Somewhat off topic, but that's not true about the 1992 polls. They were weighted, their primary problem was they were not accurately weighted. To some degree, this was because they misunderstood the electorate - partly this was due to not picking up on the movements from working to middle class which had happened through the 1980s and would be identified when the next census results were released. So it wasn't a lack of weighting, they weren't that unsophisticated. But, yes, lessons were learned and the 2015 polling should not contain the same sort of surprises.

Whether Miliband can come through debates with Cameron looking like a PM ready to go is another question. One of the reasons I don't like the debates, the need to reduce everything to soundbites apart, is that it focusses far too much on the leader and their own ability to spout bull.

No matter what your view of Brown that's the most preposterous argument in his defence I've ever seen. He paid it off when it was due to be paid. And it was a completely trivial amount that was outstanding.

Brown built up a budget deficit in boom years.

Whoops I should try not to troll by posting facts.

£45m is a "trivial amount"? And that loan could've run for years and years. Brown didn't "need" to pay it off, he thought it prudent to do so, something no tory had managed. There is also the consideration that some UK banks were thought to be exposed to problems attached to a high gold price

Whatever anyone's thoughts on his selling of gold, the "cost" to the UK was still less than that of Black Wednesday

I think most people would agree that around 0.005% of the national budget was trivial in the overall scheme of things.

The US-UK loan required 50 annual installments from 1950. With repayment deferred in six years in the 50s, 60s and 70s, the final payment eventually fell due in 2006. Which is when Brown repaid it. Hardly an heroic achievement.

Ripping off via corporation tax? I remember when all companies, however small, paid 52% and now its 20%. People now want to leave money in companies because the tax rate is so low compared with taking it out. So, if 20% is a rip off I assume Standee has / will never use public transport, the NHS, the education system, rely on the police or emergency services in his hour of need, rely on the intelligence services or armed forces to keep him safe, expect any state pension in future, etc, etc.

Utterly trivial in the context of current debt!!

Agreed but we had chances to finally shake off that yoke in previous years and dodged them

Standee belives in a "small state".

So small that he has convinced himself (although there are one or two doubters), that his parents fully-funded not only his birth but ALL of his education and welfare needs up to the point where he can fund all of that himself.

I know that he enjoys a spot of skiing, I only hope he doesn't have an accident in a country such as France, then he'll find out what 3rd world healthcare is all about.

He also reckoned that this bill was false because it was in $s, despite the fact that it is the usual currency in the US and also the fact that the US tends not to have a "free at point of need" medical system

Far more people get shafted under Labour - their tax and spend affects us all, sadly.

Yes, it's so terrible that they fritter away money on things like education, healthcare and policing

What is terrible is the amount of waste in the public sector - so you need to increase spending disproportionately to get any kind of positive outcomes.

Spending on public services is an easy way to get things moving - unfortunately it only ever has very short term benefits as the last Labour government realised.