Their rhetoric on Europe and immigrants isn't working because it's all hat and no cattle, as the Texans say. The Tories know full well that whether or not to ban benefits for three months isn't going to make a blind bit of different to unskilled labour from Romania and Bulgaria migrating here.
Instead he has engaged on a striking series of initiatives which, if you are a supporter, you would call 'innovative and bold', but which anyone else would call 'irresponsible and reckless'.
So why isn't he playing safe? Two possibilities come to mind:
(1) He thinks he's going to lose badly, unless he shakes things up with populist banker-bashing and other such nonsense which he (surely?) must know are nonsense.
(2) He actually believes all the nonsense.
It seems to me that (2) is the more likely explanation.
You are looking at this through Tory goggles, where what they are doing is right and fair and responsible. For the rest of us who see the Tories taking a wrecking ball to the NHS and civic society and human dignity AND massively increasing UK debt we see the opposite - that working flat out just to manage to be broke is not good, and the solution is not a return to status quo ante where our kids still have no chance of buying a house or having a job that doesn't leave them reliant on handouts.
The system is broken utterly. Is now under Oik, was under Brown. I don't expect you to agree with this and thats the whole point - there arer two economies of which the minority exist in the official one and the majority live in the broken one. Someone earlier asked why the Tories weren't getting the credit for the recovery. Simple - there is no recovery for most people. And telling them that there is when there isn't in their world is why the polls aren't swinging back to the Tories as many of you expect.
You are looking at this through Tory goggles, where what they are doing is right and fair and responsible. For the rest of us who see the Tories taking a wrecking ball to the NHS and civic society and human dignity AND massively increasing UK debt we see the opposite - that working flat out just to manage to be broke is not good, and the solution is not a return to status quo ante where our kids still have no chance of buying a house or having a job that doesn't leave them reliant on handouts.
The system is broken utterly. Is now under Oik, was under Brown. I don't expect you to agree with this and thats the whole point - there arer two economies of which the minority exist in the official one and the majority live in the broken one. Someone earlier asked why the Tories weren't getting the credit for the recovery. Simple - there is no recovery for most people. And telling them that there is when there isn't in their world is why the polls aren't swinging back to the Tories as many of you expect.
You haven't answered, or perhaps understood, my point: why is he not playing safe?
No punchline. Personally I think the polls between elections are a bit of a sentiment indicator, and its a horrible sh*t January. But that's only worth a couple of percentage points. Ed is horribly, disastrously, pitifully wrong, but he's ahead.
No point denying it.
Taffys - Speaking of a Sh!t January.One to possibly help Labour and not the Tory Paty on the run up to the election is the weather. One of the big things a few months back which has died on it's arse really is the energy companies. If we had a bad and really cold Winter, there would have been uproar as people would have been struggling to pay the bills after using so much gas/electricity. The government may have been forced into stronger action against the companies and it would have been neutralised for the election. The winter has been exceptionally mild, plenty of rain yes, but temperature wise really mild so the energy bills will not be has high as expected for this time of the year, the energy companies carry on and not much has changed. Next Autumn, oil price depending, we could see another set of price rises. If we have a cold winter next year, on the run up to the election...
Because in the past, it hasn't been a good indicator.
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense to me.. But it is what it is
Surely not prompting for UKIP is as old fashioned and crazy as opposing gay marriage?!
Ukip the Alan Turing of VI polls?!
Surely not prompting for UKIP means all the polls are skewed to depress the UKIP percentage. It's as if Populus and Ipsos-Mori wished they didn't exist and can get back to - to them - sensible 3 party polling.
I believe both these pollsters will suffer in the end by falling flat on their proverbial faces, as the real polling results come in. Of course they may change their methodology by then as they realise they are going to suffer a big hit.
You keep on ignoring the fact, the most accurate pollster in the locals last year, was ComRes who didn't prompt for UKIP.
So why isn't he playing safe? Two possibilities come to mind:
(1) He thinks he's going to lose badly, unless he shakes things up with populist banker-bashing and other such nonsense which he (surely?) must know are nonsense.
(2) He actually believes all the nonsense.
It seems to me that (2) is the more likely explanation.
It could be (3) He's annoucing something rather more cosmetic that fits his 'on your side' narrative for political reasons.
There are those who know far more about this sector than I do. However, all Miliband is saying is that the top 5 banks (Lloyds/RBS/HSBC/Barclays/Santander) are too big and he wants a report on max market share within 6 months of a general election, the creation of two "challenger" banks and a timetable to sell of branches by 2020.
(1) Of all those banks only one (Lloyds) has a >20% market share, or 30%. So if the Competition and Markets Authority reports back that the maximum share should be 20% it'd only affect Lloyds, in which the government has a large stage anyway. (2) Both Lloyds and RBS have announced plans to create two new retail banks anyway. A relaunched TSB (which I think is already up and running) and Williams and Glyn's, respectively. (3) Both banks have plans to sell off branches to these two new banks before 2020 as it is (4) Even if the max market share was set even lower (at 15% ) then with these disposals RBS would be below it and it'd only affect Lloyds (again)
So the only difference I can see is that the government is going to stick its nose in (through the Competition and Markets Authority) a bit more, and put in place a theoretical cap that may not make any difference anyway, and take credit for the moves of Lloyds and RBS. Admittedly, I think Labour will interfer where its not needed and probably put on the pressure to make bad business decisions for political reasons (which will not help) It may be that it irritates Lloyds the most (forcing them to sell a few more than planned) but its hardly lighting a bonfire under the industry.
It's a political move: (a) the vagueness will reduce the chance of a pre-election giveaway by the coalition due to lack of confidence and consequent dip in market share. (b) It plays to the 'we're on your side' and 'cost of living' theme and gives voters the impression Labour are standing up to the banks and makes the government look defensive and (d) allows Labour to take credit for Lloyds and RBS moves if they do do it.
The politics of Ed Miliband's series of wrecking-ball policy announcements are very interesting. If you believe the polls, he is in a leading position, and could afford a little swingback to the Tories and still get a comfortable majority. It would have to be quite a big swingback to keep him out of No 10. Therefore, you'd expect his strategy to be one of not frightening the horses too much, by keeping things vague so that Labour and especially ex-LibDem voters get a warm cuddly feeling whilst at the same time not offering much specific ammunition to his opponents.
Instead he has engaged on a striking series of initiatives which, if you are a supporter, you would call 'innovative and bold', but which anyone else would call 'irresponsible and reckless'.
So why isn't he playing safe? Two possibilities come to mind:
(1) He thinks he's going to lose badly, unless he shakes things up with populist banker-bashing and other such nonsense which he (surely?) must know are nonsense.
(2) He actually believes all the nonsense.
It seems to me that (2) is the more likely explanation.
I think he believes it, but he also knows he needs to generally keep his mouth shut to have best chance.
So the strategy is to announce something totally half baked but which if shaped right could have half a semblance of a decent policy in there somewhere.
The Conservatives announce something or other on said subject and it looks like Ed is steering the narrative.
Luckily for Ed he's got a lead in the polls and doesn't even need one to win.
#
But when the election comes around the level of scrutiny that Ed Milliband's policies will come under will massively increase. It's possible that UKIP or minor parties like Plaid will be able to get away with half-baked policies but not Labour. And don't forget, if it is the same as last time, Milliband will have to face the other 2 in a 1.5 hour TV debate on the economy.
BTW - on the polls, my view is Survation are most on track with how I think it will fall out. It's worth remembering the vote share of the big 2 has been declining for a number of elections and was 67% last time round. Can't see that increasing to 71% as You Gov have it, when both leaders are fairly unpopular and both parties likely to run largely negative campaigns.
So, after inflicing serious damage on the energy industry and power-generation investment, having a go at housebuilders, and now apparently deliberately damaging the banking sector and its huge taxpayers' investment, where next for Ed Miliband?
The obvious next sector for him to try to wreck is supermarkets. In fact he'd hardly need to change this morning's speech, the same ignorant platitudes would do fine.
You read it first here.
taxpayers' investment,
that would be "investment" in the Brownian sense of the word. The rest of us might say massive bailout.
You are looking at this through Tory goggles, where what they are doing is right and fair and responsible. For the rest of us who see the Tories taking a wrecking ball to the NHS and civic society and human dignity AND massively increasing UK debt we see the opposite - that working flat out just to manage to be broke is not good, and the solution is not a return to status quo ante where our kids still have no chance of buying a house or having a job that doesn't leave them reliant on handouts.
The system is broken utterly. Is now under Oik, was under Brown. I don't expect you to agree with this and thats the whole point - there arer two economies of which the minority exist in the official one and the majority live in the broken one. Someone earlier asked why the Tories weren't getting the credit for the recovery. Simple - there is no recovery for most people. And telling them that there is when there isn't in their world is why the polls aren't swinging back to the Tories as many of you expect.
You haven't answered, or perhaps understood, my point: why is he not playing safe?
The paradigm has changed. The Tories don't understand this which is why they're once again trapped banging on about Europe, Immigrants and Welfare.
The "recovery" such as it is, has not fed through to general well being and sustained rises in standards of living. Only a blind Tory would miss this.
Because in the past, it hasn't been a good indicator.
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense to me.. But it is what it is
Surely not prompting for UKIP is as old fashioned and crazy as opposing gay marriage?!
Ukip the Alan Turing of VI polls?!
Surely not prompting for UKIP means all the polls are skewed to depress the UKIP percentage. It's as if Populus and Ipsos-Mori wished they didn't exist and can get back to - to them - sensible 3 party polling.
I believe both these pollsters will suffer in the end by falling flat on their proverbial faces, as the real polling results come in. Of course they may change their methodology by then as they realise they are going to suffer a big hit.
You keep on ignoring the fact, the most accurate pollster in the locals last year, was ComRes who didn't prompt for UKIP.
Survation did, and weren't the most accurate.
Has any pollster tried not prompting for anyone?
IIRC, Ipsos-Mori tried it about a decade ago, it made no major difference.
psos-MORI, Populus and YouGov are all showing a quite similar picture
It's a bit depressing if you're a tory. The government is getting diddly squat from the economic revival, lets be honest.
People are pretty sensible about it - they can see the world is gradually emerging from the worst and they give the government a bit of credit for being part of it, but it isn't making many people cross what they see as the big partisan divide. Nor will growth of 2% or whatever in the next 15 months. I'm familiar with the straw-clutching thing from 2009 ("Ooh! That shadow minister said something off-message!") and I feel Tories' pain, but honestly at this stage it needs quite big game-changers.
I don't think there's been a sudden Labour breakthrough, though, any more than there was a sudden drop last week. The picture remains EXACTLY the same as it's been for yonks - 37-39% implacably awaiting the chance to get the Government out, 30-33% thinking the Tories are pretty good, 8-10% loyal to the LibDems, 12% or so determined to go UKIP, and the rest drifting around. The basic problem is that Labour lost the last election but the Tories didn't win it, so they've never had broad consent at all.
Because in the past, it hasn't been a good indicator.
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense to me.. But it is what it is
Surely not prompting for UKIP is as old fashioned and crazy as opposing gay marriage?!
Ukip the Alan Turing of VI polls?!
Surely not prompting for UKIP means all the polls are skewed to depress the UKIP percentage. It's as if Populus and Ipsos-Mori wished they didn't exist and can get back to - to them - sensible 3 party polling.
I believe both these pollsters will suffer in the end by falling flat on their proverbial faces, as the real polling results come in. Of course they may change their methodology by then as they realise they are going to suffer a big hit.
You keep on ignoring the fact, the most accurate pollster in the locals last year, was ComRes who didn't prompt for UKIP.
Survation did, and weren't the most accurate.
Has any pollster tried not prompting for anyone?
I don't think Lord Ashcroft polls prompt for any party.
You are looking at this through Tory goggles, where what they are doing is right and fair and responsible. For the rest of us who see the Tories taking a wrecking ball to the NHS and civic society and human dignity AND massively increasing UK debt we see the opposite - that working flat out just to manage to be broke is not good, and the solution is not a return to status quo ante where our kids still have no chance of buying a house or having a job that doesn't leave them reliant on handouts.
The system is broken utterly. Is now under Oik, was under Brown. I don't expect you to agree with this and thats the whole point - there arer two economies of which the minority exist in the official one and the majority live in the broken one. Someone earlier asked why the Tories weren't getting the credit for the recovery. Simple - there is no recovery for most people. And telling them that there is when there isn't in their world is why the polls aren't swinging back to the Tories as many of you expect.
You haven't answered, or perhaps understood, my point: why is he not playing safe?
If he played safe in 2010, he would not be leader of the Labour Party.
Those who play safe end up heading charities in New York or being someone else's willie.
Ah, someone who understands the question!
You're right about 2010 of course, but that was when he was the underdog and had nothing to lose. In the current circumstances, unless Nick P is being exceptionally complacent, Ed shouldn't be taking risks, and certainly not giving massive hostages to market fortune.
I'm pretty sure the Bank of England has enough smart people inside it to come up with a system where banks aren't allowed to just remove their weakest customers. For all everyone is bashing Miliband for this, it is something that is done in the United States. It's also worth bearing in mind that Carney said it wouldn't "necessarily" mean improved competition, but that doesn't mean it couldn't, if done right.
"if done right" is the key phrase there.
You need to have a hell of a lot of faith that the people who got it so wrong last time will get it right this time, especially when they show no sign of having really understood how and why they got it wrong.
(Nor do I share - from my daily dealings with regulators - your faith in the smart people there. Many of the mistakes made by regulators in recent years have been the sort of stupid mistakes that the highly intelligent often make.)
that would be "investment" in the Brownian sense of the word. The rest of us might say massive bailout.
Investment in the sense of a shareholding in the two banks, which I for one would prefer not to go down the Miliband Swanee.
Miliband is simply picking up on Osborne's inactivity in addressing banking reform, more fool Osborne he left the stable door open. While Miliband might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason if it moves things on we should all celebrate.
I expect the Labour lead will fluctuate for throughout the year but with a general downward trend. That said, nothing’s guaranteed. The Conservative leadership appear to keep making similar mistakes:
(1) Underestimating Ed Miliband and relying on the “Ed is crap” fallacy (he isn’t) (2) Failing to take the initiative – the Tories are giving an impression they just respond to opposition initiatives (banks, energy firms, minimum wage) Voters are picking up on this. (3) No “big idea” other than ‘balance the books’ – related to (2) everyone knows the Tories are cutting the deficit, reforming welfare and having a go at bringing immigration under control. However, since the failure of the ‘Big Society’ they have struggled to articulate a new vision that resonates (4) Taking its support base for granted – the Conservative leadership need to not just stop insulting UKIP, and send out the odd whizzy email on its progress to lapsed members/supporters. There needs to be a concerted effort to actively charm its base. It’s a heady mix of complacency, ostrichism, arrogance, confused messages and blind hope.
The Conservative leadership needs to show some leadership and humility and engage on all these points. I’m still not feeling it. The Tories should never have lost people like Sean Fear and myself as members.
My money is still on a (much weaker) coalition being elected in 2015. However, I think it’ll be solidly booted out in 2020. Why? Because I think the only reason voters will reelect the coalition is simply because they have little faith in Ed Miliband and Labour’s ability to cut the deficit. However, as soon as this is done the Tories will go bye-bye. It could then be a question of whether they ever come close to power ever again – at least under FPTP.
Nice to see you back. Since 14th December 2013, quite a lot of old regulars have returned.
Cameron's been leader for more than 8 years. I honestly can't see his style of leadership changing after all that time. Just before Christmas, I was at a formal dinner. Ten years ago, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those present were Conservative councillors, activists, members, or regular voters. Among the same group, I'd estimate it's about 50% now, with the rest having gone to UKIP, or dropped out completely.
that would be "investment" in the Brownian sense of the word. The rest of us might say massive bailout.
Investment in the sense of a shareholding in the two banks, which I for one would prefer not to go down the Miliband Swanee.
Miliband is simply picking up on Osborne's inactivity in addressing banking reform, more fool Osborne he left the stable door open. While Miliband might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason if it moves things on we should all celebrate.
Whilst the government owns 2 banks, banking reform is cart before horse.
psos-MORI, Populus and YouGov are all showing a quite similar picture
It's a bit depressing if you're a tory. The government is getting diddly squat from the economic revival, lets be honest.
People are pretty sensible about it - they can see the world is gradually emerging from the worst and they give the government a bit of credit for being part of it, but it isn't making many people cross what they see as the big partisan divide. Nor will growth of 2% or whatever in the next 15 months. I'm familiar with the straw-clutching thing from 2009 ("Ooh! That shadow minister said something off-message!") and I feel Tories' pain, but honestly at this stage it needs quite big game-changers.
I don't think there's been a sudden Labour breakthrough, though, any more than there was a sudden drop last week. The picture remains EXACTLY the same as it's been for yonks - 37-39% implacably awaiting the chance to get the Government out, 30-33% thinking the Tories are pretty good, 8-10% loyal to the LibDems, 12% or so determined to go UKIP, and the rest drifting around. The basic problem is that Labour lost the last election but the Tories didn't win it, so they've never had broad consent at all.
It's not *exactly* the same and it’s not really been yonks. There's been a downward trend in *average* Labour lead over the last year. We've also had a tied poll and two (?) polls in recent weeks within the last few weeks. The overall position of a weak Tory poll share has been the case since April 2012 (granted) but UKIP strengthened over May-November 2012. So it’s all in classic midterm territory.
That said I'm not complacent and if I were Labour I’m not sure I’d be either. I remember some Labourites being convinced they’d only lost in 1987 due to the SDP-Liberal alliance ‘splitting’ their vote and (although progress was made) lost in 1992 for the same reason. It took Smith/Blair to realise that the only way to win was to get Tories to switch directly to Labour. So far there is very little evidence of that happening.
Because in the past, it hasn't been a good indicator.
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense to me.. But it is what it is
Surely not prompting for UKIP is as old fashioned and crazy as opposing gay marriage?!
Ukip the Alan Turing of VI polls?!
Surely not prompting for UKIP means all the polls are skewed to depress the UKIP percentage. It's as if Populus and Ipsos-Mori wished they didn't exist and can get back to - to them - sensible 3 party polling.
I believe both these pollsters will suffer in the end by falling flat on their proverbial faces, as the real polling results come in. Of course they may change their methodology by then as they realise they are going to suffer a big hit.
You keep on ignoring the fact, the most accurate pollster in the locals last year, was ComRes who didn't prompt for UKIP.
Survation did, and weren't the most accurate.
Has any pollster tried not prompting for anyone?
IIRC, Ipsos-Mori tried it about a decade ago, it made no major difference.
Maybe someone should try again now it's a four party system
If we have a cold winter next year, on the run up to the election...
Its conceivable that could play out in labour's favour. I guess the tories would claim the utilities are getting their rises in before a labour government.
that would be "investment" in the Brownian sense of the word. The rest of us might say massive bailout.
Investment in the sense of a shareholding in the two banks, which I for one would prefer not to go down the Miliband Swanee.
Miliband is simply picking up on Osborne's inactivity in addressing banking reform, more fool Osborne he left the stable door open. While Miliband might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason if it moves things on we should all celebrate.
Whilst the government owns 2 banks, banking reform is cart before horse.
Flog the banks and then adjust the rules.
Like that's going to happen. As soon as the banks get free they'll be off lobbying for more favours and spineless MPs will just roll over. Reform now when you can make it any shape you want.
@TSE It's not really news. But if I were a Labour supporter, I would fret about why a very visible section of my party's intellectual support had wandered away.
''The "recovery" such as it is, has not fed through to general well being and sustained rises in standards of living.''
To listen to you 18 months ago Ben, any return to growth under the tories policies was impossible. A return to growth in champion of austerity Ireland unthinkable.
@TSE It's not really news. But if I were a Labour supporter, I would fret about why a very visible section of my party's intellectual support had wandered away.
Understand, but I think Ed/Labour's approach is winning more votes from the left (2010 Lib Dems) than winning votes from demographic John Rentoul represents.
And he is planning to vote Labour because of his local MP.
I'm disappointed in how poor Ed Miliband's speech was today (at least in written form, I can't comment on the delivery because I haven't seen it). He's usually good at set piece speeches, at least in the sense that he sets an agenda off it. I don't see this setting an agenda, with the immediate response appearing to be "what difference does this make to the price of herring?", "why are you depressing the value of our banks?" and "why does the Bank of England governor disagree with you?"
Ed Miliband's idea of setting up an Axis Of Evil of wicked corporations makes political sense, but he has to have policies to combat this where some voters can see an immediate benefit. This fails that test.
Thanks Sean - it's good to be back. Hope you're well.
I agree and I think a big part of that is his maturity as an individual and a leader. It's not that he surrounds himself with people that agree with him. It's that he surrounds himself with people he knows and trusts and has been friends with for a long time.
He therefore doesn't really get any new perspectives. Everything he hears is from his old seadogs. The other effect is that he finds it hard to lead his inner circle, some of which do have slightly different views, precisely because they are friends.
That means he chairs, rather than leads, and it makes him unable to innnovate, or be fleet of foot, and oh boy does it show. But the Tories don't really have anyone better.
''The "recovery" such as it is, has not fed through to general well being and sustained rises in standards of living.''
To listen to you 18 months ago Ben, any return to growth under the tories policies was impossible. A return to growth in champion of austerity Ireland unthinkable.
Hollande had the answer.
Growth under Plan A was always going to be difficult.
Which is why Osborne ditched Plan A in mid-2011 as the full disaster unfolded into a double dip recession.
Since then, for all the bluster, Osborne rowed back significantly, leading to a last gasp desperate attempt to generate any old growth - and thus Help to Buy was born...
Edit - however I am on record somewhere around 2010-11 saying any old growth is much needed growth, so if this period of positive news sparks the confidence that leads to higher investment and exports then it will have been worth it.
Some polls without prompting for any party would be interesting.
Even more so if done alongside an equivalent poll which prompted for ALL (or as many as realistically possible - say all parties that stood at least 20+ candidates at the last election) - In some ways that is most akin to what happens in the ballot box, you are prompted with the list of all parties that you could put an 'X' next to.
There was a fantastic moment in the preliminary hearings in October 2012 in R v Huhne and Pryce at the Crown Court at Southwark, which could not be reported at the time. It occurred after Mr Huhne had obtained from Mr Justice Sweeney the witness summons against the Mail on Sunday, the result of which is counts one and two on the indictment against Ms Briscoe. Mr Kelsey-Fry QC, on behalf of Mr Huhne, made an impassioned speech claiming that his client was victim of a "toxic and poisonous conspiracy", while Mr Knowles QC, on behalf of Ms Pryce, claimed that "the Crown's case [wa]s on life support." Andrew Edis, for the Crown, replied. Confirming that an application to adduce hearsay evidence from Ms Briscoe was being withdrawn, he stated in his usual measured way that whether Ms Briscoe was a witness of truth or not was immaterial to whether Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce were guilty, and that the Crown intended to put the indictment before a jury.
The media present fell for the rhetoric of defence counsel, and spent the next few months reporting that the case against Mr Huhne would fall. Mr Edis' wise words in October were later vindicated.
Abolition of apostrophes on street signs in Cambridge 'deplorable'
Cambridge City Council say they are only following national guidelines which claim that apostrophes could lead to mistakes - particularly for emergency services
Many thanks, most interesting (esp as the friends are a bit of a surprise in themselves). BC is an indy site as any fule kno but this piece is in fact reposted from scottishreview.net which is a general review/comment site (and with some very nice colour photography), rather than an indy one (some at leastd of the contributions are of the grumpy old Scot variety).
Some polls without prompting for any party would be interesting.
Even more so if done alongside an equivalent poll which prompted for ALL (or as many as realistically possible - say all parties that stood at least 20+ candidates at the last election) - In some ways that is most akin to what happens in the ballot box, you are prompted with the list of all parties that you could put an 'X' next to.
Surely there are enough respondents for one firm to conduct simultaneous polls, one without prompting, one as you describe?
Growth under Plan A was always going to be difficult.
Which is why Osborne ditched Plan A in mid-2011 as the full disaster unfolded into a double dip recession.
What utter nonsense. Quite rightly, Osborne made no significant changes in mid-2011 at all. He stuck to his plan throughout, and didn't panic when higher-than-expected world commodity prices and the Eurozone crisis meant that recovery was delayed; he simply allowed the 'automatic stabilisers' to operate, whilst keeping to his discretionary-spending plans.
Some polls without prompting for any party would be interesting.
Even more so if done alongside an equivalent poll which prompted for ALL (or as many as realistically possible - say all parties that stood at least 20+ candidates at the last election) - In some ways that is most akin to what happens in the ballot box, you are prompted with the list of all parties that you could put an 'X' next to.
Surely there are enough respondents for one firm to conduct simultaneous polls, one without prompting, one as you describe?
Every month Comres conduct polls with the same methodology , some online some by telephone . These show that the critical difference in the UKIP figure is whether it is conducted online or by telephone with a 6% or so improvement in the former . Prompting is clearly not the issue .
What utter nonsense. Quite rightly, Osborne made no significant changes in mid-2011 at all. He stuck to his plan throughout, and didn't panic when higher-than-expected world commodity prices and the Eurozone crisis meant that recovery was delayed; he simply allowed the 'automatic stabilisers' to operate, whilst keeping to his discretionary-spending plans.
The fiscal mandate announced in June 2010, that net government debt should be falling as a percentage of GDP by 2013-2014, was a structural target. It was a target independent of cyclical conditions in the economy, as the Emergency Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear. Accordingly, when the Government decided not to implement the measures necessary to achieve this target, it is reasonable to state that it abandoned "Plan A".
Growth under Plan A was always going to be difficult.
Which is why Osborne ditched Plan A in mid-2011 as the full disaster unfolded into a double dip recession.
What utter nonsense. Quite rightly, Osborne made no significant changes in mid-2011 at all. He stuck to his plan throughout, and didn't panic when higher-than-expected world commodity prices and the Eurozone crisis meant that recovery was delayed; he simply allowed the 'automatic stabilisers' to operate, whilst keeping to his discretionary-spending plans.
Is that why the deficit is still 111 billion instead of the 60 billion predicted by Osborne in 2010?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 2 mins Constance Briscoe is telling the Court about Huhne's past "liasons with men" and bringing back pubic lice from Brussels. >> POPCORN <<
The fiscal mandate announced in June 2010, that net government debt should be falling as a percentage of GDP by 2013-2014, was a structural target. It was a target independent of cyclical conditions in the economy, as the Emergency Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear. Accordingly, when the Government decided not to implement the measures necessary to achieve this target, it is reasonable to state that it abandoned "Plan A".
That is analogous to saying that, if you hit bad traffic on the M4 so that the journey takes longer than expected, you've abandoned your plan to drive from London to Bristol.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 2 mins Constance Briscoe is telling the Court about Huhne's past "liasons with men" and bringing back pubic lice from Brussels. >> POPCORN <<
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 58m Brill IOD slap to Mili: "The last time the Government told a bank what to do, Lloyds was ordered to sell branches to Rev. Flowers.”
That is analogous to saying that, if you hit bad traffic on the M4 so that the journey takes longer than expected, you've abandoned your plan to drive from London to Bristol.
No. A better analogy would be a coach company that promises to get passengers from London to Bristol within three hours, but, as a result of driving through traffic in central London which it could have reasonably avoided, dropped off its passengers in Bristol several hours after it promised.
No. A better analogy would be a coach company that promises to get passengers from London to Bristol within three hours, but, as a result of driving through traffic in central London which it could have reasonably avoided, dropped off its passengers in Bristol several hours after it promised.
Osborne could have avoided the Eurozone crisis and the unexpected inflation in world commodity prices?
No. A better analogy would be a coach company that promises to get passengers from London to Bristol within three hours, but, as a result of driving through traffic in central London which it could have reasonably avoided, dropped off its passengers in Bristol several hours after it promised.
Osborne could have avoided the Eurozone crisis and the unexpected inflation in world commodity prices?
Just like Labour avoided the 2008 crash that started in America ?
Osborne could have avoided the Eurozone crisis and the unexpected inflation in world commodity prices?
According to Ed Balls perhaps! Certainly, Osborne could have taken fiscal consolidation measures which would have allowed him to meet his fiscal mandate, but he chose not to, for political reasons.
And all this coming out because he tried to dodge 3 penalty points. LOL
Mr Huhne isn't on trial. The question for the jury is whether Ms Briscoe did divers act tending to pervert the course of public justice with the intention of perverting the course of public justice. Mr Huhne could have reasonably foreseen his own prosecution for getting his wife to take his penalty points, but he could not have reasonably foreseen this. I can't recall whether the substance of his comments in interview to Detective Constable Fullerton about Ms Briscoe are still covered by an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, so I won't repeat them. Needless to say, they are hilarious.
Some polls without prompting for any party would be interesting.
Even more so if done alongside an equivalent poll which prompted for ALL (or as many as realistically possible - say all parties that stood at least 20+ candidates at the last election) - In some ways that is most akin to what happens in the ballot box, you are prompted with the list of all parties that you could put an 'X' next to.
Surely there are enough respondents for one firm to conduct simultaneous polls, one without prompting, one as you describe?
Every month Comres conduct polls with the same methodology , some online some by telephone . These show that the critical difference in the UKIP figure is whether it is conducted online or by telephone with a 6% or so improvement in the former . Prompting is clearly not the issue .
God you are a bore
Who mentioned UKIP?
I thought it would be interesting to see a regular poll that prompted for no party
Btw A Lib Dem friend of mine stated that he would like Chris Huhne as the leader. From what I can work out OGH wouldn't mind either, though he has a bet on it - so whether he'd want it or not is another matter.
Chris Huhne as leader of the Lib Dems would be utterly hilarious from the outside looking in, but @MarkSenior or any other Lib Dems here would you WANT him as leader ?!
You haven't answered, or perhaps understood, my point: why is he not playing safe?
People don't want "safe" or agree with your definition of "safe". Successive governments told them that the system was safe, don't worry about personal debt or prices inflating, just keep focused on house prices. That all collapsed and your party are desperately trying to hang new wallpaper on the rubble to say "back to normal". As is Clegg. And New Labour types in my own party.
The reason why UKIP won't be bought off with "beware of Milliband" or "cast iron guarantees" is that they don't just stand for getting out of the EU. Have you asked why they want out of the EU? Its not just to save cash and make decisions, it what those decisions will mean for any policy area you like. Milliband is trying to tap into the large pool of disillusioned voters sick of the big 3 parties (Con, CleggLD, New Labour) who recognise that the neo-liberal consensus hasn't made them as properous as they thought it had. They understand that just because we've done it this way for 30 years doesn't mean its the only way, and for some reason don't think that restoring casino banks to the roulette wheel is the right approach.
This isn't a straight party political issue as there is a consensus in all 3 big parties on economics. Its beyond labels, its about beliefs and principles,
Here is the key point. Tories might not care about the explosion of working people reliant on food banks. Or the stories of terminal people being cured by ATOS and left to starve in their final months before posthumously winning their appeal. But most normal people do. And being told that its an acceptable cost makes them angry. Angry people want change. Thats why Milliband is writing policies on blank sheets of paper.
If Labour win the vision thing, they win the election. We have seen the Tory vision and frankly its effect on vulnerable people is replusive, regardless of the economic excuses made to justify it. "Britain can do better than this" is a slogan, sure. But one that resonates.
minimum wage: decent PR for Tories i guess but mostly with people who wouldn't vote for them
at the more potentially Ukippy/Tory end of things people aren't that keen on handouts they'd much rather the political class hadn't made them compete with the entire world for their job - especially against people living twelve to a room and sending money home to places where a house costs 500 quid
on the other hand everyone is broke
so dunno
methinks Farage shouldn't either attack or promote the minimum wage just use it to make the mass immigration point.
Abolition of apostrophes on street signs in Cambridge 'deplorable'
Cambridge City Council say they are only following national guidelines which claim that apostrophes could lead to mistakes - particularly for emergency services
"The naming policy also bans street names which would be "difficult to pronounce or awkward to spell" and any "could give offence" or would "encourage defacing of nameplates"."
I would suggest that removing apostrophes might indeed encourage some of us to 'deface' the nameplates by reinserting the missing punctuation.
Btw A Lib Dem friend of mine stated that he would like Chris Huhne as the leader. From what I can work out OGH wouldn't mind either, though he has a bet on it - so whether he'd want it or not is another matter.
Chris Huhne as leader of the Lib Dems would be utterly hilarious from the outside looking in, but @MarkSenior or any other Lib Dems here would you WANT him as leader ?!
I voted for Huhne is 2005 and 2007 and still think he'd have made a good leader. He played a very key part in the coalition agreement in 2010.
The problem with the combined-sector banks is only partly that 1) they're too big to fail and 2) the number has dropped to the level where cartels are very easy to form. Having combined-sector banks is a problem in itself.
Sector 1: low-level business investment and retail banking *with* a taxpayer guarantee Sector 2: investment banking and casino operations *without* a taxpayer guarantee
Sector 2 was allowed - no doubt through copious amounts of "lobbying" - to take over Sector 1 to create these combined-sector banks.
The problems with combined-sector banks are 1) The taxpayer guarantee makes the investment arm of the combined banks reckless as they know they have tens of millions of tax serfs* legally bound to backstop the banks' gambling debts. 2) The rate of return on the investment and casino operations is higher than the rate of return on the low-level business investment segment hence the slow strangulation of the core economy through the banks' reluctance to fulfill this (vital) function .
The banks need to broken up horizontally first like they used to be and the two sectors kept legally separate.
(*As an aside this is why when you read that the banks are the golden goose and that they could fly away any time it's a load of nonsense. The combined-sector banks can't survive without tens of millions of tax serfs as guarantors.)
So 1) separated into two horizontal sectors first 2) worry about competition inside those two sectors second
Abolition of apostrophes on street signs in Cambridge 'deplorable'
Cambridge City Council say they are only following national guidelines which claim that apostrophes could lead to mistakes - particularly for emergency services
"The naming policy also bans street names which would be "difficult to pronounce or awkward to spell" and any "could give offence" or would "encourage defacing of nameplates"."
I would suggest that removing apostrophes might indeed encourage some of us to 'deface' the nameplates by reinserting the missing punctuation.
I don't know if you can see this facebook page.. it is by the Romford Contemporary Arts Programme, who have taken over a disused restaurant in South Street and are in the process of doing it up & reopening I think...
I walked past there on Monday and read the (lefty sounding) writing being painted on the window...
They had put "to" instead of "too" halfway down the message...
I couldn't bring myself to go in and tell them, should I have?
It's pretty ridiculous the local association throwing their toys out of the pram on this. Of course, if UKIP become a reasonable parliamentary party they can start having more of a say, but as the party tries to get its breakthrough, it makes absolute sense that the national party puts up its best people.
It's pretty ridiculous the local association throwing their toys out of the pram on this. Of course, if UKIP become a reasonable parliamentary party they can start having more of a say, but as the party tries to get its breakthrough, it makes absolute sense that the national party puts up its best people.
Think it is just the Telegraph whipping up a story tbh.
But I can see the Lib Dems (Or Con) beating UKIP here - got a whole 50 pence on Lib Dem 2nd place
It's pretty ridiculous the local association throwing their toys out of the pram on this. Of course, if UKIP become a reasonable parliamentary party they can start having more of a say, but as the party tries to get its breakthrough, it makes absolute sense that the national party puts up its best people.
Think it is just the Telegraph whipping up a story tbh.
But I can see the Lib Dems (Or Con) beating UKIP here - got a whole 50 pence on Lib Dem 2nd place
Have you bitten the 50p piece to make sure it's genuine?
It's pretty ridiculous the local association throwing their toys out of the pram on this. Of course, if UKIP become a reasonable parliamentary party they can start having more of a say, but as the party tries to get its breakthrough, it makes absolute sense that the national party puts up its best people.
Think it is just the Telegraph whipping up a story tbh.
But I can see the Lib Dems (Or Con) beating UKIP here - got a whole 50 pence on Lib Dem 2nd place
Have you bitten the 50p piece to make sure it's genuine?
Ladbrokes has been paying out generously recently on the nags, cricket and footie managers so I thought I'd give Shadsy back a packet of Wotsits.
Hmm putting someone with a Scouse accent into a pretty unpromising Greater Manchester seat? I dont think it would be the best career move for Nutall. Let the previous candidate stand - he'll blow off the old fogey image straight away.
I voted for Huhne is 2005 and 2007 and still think he'd have made a good leader.
He would have been a good leader .. right up until his guilty plea! Talk about a bullet dodged. Though would he have cast his partner aside in the same manner had he been leader?
Hmm putting someone with a Scouse accent into a pretty unpromising Greater Manchester seat? I dont think it would be the best career move for Nutall. Let the previous candidate stand - he'll blow off the old fogey image straight away.
I have a horrible feeling UKIP are dialling up the expectation management way too high in this seat.
There's a street in London called the Milkmaid's Passage.
Radlett has Faggot's Close.
The older name of Grape Street, in London, would have fallen foul of this policy.
Butthole Lane always causes a titter on the radio to Control. I've been to an incident at a pub called The Cock Inn as well, I could barely pass a radio message because I was giggling. Juvenile, I know, but little things.....
Hmm putting someone with a Scouse accent into a pretty unpromising Greater Manchester seat? I dont think it would be the best career move for Nutall. Let the previous candidate stand - he'll blow off the old fogey image straight away.
I have a horrible feeling UKIP are dialling up the expectation management way too high in this seat.
I have a horrible feeling Farrage is causing trouble for yet another plausible alternative leader
I voted for Huhne is 2005 and 2007 and still think he'd have made a good leader.
He would have been a good leader .. right up until his guilty plea! Talk about a bullet dodged. Though would he have cast his partner aside in the same manner had he been leader?
I suspect things would have been different in that regard if he'd been leader
Hmm putting someone with a Scouse accent into a pretty unpromising Greater Manchester seat? I dont think it would be the best career move for Nutall. Let the previous candidate stand - he'll blow off the old fogey image straight away.
I have a horrible feeling UKIP are dialling up the expectation management way too high in this seat.
That is spot on. UKIP are now being scrutinised much more and expectation management is crucial. They got a huge boost out of Eastleigh because their 2nd place was such a surprise and out of line with the polling. Now they are expected to win EP2014 so a victory will look less of a story.
I voted for Huhne is 2005 and 2007 and still think he'd have made a good leader.
He would have been a good leader .. right up until his guilty plea! Talk about a bullet dodged. Though would he have cast his partner aside in the same manner had he been leader?
I suspect things would have been different in that regard if he'd been leader
You haven't answered, or perhaps understood, my point: why is he not playing safe?
Here is the key point. Tories might not care about the explosion of working people reliant on food banks. Or the stories of terminal people being cured by ATOS and left to starve in their final months before posthumously winning their appeal. But most normal people do. And being told that its an acceptable cost makes them angry. Angry people want change. Thats why Milliband is writing policies on blank sheets of paper.
If Labour win the vision thing, they win the election. We have seen the Tory vision and frankly its effect on vulnerable people is replusive, regardless of the economic excuses made to justify it. "Britain can do better than this" is a slogan, sure. But one that resonates.
@TSE It's good to see that we live up to our stereotype as a nation obsessed by weather.
I'm writing a piece for pb based on this,
The premise is this, most polls ask supplementaries on the major political news story of the week.
Given that most of these stories don't make it into Populus' top stories of the week, is there a danger that
1) People are giving answers on a topic they know nothing about
2) Politicians, the media, and PBers are reading too much into answers that are flawed.
Absolutely. People will give an opinion if asked about almost anything, but it's hard to test for salience. It'd be fun if they included a "How much do you care about this, from 0 to 10?" question, though it might not sell many papers: "Public view deficit with mild indifference" doesn't make a very good headline, even though it's probably true.
Comments
Thank goodness the 2018 and 2022 football world cups are only going to countries with impeccable records on gay rights.
Ah.
Their rhetoric on Europe and immigrants isn't working because it's all hat and no cattle, as the Texans say. The Tories know full well that whether or not to ban benefits for three months isn't going to make a blind bit of different to unskilled labour from Romania and Bulgaria migrating here.
The system is broken utterly. Is now under Oik, was under Brown. I don't expect you to agree with this and thats the whole point - there arer two economies of which the minority exist in the official one and the majority live in the broken one. Someone earlier asked why the Tories weren't getting the credit for the recovery. Simple - there is no recovery for most people. And telling them that there is when there isn't in their world is why the polls aren't swinging back to the Tories as many of you expect.
CourtNewsUK @CourtNewsUK 13s
Constance Briscoe told police MoS were investigating story that Chris Huhne gave Vicki Pryce ‘crabs’.
There are those who know far more about this sector than I do. However, all Miliband is saying is that the top 5 banks (Lloyds/RBS/HSBC/Barclays/Santander) are too big and he wants a report on max market share within 6 months of a general election, the creation of two "challenger" banks and a timetable to sell of branches by 2020.
(1) Of all those banks only one (Lloyds) has a >20% market share, or 30%. So if the Competition and Markets Authority reports back that the maximum share should be 20% it'd only affect Lloyds, in which the government has a large stage anyway.
(2) Both Lloyds and RBS have announced plans to create two new retail banks anyway. A relaunched TSB (which I think is already up and running) and Williams and Glyn's, respectively.
(3) Both banks have plans to sell off branches to these two new banks before 2020 as it is
(4) Even if the max market share was set even lower (at 15% ) then with these disposals RBS would be below it and it'd only affect Lloyds (again)
So the only difference I can see is that the government is going to stick its nose in (through the Competition and Markets Authority) a bit more, and put in place a theoretical cap that may not make any difference anyway, and take credit for the moves of Lloyds and RBS. Admittedly, I think Labour will interfer where its not needed and probably put on the pressure to make bad business decisions for political reasons (which will not help) It may be that it irritates Lloyds the most (forcing them to sell a few more than planned) but its hardly lighting a bonfire under the industry.
It's a political move: (a) the vagueness will reduce the chance of a pre-election giveaway by the coalition due to lack of confidence and consequent dip in market share. (b) It plays to the 'we're on your side' and 'cost of living' theme and gives voters the impression Labour are standing up to the banks and makes the government look defensive and (d) allows Labour to take credit for Lloyds and RBS moves if they do do it.
Brilliant. Just briliant.
But when the election comes around the level of scrutiny that Ed Milliband's policies will come under will massively increase. It's possible that UKIP or minor parties like Plaid will be able to get away with half-baked policies but not Labour. And don't forget, if it is the same as last time, Milliband will have to face the other 2 in a 1.5 hour TV debate on the economy.
BTW - on the polls, my view is Survation are most on track with how I think it will fall out. It's worth remembering the vote share of the big 2 has been declining for a number of elections and was 67% last time round. Can't see that increasing to 71% as You Gov have it, when both leaders are fairly unpopular and both parties likely to run largely negative campaigns.
that would be "investment" in the Brownian sense of the word. The rest of us might say massive bailout.
The "recovery" such as it is, has not fed through to general well being and sustained rises in standards of living. Only a blind Tory would miss this.
"The last time the Government told a bank what to do, Lloyds was ordered to sell branches to Rev. Flowers.”
I don't think there's been a sudden Labour breakthrough, though, any more than there was a sudden drop last week. The picture remains EXACTLY the same as it's been for yonks - 37-39% implacably awaiting the chance to get the Government out, 30-33% thinking the Tories are pretty good, 8-10% loyal to the LibDems, 12% or so determined to go UKIP, and the rest drifting around. The basic problem is that Labour lost the last election but the Tories didn't win it, so they've never had broad consent at all.
Those who play safe end up heading charities in New York or being someone else's willie.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/5470833/Australia-v-England---3rd-ODI.html
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 31s
I'm genuinely starting to believe the England men's cricket team will never win a match in any form of the game ever again.
You're right about 2010 of course, but that was when he was the underdog and had nothing to lose. In the current circumstances, unless Nick P is being exceptionally complacent, Ed shouldn't be taking risks, and certainly not giving massive hostages to market fortune.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/01/16/my-friends-wonder-why-any-intelligent-scot-would-vote-yes/
You need to have a hell of a lot of faith that the people who got it so wrong last time will get it right this time, especially when they show no sign of having really understood how and why they got it wrong.
(Nor do I share - from my daily dealings with regulators - your faith in the smart people there. Many of the mistakes made by regulators in recent years have been the sort of stupid mistakes that the highly intelligent often make.)
Cameron's been leader for more than 8 years. I honestly can't see his style of leadership changing after all that time. Just before Christmas, I was at a formal dinner. Ten years ago, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those present were Conservative councillors, activists, members, or regular voters. Among the same group, I'd estimate it's about 50% now, with the rest having gone to UKIP, or dropped out completely.
Any fule knows that.
Miliband is hoping to fight a completely different election from everyone else, including the voters...
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/17/blairite-for-cameron/
Flog the banks and then adjust the rules.
That said I'm not complacent and if I were Labour I’m not sure I’d be either. I remember some Labourites being convinced they’d only lost in 1987 due to the SDP-Liberal alliance ‘splitting’ their vote and (although progress was made) lost in 1992 for the same reason.
It took Smith/Blair to realise that the only way to win was to get Tories to switch directly to Labour. So far there is very little evidence of that happening.
Its conceivable that could play out in labour's favour. I guess the tories would claim the utilities are getting their rises in before a labour government.
John Rentoul prefers Dave over Ed.
What next, he writes about Dan Hodges not being Ed's biggest fan?
To listen to you 18 months ago Ben, any return to growth under the tories policies was impossible. A return to growth in champion of austerity Ireland unthinkable.
Hollande had the answer.
Constance Briscoe says a Mail on Sunday journalist approached her to ask whether Vicky Pryce broke off her engagement with Chris Huhne because he had relationships with men, Southwark Crown Court hears
And he is planning to vote Labour because of his local MP.
Ed Miliband's idea of setting up an Axis Of Evil of wicked corporations makes political sense, but he has to have policies to combat this where some voters can see an immediate benefit. This fails that test.
I agree and I think a big part of that is his maturity as an individual and a leader. It's not that he surrounds himself with people that agree with him. It's that he surrounds himself with people he knows and trusts and has been friends with for a long time.
He therefore doesn't really get any new perspectives. Everything he hears is from his old seadogs. The other effect is that he finds it hard to lead his inner circle, some of which do have slightly different views, precisely because they are friends.
That means he chairs, rather than leads, and it makes him unable to innnovate, or be fleet of foot, and oh boy does it show. But the Tories don't really have anyone better.
Which is why Osborne ditched Plan A in mid-2011 as the full disaster unfolded into a double dip recession.
Since then, for all the bluster, Osborne rowed back significantly, leading to a last gasp desperate attempt to generate any old growth - and thus Help to Buy was born...
Edit - however I am on record somewhere around 2010-11 saying any old growth is much needed growth, so if this period of positive news sparks the confidence that leads to higher investment and exports then it will have been worth it.
Populus @PopulusPolls 1m
Top Ten most noticed news stories this week #TTMN | Again it's the weather
pic.twitter.com/bjfnj7YMKM
The media present fell for the rhetoric of defence counsel, and spent the next few months reporting that the case against Mr Huhne would fall. Mr Edis' wise words in October were later vindicated.
Abolition of apostrophes on street signs in Cambridge 'deplorable'
Cambridge City Council say they are only following national guidelines which claim that apostrophes could lead to mistakes - particularly for emergency services
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10579551/Abolition-of-apostrophes-on-street-signs-in-Cambridge-deplorable.html
*Sorry Richard.
The premise is this, most polls ask supplementaries on the major political news story of the week.
Given that most of these stories don't make it into Populus' top stories of the week, is there a danger that
1) People are giving answers on a topic they know nothing about
2) Politicians, the media, and PBers are reading too much into answers that are flawed.
Constance Briscoe is telling the Court about Huhne's past "liasons with men" and bringing back pubic lice from Brussels. >> POPCORN <<
uuuuuhhhhh.....
Brill IOD slap to Mili: "The last time the Government told a bank what to do, Lloyds was ordered to sell branches to Rev. Flowers.”
Governments know best, governments know best.
Who mentioned UKIP?
I thought it would be interesting to see a regular poll that prompted for no party
Chris Huhne as leader of the Lib Dems would be utterly hilarious from the outside looking in, but @MarkSenior or any other Lib Dems here would you WANT him as leader ?!
The reason why UKIP won't be bought off with "beware of Milliband" or "cast iron guarantees" is that they don't just stand for getting out of the EU. Have you asked why they want out of the EU? Its not just to save cash and make decisions, it what those decisions will mean for any policy area you like. Milliband is trying to tap into the large pool of disillusioned voters sick of the big 3 parties (Con, CleggLD, New Labour) who recognise that the neo-liberal consensus hasn't made them as properous as they thought it had. They understand that just because we've done it this way for 30 years doesn't mean its the only way, and for some reason don't think that restoring casino banks to the roulette wheel is the right approach.
This isn't a straight party political issue as there is a consensus in all 3 big parties on economics. Its beyond labels, its about beliefs and principles,
Here is the key point. Tories might not care about the explosion of working people reliant on food banks. Or the stories of terminal people being cured by ATOS and left to starve in their final months before posthumously winning their appeal. But most normal people do. And being told that its an acceptable cost makes them angry. Angry people want change. Thats why Milliband is writing policies on blank sheets of paper.
If Labour win the vision thing, they win the election. We have seen the Tory vision and frankly its effect on vulnerable people is replusive, regardless of the economic excuses made to justify it. "Britain can do better than this" is a slogan, sure. But one that resonates.
at the more potentially Ukippy/Tory end of things people aren't that keen on handouts they'd much rather the political class hadn't made them compete with the entire world for their job - especially against people living twelve to a room and sending money home to places where a house costs 500 quid
on the other hand everyone is broke
so dunno
methinks Farage shouldn't either attack or promote the minimum wage just use it to make the mass immigration point.
"The naming policy also bans street names which would be "difficult to pronounce or awkward to spell" and any "could give offence" or would "encourage defacing of nameplates"."
I would suggest that removing apostrophes might indeed encourage some of us to 'deface' the nameplates by reinserting the missing punctuation.
The problem with the combined-sector banks is only partly that
1) they're too big to fail
and
2) the number has dropped to the level where cartels are very easy to form.
Having combined-sector banks is a problem in itself.
Sector 1: low-level business investment and retail banking *with* a taxpayer guarantee
Sector 2: investment banking and casino operations *without* a taxpayer guarantee
Sector 2 was allowed - no doubt through copious amounts of "lobbying" - to take over Sector 1 to create these combined-sector banks.
The problems with combined-sector banks are
1) The taxpayer guarantee makes the investment arm of the combined banks reckless as they know they have tens of millions of tax serfs* legally bound to backstop the banks' gambling debts.
2) The rate of return on the investment and casino operations is higher than the rate of return on the low-level business investment segment hence the slow strangulation of the core economy through the banks' reluctance to fulfill this (vital) function .
The banks need to broken up horizontally first like they used to be and the two sectors kept legally separate.
(*As an aside this is why when you read that the banks are the golden goose and that they could fly away any time it's a load of nonsense. The combined-sector banks can't survive without tens of millions of tax serfs as guarantors.)
So
1) separated into two horizontal sectors first
2) worry about competition inside those two sectors second
(edited for suckiness)
I walked past there on Monday and read the (lefty sounding) writing being painted on the window...
They had put "to" instead of "too" halfway down the message...
I couldn't bring myself to go in and tell them, should I have?
https://www.facebook.com/RomfordContemporaryArtsProgramme
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10577975/Ukip-faces-stitch-up-claims-over-cosy-by-election-contest.html
You make some passionate points Rochdale, but has Ed Milliband in fact promised to restore the benefits system to its much more generous 2010 model?
No. As far as I can see, the only coalition reform he is promising to undo is the bedroom tax.
But I can see the Lib Dems (Or Con) beating UKIP here - got a whole 50 pence on Lib Dem 2nd place
The older name of Grape Street, in London, would have fallen foul of this policy.
Juvenile, I know, but little things.....