gear.
OK then... so it seems that the NME have voted to keep themselves in the job until 2010 potentially. While this may seem like an extreme step, it must be considered that the last NME ran for over 18 months and if there is an election in May, this regime would still serve for less time.
However there is a very real possibility that the next General Election will not be in 2009, but in May 2010, making the current NME have control for over 2 years. As far as Tory Bear can tell the executive voted on this course of action 5 to 1.
To be fair to the NME they weren't exactly presented with many options, it was either this or subscribe to a ridiculous electoral college system of branch chairman and their mates electing the national chair. The NME have saved CF democracy for the time being but TB understands that they were told the party wasn't going to fund another CF election before the General. In order to keep one-member-one-vote, the reforms would have to be kicked into the long grass. As far as TB can tell some members of the NME were not aware that the current statement put out by the CF press machine would be quite so extreme. It now seems to TB that the reforms have been snuck in through the back door.
While TB wouldn't question for a second the idea that CF should be ready for the General Election at any moment, Conservative Future has to be an organisation with everyone on board, and this sentiment is particularly vital with it's elected leaders. The current NME have had their fair share of problems, seen resignations, bitching and briefing against each other. Are we ready for anthor two years of this? Apparently these moves are in the best interest of the organisation, but will the membership really buy this stance?
To TB this doesn't look like a press release that has been drawn up over night but something that has been prepared and ready to go for some time...
Reforms to the national organisation:
Who will make up the new National Executive?
With the local and European elections timetabled for
The NME is united on this issue and looks forward to delivering a
Under the agreement passed by the NME at the meeting on 15th
12 Regional Chairmen (RCs) appointed under section 8 of the
Their primary roles will be:
To co-ordinate branch development, regional campaigning,
To support CF branches within their regions. T
As a body:
To assist with the handover to the Regional Chairmen.
To provide support to the Regional Chairmen, Area Chairmen
Hold the Regional Chairmen to account
All Area Chairmen to stay on and work with the Regional Chairmen
August 2009:
The NME will vote on the future roles of Area Chairmen following feedback from the membership. The NME will then be disbanded and the 12 Regional Chairmen will become the National Executive.
Elections will be held for all the national positions.
In the coming weeks we will publish more specific information on the future roles for each level of the national organisation. If you have any comments or questions on this announcement then please contact one of the NME. Contact details for us, and a ‘post’ for comments, can be found on the Exec blog.
.jpg)
Shane Greer, of TV fame, has an interesting post tonight about a Tory PPC who refuses to publicise his cracking down on criminals, for fear of... upsetting criminals:
"Imagine if you were a PPC in a tough seat (Labour majority of just under 14,000) and local residents came to you to ask you to help them shut down a pub in the area which was frequented by criminal elements and used as a forum from which to sell drugs. You’d say absolutely, wouldn’t you?
Well that’s exactly what a London PPC did when local residents in the constituency approached him about a notorious bar/drug den, to ask if he would represent them in the bar’s upcoming licence review. And, thanks to the overwhelming evidence against the bar, it was shut down.
Quite the victory for the local PPC and certainly something you’d expect him to shout about, right? Surprisingly though, no leaflet to voters announcing the victory was sent. Why? Oh, because the local association demanded that nothing be sent out in case… wait for it… it upset the criminals! No really.
Nothing like a candidate who sticks by his convictions."
Posts
All Comments
