Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
The killer quote from that piece
One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.”
Or perhaps it's just that Ed has a LOT of spare time on his hands while Cameron has to actually run the country?
Or it maybe one leader is better rated than his party, and one isn't.
Don't know if this has already been posted, but interesting article in the Economist suggesting UKIP are wising up on their campaigning methods and are targetting specific types of seats:
Seaside towns definitely look like very promising territory for them, as do industrial "white van man" seats in Essex and Kent - all types of seats where Cameron's Tories are too posh for them, but which don't like Labour because of immigration. The best part for UKIP is, many of these seats are Labour-Tory marginals, meaning most likely neither of those two parties will be getting huge shares of the vote in these places in 2015, thus UKIP could potentially sneak through the middle and swipe several of these seats on as little as 30%.
I still think UKIP have a decent chance of winning up to 10 seats in 2015.
God help the UK if ukip win any seats, judging by their poor record in local government.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Of course, we all need a bit of encouragement, I expect Ed is looking for a warmer reception than he gets from his Shadow Chancellor.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
The killer quote from that piece
One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.”
Or perhaps it's just that Ed has a LOT of spare time on his hands while Cameron has to actually run the country?
Or it maybe one leader is better rated than his party, and one isn't.
Or that one Party is utterly toxic, and one a lot less so, as the leaders themselves aren't too far apart.
I suspect it's much easier being nice and personable if you're leader of the opposition than a PM with the weight of the world on your shoulders, personally.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
Whereas the polling shows Ed Miliband is more disliked than the Tory party.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps back up to eight points: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
Is there going to come a point when the Tories finally realise that they are not benefiting from economic recovery, mainly because most of the 37-39% simply dislike them and want them out of government?
What they've done in the last 6 months has simply reinforced that - their ineffective flirtation with UKIP values annoys Lab/Lib voters without actually being enough to get the UKIP voters back (we will do some stuff to migrants and benefit-seekers and have some sort of Europe referendum but we won't recommend withdrawal or anything), much as though we made a bid for far left voters by promising to nationalise the biscuit tin industry. Cameron is by no means hated, but his party projects a grumpy image which puts off mlost people without actually winning the really grumpy voters.
Welfare reform, and reducing immigration are popular with Labour voters too.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Cameron has no interest in little people. It's amazing how his own personal brand of nice guy Dave has lasted this long really.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Of course, we all need a bit of encouragement, I expect Ed is looking for a warmer reception than he gets from his Shadow Chancellor.
Ignoring his backbenchers has certainly worked a treat for Cammie so far, hasn't it?
Ed Miliband has alienated himself from Britain’s blue-chip companies and is risking the recovery by developing irrational and unpredictable policies, senior business figures have warned......
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, one chief executive of a FTSE 100 company said: “Ed Miliband doesn’t give a toss about business. He will say anything to get elected. [We] think it’s economic vandalism.”
one chief executive....one Tory marginal polling guru....one floating voter....one leading economist....one man and his dog....don't you just love unnamed sources. Who wrote the article, Dan Hodges.
Not always anonymous, compouter.
Neil Woodford, the head of equities at Invesco Perpetual and one of the UK’s most influential fund managers, said that Labour plans for a price cap on energy bills would damage the investment case for the UK and block the billions of pounds of new money the Government admits it needs.
“Here we have a serious politician, standing up and saying what he said which I think at a stroke torpedoed any chance that any of that investment will happen between now and the next election,” Mr Woodford said.
What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed.
That is a four months old quote old bean. Four months ago you were still predicting a polling crossover.......TRAMADOLADINGDONG!
Compouter, does noñe of this bother you? The fact that every sensible economist knows that Ed will be a disaster for the recovery? Or don't you care that unemployment will increase, the low paid will get even lower wages as immigration increases? Don't you care one jot about thè working class? Is it all just tribal ideology for you?
"Sensible economist" - PB Definitive - An economist I agree with.
You would have some credibility if you ever answered a question instead of posting glib replies to posts that your brain cannot process.
I will ask you in a more neutral manner: do you think unemployment will increase under Ed, if not then why not? Do you think that mass immigration has been detrimental to the lower paid? Do you think the coalition have done anything whatsoever that is good?
If that's a "more neutral manner" I'd hate to see your passive aggressive questioning technique.
Forget any childish and depressing tribal politics and bear in mind I am a kipper anyway, Compouter is far too lily livered to answer a question that may be a teeny bit awkward for him, would you like to answer what are in essence basic questions?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps back up to eight points: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
Is there going to come a point when the Tories finally realise that they are not benefiting from economic recovery, mainly because most of the 37-39% simply dislike them and want them out of government?
What they've done in the last 6 months has simply reinforced that - their ineffective flirtation with UKIP values annoys Lab/Lib voters without actually being enough to get the UKIP voters back (we will do some stuff to migrants and benefit-seekers and have some sort of Europe referendum but we won't recommend withdrawal or anything), much as though we made a bid for far left voters by promising to nationalise the biscuit tin industry. Cameron is by no means hated, but his party projects a grumpy image which puts off mlost people without actually winning the really grumpy voters.
Welfare reform, and reducing immigration are popular with Labour voters too.
Immigration yes (although many just don't believe the government are actually reducing immigration), but, in my experience, it's a big myth that working-class Labour voters are in favour of the "bash-a-scrounger" routine. OK, most will say they think there's a minority of people gaming the system, and will say they're in favour of welfare "reform" in theory, but most working-class people will have a friend or relative who they know to be decent and hard-working who've been hit by benefit cuts. And it especially jars when those cuts are coming from rich boys who (as they perceive it) have no idea what it's like to struggle to find a job or to get a decent wage.
I seem to recall Lord Ashcroft (so often the destroyer of Tory delusions) came to a similar conclusion in one of his mega focus-group exercises. When the question was a more general "do you think welfare should have some kind of reform", the answer was a resounding yes. When they were asked specifically if they approved of what the Tories were doing on welfare, the response was much more negative and people came out with anecdotes of people they knew who were being unfairly punished.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Cameron has no interest in little people. It's amazing how his own personal brand of nice guy Dave has lasted this long really.
Cameron has a full time job.
Miliband just wants to share his dreams with the first person that passes him in a corridor.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
George or Boris would be best. At least they have a sense of humour and can tell a joke.
Dave can too but he is so insecure of his appeal to the general voter that he doesn't allow the public to see this side of his personality.
Ed Balls is also a more rounded character than the four you have listed.
But if I had to choose from the four, Ed may be my choice. Farage would just bore the pants off me by dominating the conversation and saying nothing new or of interest. Clegg would be like having tea with the vicar. And Dave would try too hard to get my vote.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
It does amuse me how Tories are now obsessed with unemployment figures not something they've always been known for being concerned with. The flipside is poor productivity of course.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
So what do you think would happen to a government that delivered five successive years of average 3% annual growth with net disposable income averaging around 1% annual increase over the same period?
Cameron used to do the same thing - read the martin kettle puff piece from the early days of the co-alition. Presume he' s realised he's got better things to do and that most of his backbenchers are arses. Doesn't matter anyway. If he wins in 2015 they'll forgive him. If he loses they'll dump him nice notes or no nice notes.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Cameron has no interest in little people. It's amazing how his own personal brand of nice guy Dave has lasted this long really.
Cameron has a full time job.
Miliband just wants to share his dreams with the first person that passes him in a corridor.
Spoken like a true Cameroon. The chillaxing PM just doesn't have time to be courteous to his backbenchers.
It does amuse me how Tories are now obsessed with unemployment figures not something they've always been known for being concerned with. The flipside is poor productivity of course.
There's always a flip side when the figures don't suit your ideological doctrine.
How I wish people would just grow up and forget tribal politics, just appreciate or disagree with things for the right reasons, not because they offend your tribal sensibilities.
Mike Smithson is probably the biggest case in point.
It does amuse me how Tories are now obsessed with unemployment figures not something they've always been known for being concerned with. The flipside is poor productivity of course.
I am not sure that the flipside of reduced unemployment is poor productivity.
If you truly understood why productivity has fallen both before, through and after the recession then you would have a very well paid job awaiting you at the Treasury or Bank of England.
"Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the recovery in GDP growth?"
As 99% of voters don't have a clue what GDP means, I suspect the answer to that question will be a resounding. "Yes". A politician trumpeting on about fastest growth of the OECD economies, means when it comes down to it bugger all to the average voter. Similarly with inflation. Inflation is now down to 2%, really for who? The government's preferred measure of inflation about which it is currently making such a fuss bears bugger all relationship to the experience of the average voter and especially not those on lower incomes. Let me give you a quick example, most Saturday mornings I go to the local Tescos to get the shopping for the weekend. I usually by the same sort of stuff with very little variation. A couple of years ago I would expect to pay about £25, last Saturday it was £33.
Frankly, if its the economy that will matter most at the next election then I suspect that it will be the economy that people experience and not the figures spouted by HMG that are meaningless to the majority.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
By which you mean you've finally realised your mistake? Of course you won't, Seth O Logue. You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
Ed would not be right for you Hugh.
He would recognise you as a foot soldier and order you off to buy the drinks.
It is the meeting of opposites that would make a drink with Ed interesting.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
Do you think that is how white van man will see it? Or the plasterer or brickie from the site up the road? Delude yourself all you like but these people will vote for UKIP and much as it offends you they are not all previous Tory voters.
Given the choice between a pint with David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, I'd consider the benefits of going teetotal.
On Celebrity Big Brother this evening Jim Davidson was asked which one he would rather sleep with, Liz or Linda? He said, " well if you put a gun to my head.........I'd pull the trigger"
Voting for someone because they'd be the best person to go to the pub with is the stupidest reason since my friends mum voted liberal because she liked jeremy thorpe's hat. In no organisation I have ever worked in would the best person to run it be the one you'd want to go to the pub with. Who'd have wanted to go to the pub with thatcher or Attlee.?
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
Do you think that is how white van man will see it? Or the plasterer or brickie from the site up the road? Delude yourself all you like but these people will vote for UKIP and much as it offends you they are not all previous Tory voters.
Keep doing the ostrich though, we love it.
Haha. Yes I do.
Labour have at least four times the support of UKIP amongst working class voters for a reason. We think they're weirdo nutters and Farage looks like he's off his rocker.
Excellent.
Keep up with the deluded ' he's working class so he will vote for us' arrogant bollocks and see where it gets you.
Out of interest you said 'we think they are weirdo nutters'. Justify that please, what do you do for a livîng and how working class are you?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps back up to eight points: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
What they've done in the last 6 months has simply reinforced that - their ineffective flirtation with UKIP values annoys Lab/Lib voters without actually being enough to get the UKIP voters back (we will do some stuff to migrants and benefit-seekers and have some sort of Europe referendum but we won't recommend withdrawal or anything), much as though we made a bid for far left voters by promising to nationalise the biscuit tin industry.
Welfare reform, and reducing immigration are popular with Labour voters too.
Immigration yes (although many just don't believe the government are actually reducing immigration), but, in my experience, it's a big myth that working-class Labour voters are in favour of the "bash-a-scrounger" routine. OK, most will say they think there's a minority of people gaming the system, and will say they're in favour of welfare "reform" in theory, but most working-class people will have a friend or relative who they know to be decent and hard-working who've been hit by benefit cuts. And it especially jars when those cuts are coming from rich boys who (as they perceive it) have no idea what it's like to struggle to find a job or to get a decent wage.
I seem to recall Lord Ashcroft (so often the destroyer of Tory delusions) came to a similar conclusion in one of his mega focus-group exercises. When the question was a more general "do you think welfare should have some kind of reform", the answer was a resounding yes. When they were asked specifically if they approved of what the Tories were doing on welfare, the response was much more negative and people came out with anecdotes of people they knew who were being unfairly punished.
I don't remember the Ashcroft article you mention, but there've been many reports of welfare reform being a popular cause among poorer people.
"Agreement that “unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work” has risen steadily among the less well-off. Only 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed with it in 2003, while in 2011 59 per cent did. Thirty-eight per cent of working-class respondents agreed in 2003 that welfarism discouraged work; 58 per cent agreed in 2011."
"Who'd have wanted to go to the pub with thatcher or Attlee.?"
Well Thatcher used to like the Scotch and didn't mind people smoking in the mess and Attlee was a pipe-smoker, wasn't he and both would have some interesting anecdotes which they might, given enough lubrication be persuaded to share. So yes, I wouldn't have minded the opportunity to go drinking with either of them.
"Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the recovery in GDP growth?"
As 99% of voters don't have a clue what GDP means, I suspect the answer to that question will be a resounding. "Yes". A politician trumpeting on about fastest growth of the OECD economies, means when it comes down to it bugger all to the average voter. Similarly with inflation. Inflation is now down to 2%, really for who? The government's preferred measure of inflation about which it is currently making such a fuss bears bugger all relationship to the experience of the average voter and especially not those on lower incomes. Let me give you a quick example, most Saturday mornings I go to the local Tescos to get the shopping for the weekend. I usually by the same sort of stuff with very little variation. A couple of years ago I would expect to pay about £25, last Saturday it was £33.
Frankly, if its the economy that will matter most at the next election then I suspect that it will be the economy that people experience and not the figures spouted by HMG that are meaningless to the majority.
Mr Llama
You know the counter-argument to your points without me having to set them out.
There are websites where you can calculate your own inflation rates based upon a personal pattern of expenditure. Enter the data correctly and you will get a better metric of inflation as it effects you than a nationwide index like CPI. Or you can avoid the urge to measure and just recall from personal experience your key spending experiences as you did in your post.
Now if you want to calculate how a large population will respond to changes in the economy, you cannot rely on aggregating personal recollection. You need some form of either qualitiative or quantitative measurement from an independent and reliable source to guide you.
So you could, say, consult the monthly Markit Household Finance Index to gauge changes in confidence levels on key issues which do affect consumers: employment stability, next year's personal earnings prospects, expectations of inflation etc. This would give you a good overall view of changing perceptions (currently net negative but growing more positive by the month and median views likely to move positive during 2014 on current trends).
Or you could limit yourself to purely quantitative data. Read the ONS employment, GDP and RHDI statistical releases and project forward how consumers will react to changes in hard data.
For a man with a wide and deep knowledge of history, accumulated through intellectually sound study and reasoning, you are being obtusely unacademic in your attitude to econometrics!
Do you think that is how white van man will see it? Or the plasterer or brickie from the site up the road? Delude yourself all you like but these people will vote for UKIP and much as it offends you they are not all previous Tory voters.
Keep doing the ostrich though, we love it.
They quite clearly aren't all previous tory voters but we know who started the stampede towards the kippers and it wasn't little Ed or even Farage. It was Osbrowne.
Biggest drop in tory polling was at the time of Osbrowne's omnishambles budget as you can see for yourself. You will also have noticed that before that the kipper vote was basically at 5%. After the omnishambles the kippers really start to rise as the kipper tory vote mirrors each other to a startling degree with every rise and fall. But when the kipper vote gets high enough it starts taking an increasing chunk out of little Eds labour vote as is most clear at last Mays local elections. That will be repeated for this May.
The question is just how high will kipper VI get? I think this May it will be even greater than last May so the concomitant falls for both parties could be just as great if not greater.
Which brings us to Osbrowne and the economy. The reason I highlighted how Osbrowne lost so many soft kipper tory waverers at the omnishambles is that is obviously where he most hopes any good economic news will most benefit him. It's not little Eds voters Osbrowne is going after when he trumpets the economy, it's the kippers. They are the softest target as the economy is where Osbrowne lost so many of them in the first place. He also knows Farage is weakest on economic matters while Cammie and Osbrowne can never possibly outkip the kippers on their core issues of immigration and the EU. If there truly is any feel good factor on the economy then it will be seen by the tories starting to grab back a big chunk of their own disaffected voters from the kippers. I do not expect that to happen any time soon and certainly not before May.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps back up to eight points: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
What they've done in the last 6 months has simply reinforced that - their ineffective flirtation with UKIP values annoys Lab/Lib voters without actually being enough to get the UKIP voters back (we will do some stuff to migrants and benefit-seekers and have some sort of Europe referendum but we won't recommend withdrawal or anything), much as though we made a bid for far left voters by promising to nationalise the biscuit tin industry.
Welfare reform, and reducing immigration are popular with Labour voters too.
I seem to recall Lord Ashcroft (so often the destroyer of Tory delusions) came to a similar conclusion in one of his mega focus-group exercises. When the question was a more general "do you think welfare should have some kind of reform", the answer was a resounding yes. When they were asked specifically if they approved of what the Tories were doing on welfare, the response was much more negative and people came out with anecdotes of people they knew who were being unfairly punished.
I don't remember the Ashcroft article you mention, but there've been many reports of welfare reform being a popular cause among poorer people.
"Agreement that “unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work” has risen steadily among the less well-off. Only 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed with it in 2003, while in 2011 59 per cent did. Thirty-eight per cent of working-class respondents agreed in 2003 that welfarism discouraged work; 58 per cent agreed in 2011."
But again, those are general, abstract questions. You get different responses when people are asked if they think their own son or daughter, or a nice neighbour, should have their benefits cut. Most people when they say they support welfare reform assume it's only going to hit "others" who they don't know who they perceive to be lazy scroungers; they don't think their own friends and relatives, who they think are not to blame for their predicament, would be affected.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
By which you mean you've finally realised your mistake? Of course you won't, Seth O Logue. You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
Do you think that is how white van man will see it? Or the plasterer or brickie from the site up the road? Delude yourself all you like but these people will vote for UKIP and much as it offends you they are not all previous Tory voters.
Keep doing the ostrich though, we love it.
Haha. Yes I do.
Labour have at least four times the support of UKIP amongst working class voters for a reason. We think they're weirdo nutters and Farage looks like he's off his rocker.
Excellent.
Keep up with the deluded ' he's working class so he will vote for us' arrogant bollocks and see where it gets you.
Out of interest you said 'we think they are weirdo nutters'. Justify that please, what do you do for a livîng and how working class are you?
"How working class are you"? Are you serious?
Perhaps discuss it in depth with your weird trousered pals down the golf club tomorrow, eh.
1-0 to me without even trying.
What a fool you are, not too difficult to tell us your employment history is it? You are the one who said 'we think they are weirdo nutters' like you are some working class hero.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
By which you mean you've finally realised your mistake? Of course you won't, Seth O Logue. You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
Reduced to pure chunter.
Are you going to answer my specific questions?
I'm certain my 'chunter' is far more politically relevant and telling than your amusingly out of touch stat spinning, Seth O Logue. I did answer it but you singularly failed to understand that because you are incapable of doing so. Which you also revealed when you didn't answer my specific questions.
There's a reason you keep making a fool out of yourself with predictions such as Lansley for PM and a kipper wipeout at the EU elections.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
Do you think that is how white van man will see it? Or the plasterer or brickie from the site up the road? Delude yourself all you like but these people will vote for UKIP and much as it offends you they are not all previous Tory voters.
Keep doing the ostrich though, we love it.
Haha. Yes I do.
Labour have at least four times the support of UKIP amongst working class voters for a reason. We think they're weirdo nutters and Farage looks like he's off his rocker.
Excellent.
Keep up with the deluded ' he's working class so he will vote for us' arrogant bollocks and see where it gets you.
Out of interest you said 'we think they are weirdo nutters'. Justify that please, what do you do for a livîng and how working class are you?
"How working class are you"? Are you serious?
Perhaps discuss it in depth with your weird trousered pals down the golf club tomorrow, eh.
Would someone please explain to me why, when presented with a Ukipper, Cameroons (or Labourites, I presume, in this case) don't try and give positive reasons for voting for their man or party, but instead resort to personal abuse?
This attitude seems to have spread from Atheists who think that by abusing believers, that is somehow going to make them lose their faith.
I really can't understand it. If I wanted to convert someone, I wouldn't start by insulting them.
The biggest quarterly drop in unemployment since 1997 - but does this mean living standards will rise? Watch: http://bit.ly/LVhE5C #c4news
Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
By which you mean you've finally realised your mistake? Of course you won't, Seth O Logue. You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
Reduced to pure chunter.
Are you going to answer my specific questions?
I'm certain my 'chunter' is far more politically relevant and telling than your amusingly out of touch stat spinning, Seth O Logue. I did answer it but you singularly failed to understand that because you are incapable of doing so. Which you also revealed when you didn't answer my specific questions.
There's a reason you keep making a fool out of yourself with predictions such as Lansley for PM and a kipper wipeout at the EU elections.
@NickPalmer Back in 2005 a lot of voters of all political hues actively 'disliked' Blair, especially because of Iraq, but Labour still won comfortable. Fast forward to 2015, and a recovering economy with the deficit shrinking and record employment after the horrendous recession/Banking crisis/economic legacy inherited from the last Labour Government. What happens if some of the current Labour and Libdem identifying voters who actively 'dislike' the Tories manage to stick a peg over their noses and vote for that new MP that was elected last time to keep Labour out of power and preserve that economic recovery and the stability? The Chilcott Inquiry is also due to be published at some point.
At some point the Labour party are going to have to realise they are not made of Teflon, they were kicked out of Office in 2010 because of an unpopular Leader and PM and in dire economic circumstances. Cameron leads Miliband in their personal polling, and Cameron and Osborne are increasing their lead over Miliband and Balls when it comes to the No1 issue on voters minds, the economy. And that is yet another reason why this next GE has even more a 1992 feel about it. Its the economy stupid, and Labour simple haven't managed to call any thing right on that one issue this whole Parliament, far less managed to produce their credible costed economic policy alternative. The idea that they can just wing it on this issue by sailing into Office saying that they will stick to George Osborne's economic plans is laughable. Be honest, would you hand the matches back to the arsonist just as the fire engines are drawing away having just managing to extinguish his last fire because he promised he won't do it again too soon afterwards?
Back in 1992 the pollsters post GE inquiry detected a shy Tory factor in play, the biggest issue in that GE was also again the economy, and therefore far more aligned to voters personal financial circumstances and security. Come 2015, be aware of the risk that some of Labour's current very soft polling lead or the UKIP polling surge may yet melt away and become late shy Tory switchers. And because some of those voters of all political hues will become more focussed on the economic recovery and their own job/financial security and might see the Labour agenda to try to undermine or derail it by threatening to go after the wealth creators or roll back the reforms on welfare.
I suspect that this also feeds into the growing salience of immigration in polling too, and this is another issue that Labour has a less than stellar record on in Office previously. Since those Libdems switchers moved to Labour, there has been over a million private sector jobs created, interest rates remained low and the economic recovery has now become more visible every where you turn which will certainly cause a swing back effect all on its own.
I'm more than content for you to continue your counterproductive out of touch spinning, Seth O Logue. Whereas you are reduced to begging to get rid of those who find your pointless spouting of stats so very amusing. A most revealing contrast.
I'm more than content for you to continue your counterproductive out of touch spinning, Seth O Logue. Whereas you are reduced to begging to get rid of those who find your pointless spouting of stats so very amusing. A most revealing contrast.
I want you martyred, Pork.
You deserve nothing less.
I am even prepared to wear an hair shirt in penance.
"For a man with a wide and deep knowledge of history, accumulated through intellectually sound study and reasoning,... "
Are you sure you have got the right bloke? (smiley face thing)
"... you are being obtusely unacademic in your attitude to econometrics! "
I take your point, Mr. P, and my bollocking. I'll try and put up proper arguments next time.
P.S. still not convinced that the economy is going to save the Conservatives though.
P.S. Nor am I! But don't tell Pork. He will turn it into a prediction.
Trying to backpedal on your prediction that the kippers would be wiped out at the EU elections already?
LOL
Poor old Seth O Logue. Reduced to a comical figure who pretends it was a joke whenever you get called out for your inept spinning. You're like a child who shouts "didn't mean it!" whenever they are caught saying something stupid. If you don't mean it then perhaps you can explain why you spend almost all of your time trying to spin economic stats as good news for the tories or trying to rubbish the kippers at every opportunity?
You can't have it both ways chum. Either you are taking the p*ss out of Osbrowne and Cammie with your "ironic" spinning or you are supporting them and I think most people on PB know perfectly well by now that you are trying (in your own amusingly incompetent way) to spin for them.
I'm going to check "chunter" in the historical thesaurus in the library, cause I don't think that's what Mick has been doing. the online definitions are a bit variable. It may be a regional thing.
but what do I know? I still have my dinner at lunch time. I wonder if I am working class enough to join UKIP. I like fruitcake too.
Andy, the Jeremy Brett Sherlock was right for its time, and I really enjoyed it. But I have to admit to being an even bigger fan of this very modern twist on Sherlock.
Sherlock is good but the series from the 1980s starring Jeremy Brett is a lot better IMO, although I accept you can't really make a comparison between the two.
I'm going to check "chunter" in the historical thesaurus in the library, cause I don't think that's what Mick has been doing. the online definitions are a bit variable. It may be a regional thing.
but what do I know? I still have my dinner at lunch time. I wonder if I am working class enough to join UKIP. I like fruitcake too.
chun·ter [chuhn-ter]
verb (used without object) British Informal. to grumble or grouse mildly or tediously.
Origin: 1590–1600; orig. dial. (Midlands, N England) chunter, chunder, chunner; compare Scots channer in same sense; expressive word of obscure origin
I'm going to check "chunter" in the historical thesaurus in the library, cause I don't think that's what Mick has been doing.
I strongly doubt using historical political comparisons is 'chuntering' to anyone but those upset at the underlying political truth that they reveal. A truth the likes of Seth O Logue is understandably reluctant to admit since he spends so much time on here pointlessy spinning away trying to pretend otherwise.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
The killer quote from that piece
One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.”
Good Lord if that's supposed to be damaging to Ed Miliband then it sure as hell isn't.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
The killer quote from that piece
One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.”
Good Lord if that's supposed to be damaging to Ed Miliband then it sure as hell isn't.
It's supposed to be damaging to Cameron and it sure as hell is.
His backbenchers have barely started on their 'quest' to get Cammie to draw some red lines, give more detail and just generally get more red meat on the EU. So it's a timely reminder that even while the lib dems are running about like headless chickens a great many tory backbenchers are still preparing to flee the coop at the first opportunity as well.
Andy, the Jeremy Brett Sherlock was right for its time, and I really enjoyed it. But I have to admit to being an even bigger fan of this very modern twist on Sherlock.
Sherlock is good but the series from the 1980s starring Jeremy Brett is a lot better IMO, although I accept you can't really make a comparison between the two.
Just to add another contender, Radio 4 did some very nice adaptions with Clive Merrison as Holmes.
Oh bless their little cotton socks, are the usual Tory backbench suspects feeling neglected yet again by their own Leader while he juggles being the PM in a Coalition Government? I am so glad that the LotO has enough spare time on his hands after managing his own dysfunctional party and giving the occasional policy free speech to deliver some much needed TLC and sweet nothings in their ears via notes, texts and little chats so these poor neglected MP's feel wanted and loved. Ed Miliband couldn't possible be aping Gordon Brown, another Labour politician who also liked to single out the same Tory malcontent's in the hope that they might cross the floor and join the Labour party.
You wonder about these 'Tory MP's' are behaving such a calculating, sorry gullible manner. Are they really that desperate for a little bit of extra attention from a party Leader, any party Leader as it happens. Especially with their own workloads as busy MP's who are fighting hard to work for their constituents and retain their seat. That is, unless they are in a safe seat with time on their hands and an interest in causing trouble for their own party and its Leader instead.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
Though Ed does strike me as a nice bloke and Dave, well, just doesn't.
I bet Miliband The Elder would disagree on that, LOL!
Simple test, who would you rather have a pint with, Dave, Ed, Clegg or Farage?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Ed, no contest.
Dave would look through you, smiley and lively but distant, glancing over your shoulder trying to spot someone of "more importance".
Farage would be embarrasing, droning on that Britain is going to hell in a handcart, telling some oh-so-bravely un-pc jokes that you hope no-one else hears because he sounded like a complete offensive d!ck. You'd make excuses, go for a fag and not return, he's not with me.
Ed would be geekily boring, but he'd find something you're interested in so you secretly engage with, and he'd tell the odd decent joke or something when you're glazing over.
Nick would have the difficult. Far. Away. Stare.
You must have a very different image of Ed Miliband than the rest of us. I imagine he'd would be awkward and earnest. Probably struggle to connect very well and then try to start a conversation on predistribution.
As for the others:
Cameron: polite and charming but perhaps a bit reserved Farage: Passionate. A good racconteur. Perhaps some racy stories after a few pints. Clegg: Somewhat apologetic. Talk of 'tough choices'
Oh bless their little cotton socks, are the usual Tory backbench suspects feeling neglected yet again by their own Leader while he juggles being the PM in a Coalition Government? I am so glad that the LotO has enough spare time on his hands after managing his own dysfunctional party and giving thhttp://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/08/e occasional policy free speech to deliver some much needed TLC and sweet nothings in their ears via notes, texts and little chats so these poor neglected MP's feel wanted and loved. Ed Miliband couldn't possible be aping Gordon Brown, another Labour politician who also liked to single out the same Tory malcontent's in the hope that they might cross the floor and join the Labour party.
You wonder about these 'Tory MP's' are behaving such a calculating, sorry gullible manner. Are they really that desperate for a little bit of extra attention from a party Leader, any party Leader as it happens. Especially with their own workloads as busy MP's who are fighting hard to work for their constituents and retain their seat. That is, unless they are in a safe seat with time on their hands and an interest in causing trouble for their own party and its Leader instead.
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
You think the killer quote from this dross is " One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.” ?! Seriously Eagles, your far too gullible, my irony klaxon would have been sending out a very loud Bazinga by that point in this article!
Tory MPs have complained that they receive more attention from Ed Miliband than from David Cameron.
The Labour leader often writes notes, sends text messages or stops for chats with Conservative backbenchers. By contrast, the Prime Minister is regarded as frosty towards his own MPs when he bumps into them in the Commons.
The killer quote from that piece
One Tory MP. “Ultimately, Ed is just a much nicer guy than Dave.”
I am sure that many voters will do just that because their future financial well being and job security will depend on the continued and sustained investment in these multi billion pound companies!
Ed Miliband has alienated himself from Britain’s blue-chip companies and is risking the recovery by developing irrational and unpredictable policies, senior business figures have warned......
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, one chief executive of a FTSE 100 company said: “Ed Miliband doesn’t give a toss about business. He will say anything to get elected. [We] think it’s economic vandalism.”
one chief executive....one Tory marginal polling guru....one floating voter....one leading economist....one man and his dog....don't you just love unnamed sources. Who wrote the article, Dan Hodges.
Not always anonymous, compouter.
Neil Woodford, the head of equities at Invesco Perpetual and one of the UK’s most influential fund managers, said that Labour plans for a price cap on energy bills would damage the investment case for the UK and block the billions of pounds of new money the Government admits it needs.
“Here we have a serious politician, standing up and saying what he said which I think at a stroke torpedoed any chance that any of that investment will happen between now and the next election,” Mr Woodford said.
What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed.
That is a four months old quote old bean. Four months ago you were still predicting a polling crossover.......TRAMADOLADINGDONG!
Of course it is four months old, compouter.
You will note from the article that it was a reaction to Ed's energy price freeze proposals.
The proposals are definitely now ancient history, but investor attitudes persist.
I'm sure voters will flock to defend the right of these millionaire investors in multi billion pound companies to make a few more million quid out of them.
Perhaps it is more like coffee time than pub time. Farage does a good Man in the Pub act, partly because he seems to genuinely like a pint. It is quite an achievement to have been a city trader from a posh background and yet have the common touch. Ukip may gain some WWC support, but the party of the Hamiltons, Godfrey Bloom and Lord Pearson is not a working class party.
In any case a do not want a PM to have a pint with, I want someone who is sensible enough to be the designated driver, while I have a pint. Ed is teetotal, Dave perhaps too tempted to chillax so I would go for Nick, provided he left Rennard and Hancock at home.
Comments
Exclusive: Repeat of Afghanistan-or-Iraq-style invasion ruled out for war-weary UK, according to senior official
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/multicultural-britain-foreign-conflict-mod
For those who still don't get it here's a pretty big clue to help them along. Since this is PB obviously more clues will be needed so it's the dates that are most crucial here.
I seem to recall Lord Ashcroft (so often the destroyer of Tory delusions) came to a similar conclusion in one of his mega focus-group exercises. When the question was a more general "do you think welfare should have some kind of reform", the answer was a resounding yes. When they were asked specifically if they approved of what the Tories were doing on welfare, the response was much more negative and people came out with anecdotes of people they knew who were being unfairly punished.
Pork
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the recovery in GDP growth?
Understand that basic principle and you will see why UKIP are so popular.
Miliband just wants to share his dreams with the first person that passes him in a corridor.
Dave can too but he is so insecure of his appeal to the general voter that he doesn't allow the public to see this side of his personality.
Ed Balls is also a more rounded character than the four you have listed.
But if I had to choose from the four, Ed may be my choice. Farage would just bore the pants off me by dominating the conversation and saying nothing new or of interest. Clegg would be like having tea with the vicar. And Dave would try too hard to get my vote.
Are you suggesting that real wages growing at rates below that of consumer inflation will cause voters to ignore the economic recovery?
I'm not suggesting anything, Seth O Logue. I'm pointing out the political facts and it was of course inevitable that you didn't understand them or take the hint about the dates.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Since you still can't grasp the obvious why did record unemployment fall stats beforehand (trumpeted by Cammie in PMQs last October) not cause a crossover? and what happened three months after February 97?
Take your time, but I no more expect you to stop your amusingly counterproductive spinning than you did when you and stuarttruth were cheering on Romney so very successfully.
Pork
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
So what do you think would happen to a government that delivered five successive years of average 3% annual growth with net disposable income averaging around 1% annual increase over the same period?
How I wish people would just grow up and forget tribal politics, just appreciate or disagree with things for the right reasons, not because they offend your tribal sensibilities.
Mike Smithson is probably the biggest case in point.
If you truly understood why productivity has fallen both before, through and after the recession then you would have a very well paid job awaiting you at the Treasury or Bank of England.
As 99% of voters don't have a clue what GDP means, I suspect the answer to that question will be a resounding. "Yes". A politician trumpeting on about fastest growth of the OECD economies, means when it comes down to it bugger all to the average voter. Similarly with inflation. Inflation is now down to 2%, really for who? The government's preferred measure of inflation about which it is currently making such a fuss bears bugger all relationship to the experience of the average voter and especially not those on lower incomes. Let me give you a quick example, most Saturday mornings I go to the local Tescos to get the shopping for the weekend. I usually by the same sort of stuff with very little variation. A couple of years ago I would expect to pay about £25, last Saturday it was £33.
Frankly, if its the economy that will matter most at the next election then I suspect that it will be the economy that people experience and not the figures spouted by HMG that are meaningless to the majority.
An awful lot of chuntering in that reply.
By which you mean you've finally realised your mistake? Of course you won't, Seth O Logue.
You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
He would recognise you as a foot soldier and order you off to buy the drinks.
It is the meeting of opposites that would make a drink with Ed interesting.
Keep doing the ostrich though, we love it.
On Celebrity Big Brother this evening Jim Davidson was asked which one he would rather sleep with, Liz or Linda? He said, " well if you put a gun to my head.........I'd pull the trigger"
Keep up with the deluded ' he's working class so he will vote for us' arrogant bollocks and see where it gets you.
Out of interest you said 'we think they are weirdo nutters'. Justify that please, what do you do for a livîng and how working class are you?
"Agreement that “unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work” has risen steadily among the less well-off. Only 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed with it in 2003, while in 2011 59 per cent did. Thirty-eight per cent of working-class respondents agreed in 2003 that welfarism discouraged work; 58 per cent agreed in 2011."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9966722/Welfare-reform-Its-class-war-but-not-in-the-way-youd-expect.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Gap-Ferdinand-Mount/dp/1906021953/
Well Thatcher used to like the Scotch and didn't mind people smoking in the mess and Attlee was a pipe-smoker, wasn't he and both would have some interesting anecdotes which they might, given enough lubrication be persuaded to share. So yes, I wouldn't have minded the opportunity to go drinking with either of them.
You know the counter-argument to your points without me having to set them out.
There are websites where you can calculate your own inflation rates based upon a personal pattern of expenditure. Enter the data correctly and you will get a better metric of inflation as it effects you than a nationwide index like CPI. Or you can avoid the urge to measure and just recall from personal experience your key spending experiences as you did in your post.
Now if you want to calculate how a large population will respond to changes in the economy, you cannot rely on aggregating personal recollection. You need some form of either qualitiative or quantitative measurement from an independent and reliable source to guide you.
So you could, say, consult the monthly Markit Household Finance Index to gauge changes in confidence levels on key issues which do affect consumers: employment stability, next year's personal earnings prospects, expectations of inflation etc. This would give you a good overall view of changing perceptions (currently net negative but growing more positive by the month and median views likely to move positive during 2014 on current trends).
Or you could limit yourself to purely quantitative data. Read the ONS employment, GDP and RHDI statistical releases and project forward how consumers will react to changes in hard data.
For a man with a wide and deep knowledge of history, accumulated through intellectually sound study and reasoning, you are being obtusely unacademic in your attitude to econometrics!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Biggest drop in tory polling was at the time of Osbrowne's omnishambles budget as you can see for yourself. You will also have noticed that before that the kipper vote was basically at 5%. After the omnishambles the kippers really start to rise as the kipper tory vote mirrors each other to a startling degree with every rise and fall. But when the kipper vote gets high enough it starts taking an increasing chunk out of little Eds labour vote as is most clear at last Mays local elections. That will be repeated for this May.
The question is just how high will kipper VI get? I think this May it will be even greater than last May so the concomitant falls for both parties could be just as great if not greater.
Which brings us to Osbrowne and the economy. The reason I highlighted how Osbrowne lost so many soft kipper tory waverers at the omnishambles is that is obviously where he most hopes any good economic news will most benefit him. It's not little Eds voters Osbrowne is going after when he trumpets the economy, it's the kippers. They are the softest target as the economy is where Osbrowne lost so many of them in the first place. He also knows Farage is weakest on economic matters while Cammie and Osbrowne can never possibly outkip the kippers on their core issues of immigration and the EU. If there truly is any feel good factor on the economy then it will be seen by the tories starting to grab back a big chunk of their own disaffected voters from the kippers. I do not expect that to happen any time soon and certainly not before May.
In the absence of Tim can i point out that you wouldn't want to go to the pub with dave as he might forget you were there and leave.
You just don't get it and never will. Which just means you will obliviously continue your comically counterproductive spinning. Your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the May EU elections will prove just as hilarious as your tipping of Lansley for next tory PM.
Reduced to pure chunter.
Are you going to answer my specific questions?
Perhaps discuss it in depth with your weird trousered pals down the golf club tomorrow, eh.
1-0 to me without even trying.
What a fool you are, not too difficult to tell us your employment history is it? You are the one who said 'we think they are weirdo nutters' like you are some working class hero.
Pathetic.
Are you going to answer my specific questions?
I'm certain my 'chunter' is far more politically relevant and telling than your amusingly out of touch stat spinning, Seth O Logue. I did answer it but you singularly failed to understand that because you are incapable of doing so. Which you also revealed when you didn't answer my specific questions.
There's a reason you keep making a fool out of yourself with predictions such as Lansley for PM and a kipper wipeout at the EU elections.
This attitude seems to have spread from Atheists who think that by abusing believers, that is somehow going to make them lose their faith.
I really can't understand it. If I wanted to convert someone, I wouldn't start by insulting them.
Strange.
There's a reason you keep making a fool out of yourself with predictions such as Lansley for PM and a kipper wipeout at the EU elections.
Will no one rid me of this chuntering beast?
At some point the Labour party are going to have to realise they are not made of Teflon, they were kicked out of Office in 2010 because of an unpopular Leader and PM and in dire economic circumstances. Cameron leads Miliband in their personal polling, and Cameron and Osborne are increasing their lead over Miliband and Balls when it comes to the No1 issue on voters minds, the economy. And that is yet another reason why this next GE has even more a 1992 feel about it. Its the economy stupid, and Labour simple haven't managed to call any thing right on that one issue this whole Parliament, far less managed to produce their credible costed economic policy alternative. The idea that they can just wing it on this issue by sailing into Office saying that they will stick to George Osborne's economic plans is laughable. Be honest, would you hand the matches back to the arsonist just as the fire engines are drawing away having just managing to extinguish his last fire because he promised he won't do it again too soon afterwards?
Back in 1992 the pollsters post GE inquiry detected a shy Tory factor in play, the biggest issue in that GE was also again the economy, and therefore far more aligned to voters personal financial circumstances and security. Come 2015, be aware of the risk that some of Labour's current very soft polling lead or the UKIP polling surge may yet melt away and become late shy Tory switchers. And because some of those voters of all political hues will become more focussed on the economic recovery and their own job/financial security and might see the Labour agenda to try to undermine or derail it by threatening to go after the wealth creators or roll back the reforms on welfare.
I suspect that this also feeds into the growing salience of immigration in polling too, and this is another issue that Labour has a less than stellar record on in Office previously. Since those Libdems switchers moved to Labour, there has been over a million private sector jobs created, interest rates remained low and the economic recovery has now become more visible every where you turn which will certainly cause a swing back effect all on its own.
Are you sure you have got the right bloke? (smiley face thing)
"... you are being obtusely unacademic in your attitude to econometrics! "
I take your point, Mr. P, and my bollocking. I'll try and put up proper arguments next time.
P.S. still not convinced that the economy is going to save the Conservatives though.
You deserve nothing less.
I am even prepared to wear an hair shirt in penance.
LOL
Poor old Seth O Logue. Reduced to a comical figure who pretends it was a joke whenever you get called out for your inept spinning. You're like a child who shouts "didn't mean it!" whenever they are caught saying something stupid. If you don't mean it then perhaps you can explain why you spend almost all of your time trying to spin economic stats as good news for the tories or trying to rubbish the kippers at every opportunity?
You can't have it both ways chum. Either you are taking the p*ss out of Osbrowne and Cammie with your "ironic" spinning or you are supporting them and I think most people on PB know perfectly well by now that you are trying (in your own amusingly incompetent way) to spin for them.
but what do I know? I still have my dinner at lunch time. I wonder if I am working class enough to join UKIP. I like fruitcake too.
chun·ter [chuhn-ter]
verb (used without object) British Informal.
to grumble or grouse mildly or tediously.
Origin:
1590–1600; orig. dial. (Midlands, N England) chunter, chunder, chunner; compare Scots channer in same sense; expressive word of obscure origin
[ http://dictionary.reference.com/ ]
--------------------
Examples of CHUNTER
"in Hyde Park a clearly disturbed man was chuntering about something"
Origin of CHUNTER
probably of imitative origin
First Known Use: 1599
Related to CHUNTER
Synonyms
mumble [British], grunt, mouth, murmur, mutter
Antonyms
speak out, speak up
Related Words
babble, blab, chatter, drivel, gabble, gibber, jabber, maunder, prattle, ramble; breathe, gasp, pant, whisper; buzz
[ http://www.merriam-webster.com ]
His backbenchers have barely started on their 'quest' to get Cammie to draw some red lines, give more detail and just generally get more red meat on the EU. So it's a timely reminder that even while the lib dems are running about like headless chickens a great many tory backbenchers are still preparing to flee the coop at the first opportunity as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Merrison#Sherlock_Holmes_on_radio
You wonder about these 'Tory MP's' are behaving such a calculating, sorry gullible manner. Are they really that desperate for a little bit of extra attention from a party Leader, any party Leader as it happens. Especially with their own workloads as busy MP's who are fighting hard to work for their constituents and retain their seat. That is, unless they are in a safe seat with time on their hands and an interest in causing trouble for their own party and its Leader instead.
As for the others:
Cameron: polite and charming but perhaps a bit reserved
Farage: Passionate. A good racconteur. Perhaps some racy stories after a few pints.
Clegg: Somewhat apologetic. Talk of 'tough choices'
In any case a do not want a PM to have a pint with, I want someone who is sensible enough to be the designated driver, while I have a pint. Ed is teetotal, Dave perhaps too tempted to chillax so I would go for Nick, provided he left Rennard and Hancock at home.