trousers

Isn't the contradiction in all this that Balls said he wouldn't advocate abolishing it whereas Miliband says he will? I agree the ability to inherited non-dom status isn't right. I heard a stat earlier that c.90% of non-doms stay in the country less than 7 years (i.e. they are classed as "temporary") and their net contribution to the economy is greater than if they weren't here setting up and growing businesses in the UK in the first place. Until one sees the evidence that abolishing non-doms will have a postitive effect on the economy then the jury is out, for me, on whether or not its a good policy. Btw, the number of non-doms doubled over the course of the last Labour government. But Blair and co were only Tory-lite of course....

How does omitting the line: “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.” alter the meaning/intent of the earlier line: "if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country."? (fwiw, all the clips of the Balls interview I've seen on TV today have included the "omitted" sentence.) Stories like this can obviously be spun whichever way one chooses, but the fact is that Labour have gone from Balls saying that it will probably cost the economy money to Miliband saying that it will add "several £100 million" to the economy. Which is it? p.s. No doubt if this was a story about a muddled Tory policy we'd be arguing the opposite side of the coin

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/news/38337/

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/healthcare/private-parts-of-the-nhs-say-the-nhs-should-not-be-privatised/

Nope

Agree, not explicitly. They simply hadn't thought through the consequences of being able to keep an unconditional pledge in a coalition scenario. Naive? Yes. Stupid? Probably. Willfully misleading voters? Not convinced.

One could argue that their supporters are being short sighted too in their clamour to punish a party that has admitted they made a mistake in making such an unconditional pledge. You'd have thought people would admire politicians that apologise and admit mistakes given how few do.

So, if tuition fees was a Tory red-line in the coalition negotiations (which it undoubtably was), Lib Dem supporters' preference was to duck out of a chance to have their party in government for the first time in generations? I appreciate that sticking to one's principles is a noble thing, but surely the lib dems stood more chance of promoting their other policies in government than as a minority opposition party. Sounds like cutting off nose to spite face territory to me.

Which is sort of the point....?

And by extrapolation, also pretty meaningless (and equally naive) for their supporters to believe that a minority party can ever fulfill any of its pledges. And then moan about it when the obvious happens after the event....

Analogy-tastic

Anyone know if the runners-up qualify for the Europa League.....?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes#multiOne

How would coalitions ever work if each party had to stick to their pledges? Surely that's the point of coalitions - you have to compromise on things you wanted to do?

I wasn't in the initial coalition-forming meetings so I've no idea how hard they tried to bargain re: tuition fees.

They were certainly naive/stupid to make a pledge that they stood no chance of being able to keep in a Tory/Lib Dem coalition situation. Pre-election manifestos should be all about "aspirations" rather than "pledges" as no-one knows what's going to be achievable until they get into power, especially if they are sharing said power with another party.

They're not really 'fees' any more though - its a progressive graduate tax - so they sort of stuck to their word

Mere details old chap. They didn't 'get it' then so they're hardly likely to have 'engaged brain' some 3 years later. I assume Carlsberg have started doing back-handed compliments now?

Yet, despite all the mouth-frothing, what we've ended up with is a progressive 'graduate tax' whereby those who earn more pay more for their tuition, and the majority of graduates will never have to pay back anywhere near the full "debt". So, the Lib Dems inadvertently stuck to their pledge of introducing a fairer alternative (to what was in place before).... And not forgetting that Labour's headline grabbing £3,000 reduction will only benefit the wealthiest graduates.

Blair's speech: "The reasons for staying in the EU are compelling, which is why we shouldn't have a referendum". Erm, if what he says is true then surely the risk (to those wanting to stay) in holding a referendum is negligible...? #rhetoricalquestion Some contorted logic there from Mr Blair me thinks.

Because they realise they'd become even more unpopular (amongst their 'traditional' support base) when in power due to the amount of rationalisation (aka "cuts") they've signed up to....?

Labour wheeling out Blair? Excellent news

...and Swansea to stop winning games of football