The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
China is already at that level - the official stats are fantasy. The national total is alot less than the weighted average across provinces. The figures for electricity output, railfreight KM, port movements, credit, etc all point to a real GDP number way below the reported 7%+.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
China is already at that level - the official stats are fantasy. The national total is alot less than the weighted average across provinces. The figures for electricity output, railfreight KM, port movements, credit, etc all point to a real GDP number way below the reported 7%+.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
Too optimistic on the UK. More like 2.7%, methinks. Still good, in comparison....
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
George Eaton@georgeeaton5 mins GDP rose 0.7% in Q4 2013 (down from 0.8% in Q3).
George Eaton@georgeeaton4 mins GDP still 1.3% below pre-recession peak. US is 5.6% above.
George reminding us how deep the Brownian depression was ?
ChrisshipITV tweets: Note from @ONS shows scale of crash: economy shrunk 7.2% in 2008/09. Compares to 2.9% fall in 1990/91. And a decrease of 5.9% in 1979-81
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
No - but Zerohedge has good stuff quite often, I haven't copied or stored it.
Another element is a gross discrepancy between China's reported trade balance with HongKong and HongKong's own stats - and they should surely reconcile!
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
Too optimistic on the UK. More like 2.7%, methinks. Still good, in comparison....
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
Can we do Q414 vs Q413? And if so, yes I am very happy to take that bet.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
China is already at that level - the official stats are fantasy. The national total is alot less than the weighted average across provinces. The figures for electricity output, railfreight KM, port movements, credit, etc all point to a real GDP number way below the reported 7%+.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
Too optimistic on the UK. More like 2.7%, methinks. Still good, in comparison....
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
Can we do Q414 vs Q413? And if so, yes I am very happy to take that bet.
No, we can't as that is not what you claimed. You didn't mention quarters. You claimed China's growth in all of 2014 would be 4%. I think this is piffle, and I generously offered you a bet saying it would be more than 5%.
No - but Zerohedge has good stuff quite often, I haven't copied or stored it.
Another element is a gross discrepancy between China's reported trade balance with HongKong and HongKong's own stats - and they should surely reconcile!
I will look it up. I generally tend to be pretty sceptical of ZeroHedge - everything is a negative in ZeroHedge world. It's like an inverse of the tech stock forums of 1999.
As an aside, trade balances worldwide (which should add up to zero) don't. The world, apparently, exports more than it imports.
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I'm firming up my support for wind power (with caveats), fracking (with caveats), and nuclear (with caveats) for exactly this reason. None are ideal (hence the caveats), but they seem the best way forward to me.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
Too optimistic on the UK. More like 2.7%, methinks. Still good, in comparison....
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
Can we do Q414 vs Q413? And if so, yes I am very happy to take that bet.
No, we can't as that is not what you claimed. You didn't mention quarters. You claimed China's growth in all of 2014 would be 4%. I think this is piffle, and I generously offered you a bet saying it would be more than 5%.
Man up, Sir; take the bet or not.
Sure. I'll take the bet. I think China will continue to slow throughout 2014, and that the Q4 numbers will be the worst. I was just trying to swing the bet even more in my favour.
The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I'm firming up my support for wind power (with caveats), fracking (with caveats), and nuclear (with caveats) for exactly this reason. None are ideal (hence the caveats), but they seem the best way forward to me.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
No - but Zerohedge has good stuff quite often, I haven't copied or stored it.
Another element is a gross discrepancy between China's reported trade balance with HongKong and HongKong's own stats - and they should surely reconcile!
I will look it up. I generally tend to be pretty sceptical of ZeroHedge - everything is a negative in ZeroHedge world. It's like an inverse of the tech stock forums of 1999.
As an aside, trade balances worldwide (which should add up to zero) don't. The world, apparently, exports more than it imports.
On that we agree. One minute Zerohedge is predicting a Chinese crash, the next - last weekend - he anticipates China will overtake America within 3 years.
In fact, Ukip are Britain’s most working-class party. Blue-collar workers are heavily over-represented. Middle-class professionals are scarce. Such voters often express as much hostility to the Conservative party as they do to Labour.
I'm confused .... is the 0.7% reported on PB the Labour lead in the latest poll ?!?
Tick tock Ed .... tick tock ....
Can we expect some movement from your ARSE ?
It's seems likely, although I wouldn't want to pre-empt my august organ. More recently the movement has been an uptick of Labour seats. The last ARSE 2015 GE prediction was :
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37
The next ARSE will be published next Tuesday, 4th Feb.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Which means I am more pessimistic than the market on China, Germany and France. And more optimistic on Ireland, the UK, the US, and Spain.
Too optimistic on the UK. More like 2.7%, methinks. Still good, in comparison....
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
Can we do Q414 vs Q413? And if so, yes I am very happy to take that bet.
No, we can't as that is not what you claimed. You didn't mention quarters. You claimed China's growth in all of 2014 would be 4%. I think this is piffle, and I generously offered you a bet saying it would be more than 5%.
Man up, Sir; take the bet or not.
Sure. I'll take the bet. I think China will continue to slow throughout 2014, and that the Q4 numbers will be the worst. I was just trying to swing the bet even more in my favour.
How much would you like?
Good man. £50 as agreed. I say Chinese GDP growth for all 2014 will be 5%+, you think it will be lower. Deal. Do we need to specify IMF stats/World Bank etc? I'm happy with IMF.
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
There was a massive under poll of younger votes according to his earlier tweet. Still, not convinced that 50p has gone done well - time will tell.
By the way @MikeSmithson , expect a barrage of questions from @Hugh next time he is on over your use of the phrase "white working class" in last nights header... He seems to want definition of the term off anyone that has ever used it
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
And UKIP polling more than double the Lib Dems!
Boohoo its so unfair
Why is it unfair? Ukip are more popular - at least at the moment
I'm confused .... is the 0.7% reported on PB the Labour lead in the latest poll ?!?
Tick tock Ed .... tick tock ....
Can we expect some movement from your ARSE ?
It's seems likely, although I wouldn't want to pre-empt my august organ. More recently the movement has been an uptick of Labour seats. The last ARSE 2015 GE prediction was :
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37
The next ARSE will be published next Tuesday, 4th Feb.
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
And UKIP polling more than double the Lib Dems!
Boohoo its so unfair
Why is it unfair? Ukip are more popular - at least at the moment
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
Yes the interesting thing is even to consider China as comparable to other nations, emerging or developed. It has about 30 micro-economies and the scale of catch-up required to reach any comparable nation is immense.
It is in the bottom decile of per-capita GDP and so can "afford" to grow at nominal levels that would have us gasp but below which, as Gildas (welcome) says, would be a catastrophe for them.
Probably also worth pointing out that the upweighting in today's YouGov really favoured my team. Among the tiny 18-24 group (undersampled among both men and women) Labour led something like 53-12 today! I think that's probably unusual!
This probably explained why YouGov had a rare example of a raw vote Tory lead (407 con, 328 Lab) being converted into a small weighted Labour lead Con 357, Lab 381.
That means the raw numbers YG are very different to ComRes, even though the final result is similar.
Tories being ahead on raw votes is unusual for YG, I think, and all in all, another reminder that whenever a poll is interesting, it's better to wait and see.
If it's necessary to weight so much by age (a 22-year old man polled counts thirteen times as much as a 62-year old one) what else is it necessary to weight a lot by? Location (urban vs suburban vs rural)? Religion? Height? Self-image? No wonder polls bounce around so much.
I propose a 50% tax (to be paid by the commissioner) on any poll with a sample size of under, say, 5,000...
Given the importance of the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands to the election result it is a concern to me that there is no weighting applied on a city/town/village basis.
I think the Ashcroft polls ask people if they live in a settlement with more than 10,000 inhabitants, or a village, hamlet, or isolated dwelling, but he has his subdivisions in the wrong place. To identify the METTHs one wants to look at settlements with a population between 10,000-100,000, and probably the best way to do this is with postal codes, rather than asking people what the population of their town is.
However, this doesn't make the YouGov poll useless. Because it polls too many older people the subsamples for those age groups are probably more reliable. Those aged 40+ have Labour and Conservatives level-pegging.
The Conservatives actually have a lead in the next age group down, the 25-39 year olds**, which are weighted up only slightly, and the derided 18-24 year old subsample gives a whopping Labour lead of 53:12.
In other words, a freakish sample of 18-24 year olds, absurdly weighted up from 39 respondents to 164, is the part of the poll that retains Labour's lead. A larger sample of 18-24 year olds would most likely have given a result closer to previous polls in that subsample, and the headline numbers would possibly show a Conservative lead.
It's the Tory cheerleaders who should be pointing at the 18-24 age group, gleefully shouting "rogue poll!" and pointing out that upweighting that age group by a factor of about five and a half compared to the 60+ age group is the main thing that prevents this YouGov from showing a Tory lead.
** And this is the really unusual part of this poll, because that age group has tended to be the most pro-Labour age group in recent years.
The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I'm firming up my support for wind power (with caveats), fracking (with caveats), and nuclear (with caveats) for exactly this reason. None are ideal (hence the caveats), but they seem the best way forward to me.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
Why wind power?
Because, although it has problems (consistency being a major one), it is a well-developed and stable power source that is well defined from an engineering perspective. It has a place in the mix, although because of the consistency problems we should not rely on it too much until we develop power storage systems (itself a big engineering problem).
My biggest problems are in where windfarms should be sited. Which is in NIMBYs backyards, rather than in wilderness. ;-)
I'd love wave and tidal power to come on as well, but as ever those projects are hitting problems.
I am going for 0.7% this morning for Q4. A bit less than I might have hoped during most of Q4 but there are some indications of slightly more mixed figures, especially in Avery's Swift findings which suggested 0.4.
In January last year, when growth was forecast to be 0.6% for the year, I bravely forecast that the growth figure for the year would have a 1 in front of it. If growth for the year ends up at 1.9%, as seems likely, I will only just have been right and not in the way expected!
For 2014 I think we will be very near 3% unless something major goes off internationally. Unfortunately there are a few candidates with the EZ and China being the main candidates.
The Smithson 2014 GDP growth forecasts
Ireland 4.1% China 4.0% USA 3.4% UK 3.3% Spain 2.1% Italy 1.1% Germany 1.1% France -0.2%
Interesting. I think that is a little high for the UK, I would go for 2.9%.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
It seems inevitable to me that there will be a major panic and bust at some point. Just look at the economic history of any fast growing power such the UK or the US in the 19th century. 4% looks a little cosy to me. Either it will be faster or slower depending on when the pop occurs.
If your figure for France is anything like right a EZ crisis at some point in the year is going to be inevitable. The consequences for their banking system and property market would be horrendous. Good for those plumbers in London though.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
Probably also worth pointing out that the upweighting in today's YouGov really favoured my team. Among the tiny 18-24 group (undersampled among both men and women) Labour led something like 53-12 today! I think that's probably unusual!
This probably explained why YouGov had a rare example of a raw vote Tory lead (407 con, 328 Lab) being converted into a small weighted Labour lead Con 357, Lab 381.
That means the raw numbers YG are very different to ComRes, even though the final result is similar.
Tories being ahead on raw votes is unusual for YG, I think, and all in all, another reminder that whenever a poll is interesting, it's better to wait and see.
It was a unusually Tory sample of early Gen Y and late Gen X (25-39). That is traditionally the most pro-Labour cohort. So it probably cancels out the up weighting of the very young.
More polls needed- the big development is 50p and we still lack decent VI numbers on that.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
Where are we seeing the benefit of the growth figures is in the unemployment figures. I agree for those already in work and on average pay downwards the benefits so far are pretty minimal. This is of course one of the reasons that the employment figures are good. UK labour is being priced back into markets it was not competitive in.
The sad truth is that, the low paid aside, increasing real wages is not the economic priority. It is much more important to increase investment and exports by remaining fully price competitive. But there is an election to win so I think we will see a bit of both. I still support an above inflation increase in the minimum wage and I think we will see that as a part of the mix.
It was a unusually Tory sample of early Gen Y and late Gen X (25-39). That is traditionally the most pro-Labour cohort. So it probably cancels out the up weighting of the very young.
More polls needed- the big development is 50p and we still lack decent VI numbers on that.
Squeaky bum time for Labourites.
Yes, but it was also an unusually Labour over 60 sample, I think... Which just goes to show that all polls can be a bit rogue at the small sub sample level!
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
"There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off."
Yes , and the same people seem to think that working class people get home from work and start moaning that the rich don't pay enough tax and how to get more equalty... The aren't either, they too are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
We await the comments of Senior and surbiton on YouGov's "dodgy weighting":
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
Yes they did and why was that big weighting adjustment necessary by Yougov ? It was because their sample said that at the last GE the Conservatives polled 46% of the vote rather than the 37% they actually got . 511 2010 Con voters 269 Labour voters and 264 Lib Dem As I have said before weighting is there to make small corrections for sampling problems . If the sample is so far divorced from a representative sample then weighting adjustments may not cope and may give greater problems . The question should be why , with it's supposed massive panel , Yougov are unable to question a nearly representative cross section of the population .
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
It was a unusually Tory sample of early Gen Y and late Gen X (25-39). That is traditionally the most pro-Labour cohort. So it probably cancels out the up weighting of the very young.
More polls needed- the big development is 50p and we still lack decent VI numbers on that.
Squeaky bum time for Labourites.
Yes, but it was also an unusually Labour over 60 sample, I think... Which just goes to show that all polls can be a bit rogue at the small sub sample level!
It's possible I am barking up the wrong tree here - @MarkSenior's post just below seems more copper bottomed than my theory. They simply polled way too many 2010 Tories, it would appear.
I suppose such quirks are a limitation of polling every day - you have to work with what you get. Give your researchers a week and they are less likely to have to rely on weightings.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
Feel free to write the Treasury a generous cheque as a donation then, as you feel that way. They do accept them.
Yes they did and why was that big weighting adjustment necessary by Yougov ? It was because their sample said that at the last GE the Conservatives polled 46% of the vote rather than the 37% they actually got . 511 2010 Con voters 269 Labour voters and 264 Lib Dem As I have said before weighting is there to make small corrections for sampling problems . If the sample is so far divorced from a representative sample then weighting adjustments may not cope and may give greater problems . The question should be why , with it's supposed massive panel , Yougov are unable to question a nearly representative cross section of the population .
A bit harsh on poor YG for one days poll! They often get a lab lead on party id they have to weight down (eg Sunday's poll), didn't today.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
Anyway, if Comres raw figures were pro Lab, and YGs vpro Tory, that just shows how difficult polling can be when you're trying to even out the inevitable randomness of using a 1000 people to predict 20 million. All htis is making me feel a bit sorry for the pollsters!
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I'm firming up my support for wind power (with caveats), fracking (with caveats), and nuclear (with caveats) for exactly this reason. None are ideal (hence the caveats), but they seem the best way forward to me.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
Why wind power?
Whilst, as you know, I think the whole CO2 pollutant idea is rubbish, if we accept the base premise for a moment then why do you believe CCS is such a daft idea?
Technically it is perfectly feasible and many oil companies have worked up detailed plans for DECC on how it can be achieved and are in the advanced planning stages for wells for the pilot projects.
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
The rich are no more wicked or blind than the poor, or middle classes. They are traits that can be seen throughout society.
I am not a higher-rate taxpayer, but I can see why people who generate jobs and wealth to this country need rewarding. When we mention 'the rich', we automatically think of the fat-cat bankers who make and lose obscene amounts daily by exchanging electronic digits between each other.
What we don't tend to see are people like you. In so many cases, people who have mortgaged or remortgaged their houses, put their capital at risk, and employed people, all to the country's benefit. People who take such risks, and employ people and maybe even export, deserve rewarding IMHO. especially when the money they earn might be ploughed back into their business, or into new businesses.
Hurting them hurts the country disproportionately. Perhaps you are just lucky in your choice of business.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Left arguments can seem for all the world like class war. The "rich", the "military-industrial complex" (oh yes), etc... I know it is a low blow but pop over to Polly or Seumas' latest article and you will see that this is precisely the language they use. Inflammatory, spiteful, patronising.
In their world the idea of someone making the transition from "honest worker" (whom they can patronise) to "rich toff" is the most treacherous of crimes.
As I have said before weighting is there to make small corrections for sampling problems . If the sample is so far divorced from a representative sample then weighting adjustments may not cope and may give greater problems . The question should be why , with it's supposed massive panel , Yougov are unable to question a nearly representative cross section of the population .
Have YouGov, or any of the online polling companies, said how many invites they email out compared to how many responses they count?
There's a big difference between inviting 2000 people for a 1000 sample poll and having to invite 100,000 people to get 1000 responses within the necessary timeframe.
The closer you get to the latter the more I would worry, as participation in the poll becomes a lot less random, and a lot more self-selecting.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
CCS is barmy. Solar - in its current form, in the UK - is uneconomic. In sunnier parts of the world, and places where peak power usage is driven by air conditioning, it is becoming more economic.
Yes they did and why was that big weighting adjustment necessary by Yougov ? It was because their sample said that at the last GE the Conservatives polled 46% of the vote rather than the 37% they actually got . 511 2010 Con voters 269 Labour voters and 264 Lib Dem As I have said before weighting is there to make small corrections for sampling problems . If the sample is so far divorced from a representative sample then weighting adjustments may not cope and may give greater problems . The question should be why , with it's supposed massive panel , Yougov are unable to question a nearly representative cross section of the population .
A bit harsh on poor YG for one days poll! They often get a lab lead on party id they have to weight down (eg Sunday's poll), didn't today.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
Anyway, if Comres raw figures were pro Lab, and YGs vpro Tory, that just shows how difficult polling can be when you're trying to even out the inevitable randomness of using a 1000 people to predict 20 million. All htis is making me feel a bit sorry for the pollsters!
Comres used random telephone sampling , it has been well shown that this method has a relatively small bias towards Labour . Yougov have a supposed massive online sample base for which they have detailed knowledge of and it should therefore be very easy to get a sample which is close to being representative .
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
Feel free to write the Treasury a generous cheque as a donation then, as you feel that way. They do accept them.
You know there is actually a Trust Fund to accept donations towards paying off the national debt? Unfortunately the way the settlement was written none of the money can be accessed until the national debt can be paid off in toto...
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
Yes but your mistake is thinking only those at the top have done well. I have a modest govt pension and thanks to the raising of the personal allowance I pay way less tax than under Labour and am significantly better off over the past 4 years. I have no welfare benefits it is true but I don't want to live in a 'gordonbrownian' society where the majority live at leats partially on benefits. I agree that for some the adjustment to looking after yourself is no fun but the polling on benefits supports my view that the govt was right to set a cap.
The UK doesn't have an export problem it has an import problem, namely our addiction to cheap consumer tat. An addiction that has been funded by debt, firstly household and then government.
And energy. If we imported alot less energy (fracking for shale gas anyone?) then the UK financials would improve immeasurably. This (and increased royalty tax receipts) is the main benefit of fracking not potential gas price cuts.
It is the latter point that has made me think about wind. It is expensive but we don't have to import it. A major problem with production since 2009 has been the rapid fall in north sea production. One way or the other a country with an import addiction like this one can't afford to import too much energy.
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
I'm firming up my support for wind power (with caveats), fracking (with caveats), and nuclear (with caveats) for exactly this reason. None are ideal (hence the caveats), but they seem the best way forward to me.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
Why wind power?
Whilst, as you know, I think the whole CO2 pollutant idea is rubbish, if we accept the base premise for a moment then why do you believe CCS is such a daft idea?
Technically it is perfectly feasible and many oil companies have worked up detailed plans for DECC on how it can be achieved and are in the advanced planning stages for wells for the pilot projects.
(I presume this is to me).
Firstly, it has rarely (never?) been done on a large GW scale, with the reservoirs far away from the generators. When it is used, it is mostly used for EOR. Secondly, it dramatically reduces the efficiency of the power plants. Thirdly, it is hideously expensive. Fourthly, I have grave doubts about the capacity and security of the reservoirs. Fifthly, as you say, I think a little too much attention is being put on CO2 as an atmpshperic pollutant.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
Well the UK 2007 - 2013 is a possible example. By use of massive injections of credit and running a huge deficit the government has managed to keep the damage to the real economy extremely modest compared with what "ought" to have happened given the massive drop in GDP.
Such interventions have their own price of course and are the main reason the recovery so far has been quite modest.
But the bubble in China is like Gordon Brown on stilts. It will take incredible skill.
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
CCS is barmy. Solar - in its current form, in the UK - is uneconomic. In sunnier parts of the world, and places where peak power usage is driven by air conditioning, it is becoming more economic.
Absolutely. I was talking from a UK-centric POV, for energy security. Solar in other countries can be effective, but then we'd be relying on a non-existent HVDC network and their political stability.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
I think one of the advantages of online polling is that you can record how people voted much closer to the time of the election, making [variable] false recall a lot less of a problem.
if we accept the base premise for a moment then why do you believe CCS is such a daft idea?
Carbon capture and storage is a great idea, and one of the most proven long-term technologies for greenhouse gas reduction. The method that has stood the test of time is to compress organic matter under layers of sediment or soil, wait for 300 million years or so, then leave it there.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
I think one of the advantages of online polling is that you can record how people voted much closer to the time of the election, making [variable] false recall a lot less of a problem.
Is that proven, though? I thought there was a bias immediately after the election with people liking to think they had voted for the 'winner'
if we accept the base premise for a moment then why do you believe CCS is such a daft idea?
Carbon capture and storage is a great idea, and one of the most proven long-term technologies for greenhouse gas reduction. The method that has stood the test of time is to compress organic matter under layers of sediment or soil, wait for 300 million years or so, then leave it there.
I think one of the advantages of online polling is that you can record how people voted much closer to the time of the election, making [variable] false recall a lot less of a problem.
Though they presumably don't poll all their panel a couple of days before the election - and you can't go much further out, otherwise you'd be basing your past vote weighting on eg 'Cleggasm' data.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
I think one of the advantages of online polling is that you can record how people voted much closer to the time of the election, making [variable] false recall a lot less of a problem.
Is that proven, though? I thought there was a bias immediately after the election with people liking to think they had voted for the 'winner'
Yes, nothing is perfect, but it gives them more to work with than the telephone pollsters have.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
FWIW the economic consensus for Chinese GDP growth this year is about 7-7.5%
"Still, most economists expect China's growth to remain relatively robust at 7.4 percent for the full year, compared with 7.7 percent in 2013, according to a recent Reuters poll."
With the US, UK, and even EU and Japanese economies now picking up steam, and sucking in goods, it is hard to see export and trade oriented China suddenly crashing to 5% growth (which would be the slowest they've experienced in several decades)
Smithson Junior's wager is, shall we say, not inaudacious.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Left arguments can seem for all the world like class war. The "rich", the "military-industrial complex" (oh yes), etc... I know it is a low blow but pop over to Polly or Seumas' latest article and you will see that this is precisely the language they use. Inflammatory, spiteful, patronising.
In their world the idea of someone making the transition from "honest worker" (whom they can patronise) to "rich toff" is the most treacherous of crimes.
Often with Yougov if you respond quickly you get a poll for yougov points - if you respond later it's a "prize draw" poll - I have quit out of polls early on a couple occasions and when I return it is a draw only poll.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Left arguments can seem for all the world like class war. The "rich", the "military-industrial complex" (oh yes), etc... I know it is a low blow but pop over to Polly or Seumas' latest article and you will see that this is precisely the language they use. Inflammatory, spiteful, patronising.
In their world the idea of someone making the transition from "honest worker" (whom they can patronise) to "rich toff" is the most treacherous of crimes.
Often with Yougov if you respond quickly you get a poll for yougov points - if you respond later it's a "prize draw" poll - I have quit out of polls early on a couple occasions and when I return it is a draw only poll.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
Has been a few years since YouGov polled me for a VI poll.
They only ask me to contribute to polling on race or religion these days, or their sodding BrandIndex polls that go on forever.
Edit: I was yougov'd recently on what I thought about the Times/Sunday Times.
"Yet others have asked how on earth details about Graf’s visa status ended up in The Sun – with some fingers being pointed at those who are perceived to have an axe to grind with Graf and his position in Labour’s campaign."
I'm confused .... is the 0.7% reported on PB the Labour lead in the latest poll ?!?
Tick tock Ed .... tick tock ....
Can we expect some movement from your ARSE ?
It's seems likely, although I wouldn't want to pre-empt my august organ. More recently the movement has been an uptick of Labour seats. The last ARSE 2015 GE prediction was :
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37
The next ARSE will be published next Tuesday, 4th Feb.
What is this poll based on?
Are you seriously indicating that you're unfamiliar with my ARSE
Firstly, it has rarely (never?) been done on a large GW scale, with the reservoirs far away from the generators. When it is used, it is mostly used for EOR. Secondly, it dramatically reduces the efficiency of the power plants. Thirdly, it is hideously expensive. Fourthly, I have grave doubts about the capacity and security of the reservoirs. Fifthly, as you say, I think a little too much attention is being put on CO2 as an atmpshperic pollutant.
Basically, I think we can get much better bang for our buck from other schemes.
Others may obviously differ. ;-)
I can't answer on points 2 and 3 but on the others I think you are overly pessimistic. Certainly as far as the power stations being far away from the reservoirs I think that is a red herring. We take the gas from the same (or very similar) reservoirs that are being proposed for CCS - mostly sub-Zechstein deposits in the Southern North Sea. It is no harder to pump the CO2 back to the reservoir than it was to pump the gas out in the first place.
The capacity and security of the reservoirs is definitely not an issue. Those same reservoirs have managed to keep high pressure gas safely underground for the last 250 million years. There is no reason why they should not be able to keep the CO2 in the same way. Indeed as the CO2 is soluble in water under pressure there is a much better storage capacity than with the gas that was taken out.
That said I think it is the right answer to the wrong problem.
So, how does GDP Q1 0.4%, Q2 0.7%, Q3 0.8% and Q4 0.7% only total 1.9% year on year. Genuine question.
It's a comparison of total 2012 vs total 2013. So the growth rate in Q4 2012 (negative) has more impact on the annual figure than this latest 0.7%.
Q4 2013 is 2.8% bigger than Q4 2012 however, and the strong growth in 2nd half of this year means 2014 will have a good headline annual figure, even if next year's quarterly rates are pretty ordinary.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
Well the UK 2007 - 2013 is a possible example. By use of massive injections of credit and running a huge deficit the government has managed to keep the damage to the real economy extremely modest compared with what "ought" to have happened given the massive drop in GDP.
Such interventions have their own price of course and are the main reason the recovery so far has been quite modest.
But the bubble in China is like Gordon Brown on stilts. It will take incredible skill.
The Chinese bubble is nothing like Brown's boom - which was based on property prices, financial taxes, and consumer debt.
Yes the Chinese have a housing boom - and debt - but they ALSO have enormous forex reserves ($3.3trn, about the size of the entire German economy), plus a massive trade surplus. Indeed they recently became the world's largest trading nation, supplanting America as number 1 for the first time in maybe a century.
China is not a house built on sand. It's a massive, very successful, rapidly industrialising economy with still more potential - though it is prone to the volatility of all huge countries that grow quickly.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Often with Yougov if you respond quickly you get a poll for yougov points - if you respond later it's a "prize draw" poll - I have quit out of polls early on a couple occasions and when I return it is a draw only poll.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
Has been a few years since YouGov polled me for a VI poll.
They only ask me to contribute to polling on race or religion these days, or their sodding BrandIndex polls that go on forever.
Edit: I was yougov'd recently on what I thought about the Times/Sunday Times.
I asked previously if the recollection I had that yougov only ask for 1 VI poll per person per parliament was true - got no response.
Ask OGH - if you register as a one legged, vegetarian Labour voter from Kensington or something you get asked more often..
Labour list suspects an inside job on the Graf visa leak
The big impact of these polls is the effect onparty morale. They soothe Cameron's awkward squad, and fire up those labour people deeply concerned about Ed's agenda.
Are you seriously indicating that you're unfamiliar with my ARSE
Incredible !!!!!!!!
@JackW - Did you see my potential marginals for you at the end of last week? Brigg and Goole, Blackpool North and Cleverleys (although v similar to Hastings and Rye, so you probably don't want both), Arfon (Lab vs Plaid), and Vale of Glamorgan.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
FWIW the economic consensus for Chinese GDP growth this year is about 7-7.5%
"Still, most economists expect China's growth to remain relatively robust at 7.4 percent for the full year, compared with 7.7 percent in 2013, according to a recent Reuters poll."
With the US, UK, and even EU and Japanese economies now picking up steam, and sucking in goods, it is hard to see export and trade oriented China suddenly crashing to 5% growth (which would be the slowest they've experienced in several decades)
Smithson Junior's wager is, shall we say, not inaudacious.
And the economic forecasts for the UK in 2006/7 were pretty confident too.
One of the things we have learned from this downturn is that things that ought to be impossible can last a lot longer than one might expect. The Chinese bubble is one of them. Their fixed capital investment is totally absurd, a misallocation of scarce resources on an unimaginable scale .
The bubble should have burst years ago but the authorities were too scared of the political implications to let it. So they let the shadow banking and local authorities run riot.
Will this be the year? Why not? It will happen. It is the only way that capitalism can ensure that resources are allocated correctly over time.
Marginally less snarkily on CCS, I have a strong suspicion it's a boondoggle, but as far as actually getting something done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions goes there's a lot to be said for a boondoggle that employs the people who would otherwise be involved in increasing greenhouse gases, and reduces their incentives to sabotage other solutions or pretend the problem doesn't exist.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Often with Yougov if you respond quickly you get a poll for yougov points - if you respond later it's a "prize draw" poll - I have quit out of polls early on a couple occasions and when I return it is a draw only poll.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
Has been a few years since YouGov polled me for a VI poll.
They only ask me to contribute to polling on race or religion these days, or their sodding BrandIndex polls that go on forever.
Edit: I was yougov'd recently on what I thought about the Times/Sunday Times.
I asked previously if the recollection I had that yougov only ask for 1 VI poll per person per parliament was true - got no response.
Ask OGH - if you register as a one legged, vegetarian Labour voter from Kensington or something you get asked more often..
I think, YouGov's panel is made up of 300,000 people.
So, that's 1,150 YouGov VI polls in a 5 year parliament, about 1,500 respondents on average means over a parliament they would need 1,725,000 respondents in a parliament.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
FWIW the economic consensus for Chinese GDP growth this year is about 7-7.5%
"Still, most economists expect China's growth to remain relatively robust at 7.4 percent for the full year, compared with 7.7 percent in 2013, according to a recent Reuters poll."
With the US, UK, and even EU and Japanese economies now picking up steam, and sucking in goods, it is hard to see export and trade oriented China suddenly crashing to 5% growth (which would be the slowest they've experienced in several decades)
Smithson Junior's wager is, shall we say, not inaudacious.
And the economic forecasts for the UK in 2006/7 were pretty confident too.
One of the things we have learned from this downturn is that things that ought to be impossible can last a lot longer than one might expect. The Chinese bubble is one of them. Their fixed capital investment is totally absurd, a misallocation of scarce resources on an unimaginable scale .
The bubble should have burst years ago but the authorities were too scared of the political implications to let it. So they let the shadow banking and local authorities run riot.
Will this be the year? Why not? It will happen. It is the only way that capitalism can ensure that resources are allocated correctly over time.
Betting against the Chinese economy is like betting against London property prices. Yes, a crash MUST happen at some time, surely. And yet.... it never happens. But it must. Yet it doesn't... Eeek.
Anyway: the bet was for THIS year's growth and with the Developed World in firm recovery a sudden Chinese slowdown looks very unlikely, as things stand. I am 95% confident I'll win that wager. Only a Black Swan could take Chinese growth below 5% as its main export markets pick up speed.
So, how does GDP Q1 0.4%, Q2 0.7%, Q3 0.8% and Q4 0.7% only total 1.9% year on year. Genuine question.
Those are quarter-on-quarter growth figures, with 1Q2013 compared to 4Q2012. To get the full picture for 2013 growth compared to 2012, you also need the 2012 quarter-on-quarter growth figures.
As an exercise, starting with a basis figure of 100 for 4Q2011, compare what happens to the 2013 growth compared to 2012 if you have 2% growth each quarter for all eight quarters of 2012 and 2013 with 0% growth in the four quarters of 2012 and 2% growth in the four quarters of 2013.
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
Has any bubble, ever, been slowly deflated, or is the definition of a bubble only made once it has gone pop?
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
FWIW the economic consensus for Chinese GDP growth this year is about 7-7.5%
"Still, most economists expect China's growth to remain relatively robust at 7.4 percent for the full year, compared with 7.7 percent in 2013, according to a recent Reuters poll."
With the US, UK, and even EU and Japanese economies now picking up steam, and sucking in goods, it is hard to see export and trade oriented China suddenly crashing to 5% growth (which would be the slowest they've experienced in several decades)
Smithson Junior's wager is, shall we say, not inaudacious.
And the economic forecasts for the UK in 2006/7 were pretty confident too.
One of the things we have learned from this downturn is that things that ought to be impossible can last a lot longer than one might expect. The Chinese bubble is one of them. Their fixed capital investment is totally absurd, a misallocation of scarce resources on an unimaginable scale .
The bubble should have burst years ago but the authorities were too scared of the political implications to let it. So they let the shadow banking and local authorities run riot.
Will this be the year? Why not? It will happen. It is the only way that capitalism can ensure that resources are allocated correctly over time.
One of the basic rules of investing is that the market can be wrong for longer than your money will last.
We really need these growth figures to start feeding through to the real world. The US has seen growth for quarter on quarter but it has made little difference to most people, except those at the very top, who are enjoying unprecedented good times. If there is no general upswing in living standards, then at some stage crisis will ensue and we'll all be affected.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. We are turning the tanker around. It's far easier and takes much less time to borrow excessively than to pay off your borrowing. There will be a trickle down effect.
.
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
Quite and nothing so infuriates a middle class lefty than to have one of their hitherto protege salt-of-the-earth types actually make good.
That is total and utter rubbish.
Picking through your argument I would only point out that you (if you are a lefty) are your own worst enemy.
Often with Yougov if you respond quickly you get a poll for yougov points - if you respond later it's a "prize draw" poll - I have quit out of polls early on a couple occasions and when I return it is a draw only poll.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
Has been a few years since YouGov polled me for a VI poll.
They only ask me to contribute to polling on race or religion these days, or their sodding BrandIndex polls that go on forever.
Edit: I was yougov'd recently on what I thought about the Times/Sunday Times.
I asked previously if the recollection I had that yougov only ask for 1 VI poll per person per parliament was true - got no response.
Ask OGH - if you register as a one legged, vegetarian Labour voter from Kensington or something you get asked more often..
I think, YouGov's panel is made up of 300,000 people.
So, that's 1,150 YouGov VI polls in a 5 year parliament, about 1,500 respondents on average means over a parliament they would need 1,725,000 respondents in a parliament.
I have completed 3 Yougov VI polls in the last 12 months and 8 since the 2010 GE .
@Topping - The rich are not wicked, but sometimes they are blind. A society in which most people's living standards just stagnate or decline is not a sustainable one. I am a top rate taxpayer and for me the last two or three years have been great - property prices rising, pension pot increasing, income and dividend tax rates falling; but I am probably 5% of the population, if that. The country cannot - and should not - be run for my benefit. If it is, in the end the 95% will say "no more" and that will be that.
The rich are no more wicked or blind than the poor, or middle classes. They are traits that can be seen throughout society.
I am not a higher-rate taxpayer, but I can see why people who generate jobs and wealth to this country need rewarding. When we mention 'the rich', we automatically think of the fat-cat bankers who make and lose obscene amounts daily by exchanging electronic digits between each other.
What we don't tend to see are people like you. In so many cases, people who have mortgaged or remortgaged their houses, put their capital at risk, and employed people, all to the country's benefit. People who take such risks, and employ people and maybe even export, deserve rewarding IMHO. especially when the money they earn might be ploughed back into their business, or into new businesses.
Hurting them hurts the country disproportionately. Perhaps you are just lucky in your choice of business.
This is getting confusing - the Higher Rate is the 40p rate (I suspect you are one of these taxpayers). The 45p rate at £150k is called the Additional Rate.
Comments
And I am going to point out I was bang on this morning since no one has.
Makers marching..
It also means we are edging closer to overtaking France again, as the 2nd largest EU economy. Not that size matters, of course.
And China on 4.0%?? lol. That would be an epochal crash by their standards. No way. Ludicrous. I am happy to bet you £50 that Chinese growth for 2014 exceeds 5%.
Tick tock Ed .... tick tock ....
Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1m
Today's YouGov had the Tories with a big lead on the raw data. Only the weightings made it LAB 2% lead. See http://twitpic.com/dtmrx0
Another element is a gross discrepancy between China's reported trade balance with HongKong and HongKong's own stats - and they should surely reconcile!
And if so, yes I am very happy to take that bet.
Man up, Sir; take the bet or not.
Another element is a gross discrepancy between China's reported trade balance with HongKong and HongKong's own stats - and they should surely reconcile!
I will look it up. I generally tend to be pretty sceptical of ZeroHedge - everything is a negative in ZeroHedge world. It's like an inverse of the tech stock forums of 1999.
As an aside, trade balances worldwide (which should add up to zero) don't. The world, apparently, exports more than it imports.
And UKIP polling more than double the Lib Dems!
Boohoo its so unfair
My opinion of CCS and solar is worsening. Mind you, I've always thought large-scale CCS as barmy.
BTW, people (and the government) should really back the engineers and scientists who are working on new materials and energy conservation/production techniques. Leaving aside any fusion breakthrough, that's where the future lies.
How much would you like?
As an aside, trade balances worldwide (which should add up to zero) don't. The world, apparently, exports more than it imports.
On that we agree. One minute Zerohedge is predicting a Chinese crash, the next - last weekend - he anticipates China will overtake America within 3 years.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-24/america’s-relative-decline-should-we-panic
Zerohedge is the Drudge report of economics blogs: a lot of entertaining misses with the odd brilliant insight.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100256765/meet-ukip-britains-most-working-class-party/
That might be as good a guide as any... !
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37
The next ARSE will be published next Tuesday, 4th Feb.
http://comres.co.uk/polls/Independent_Political_Poll_28th_January_2013.pdf
It is in the bottom decile of per-capita GDP and so can "afford" to grow at nominal levels that would have us gasp but below which, as Gildas (welcome) says, would be a catastrophe for them.
Probably also worth pointing out that the upweighting in today's YouGov really favoured my team. Among the tiny 18-24 group (undersampled among both men and women) Labour led something like 53-12 today! I think that's probably unusual!
This probably explained why YouGov had a rare example of a raw vote Tory lead (407 con, 328 Lab) being converted into a small weighted Labour lead Con 357, Lab 381.
That means the raw numbers YG are very different to ComRes, even though the final result is similar.
Tories being ahead on raw votes is unusual for YG, I think, and all in all, another reminder that whenever a poll is interesting, it's better to wait and see.
I think the Ashcroft polls ask people if they live in a settlement with more than 10,000 inhabitants, or a village, hamlet, or isolated dwelling, but he has his subdivisions in the wrong place. To identify the METTHs one wants to look at settlements with a population between 10,000-100,000, and probably the best way to do this is with postal codes, rather than asking people what the population of their town is.
However, this doesn't make the YouGov poll useless. Because it polls too many older people the subsamples for those age groups are probably more reliable. Those aged 40+ have Labour and Conservatives level-pegging.
The Conservatives actually have a lead in the next age group down, the 25-39 year olds**, which are weighted up only slightly, and the derided 18-24 year old subsample gives a whopping Labour lead of 53:12.
In other words, a freakish sample of 18-24 year olds, absurdly weighted up from 39 respondents to 164, is the part of the poll that retains Labour's lead. A larger sample of 18-24 year olds would most likely have given a result closer to previous polls in that subsample, and the headline numbers would possibly show a Conservative lead.
It's the Tory cheerleaders who should be pointing at the 18-24 age group, gleefully shouting "rogue poll!" and pointing out that upweighting that age group by a factor of about five and a half compared to the 60+ age group is the main thing that prevents this YouGov from showing a Tory lead.
** And this is the really unusual part of this poll, because that age group has tended to be the most pro-Labour age group in recent years.
My biggest problems are in where windfarms should be sited. Which is in NIMBYs backyards, rather than in wilderness. ;-)
I'd love wave and tidal power to come on as well, but as ever those projects are hitting problems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-25084721
China is the really tricky one. It is by far the largest bubble in the history of mankind. Can the Communist state really let the gas out without a bang?
It seems inevitable to me that there will be a major panic and bust at some point. Just look at the economic history of any fast growing power such the UK or the US in the 19th century. 4% looks a little cosy to me. Either it will be faster or slower depending on when the pop occurs.
If your figure for France is anything like right a EZ crisis at some point in the year is going to be inevitable. The consequences for their banking system and property market would be horrendous. Good for those plumbers in London though.
There is a common left meme (which I am not saying you adopt) which has it the "the Rich" are sitting in volcanoes stroking their Persian Blue cats wondering how next to oppress the masses. They really aren't. They are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off.
The same reasoning would have it that everyone in Britain should be taxed at 99% because there are still billions elsewhere of people earning less than $2/day.
More polls needed- the big development is 50p and we still lack decent VI numbers on that.
Squeaky bum time for Labourites.
The sad truth is that, the low paid aside, increasing real wages is not the economic priority. It is much more important to increase investment and exports by remaining fully price competitive. But there is an election to win so I think we will see a bit of both. I still support an above inflation increase in the minimum wage and I think we will see that as a part of the mix.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c1rz7jiy8q/YG-Archive-140127-50p-Tax.pdf
Yes , and the same people seem to think that working class people get home from work and start moaning that the rich don't pay enough tax and how to get more equalty... The aren't either, they too are working as hard as they can to make themselves and their families better off
It really must be only middle class lefty luvvies that think in this anti "old money" way, so patronising of the working class
As I have said before weighting is there to make small corrections for sampling problems . If the sample is so far divorced from a representative sample then weighting adjustments may not cope and may give greater problems .
The question should be why , with it's supposed massive panel , Yougov are unable to question a nearly representative cross section of the population .
I suppose such quirks are a limitation of polling every day - you have to work with what you get. Give your researchers a week and they are less likely to have to rely on weightings.
HM the Queen renames St. Paul's as St. George's Cathedral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRrss4kBi2M
another richard invited to reconsecration service.
They do accept them.
Besides, there's false recall to deal with etc etc (and it's even possible that false recall itself is a variable - you might get 'more' of it when things appear to be going well, less when voting Tory seemed a terrible mistake. Who knows, really).
Anyway, if Comres raw figures were pro Lab, and YGs vpro Tory, that just shows how difficult polling can be when you're trying to even out the inevitable randomness of using a 1000 people to predict 20 million. All htis is making me feel a bit sorry for the pollsters!
Could anyone point to a historical example where a soft-landing was achieved?
Technically it is perfectly feasible and many oil companies have worked up detailed plans for DECC on how it can be achieved and are in the advanced planning stages for wells for the pilot projects.
I am not a higher-rate taxpayer, but I can see why people who generate jobs and wealth to this country need rewarding. When we mention 'the rich', we automatically think of the fat-cat bankers who make and lose obscene amounts daily by exchanging electronic digits between each other.
What we don't tend to see are people like you. In so many cases, people who have mortgaged or remortgaged their houses, put their capital at risk, and employed people, all to the country's benefit. People who take such risks, and employ people and maybe even export, deserve rewarding IMHO. especially when the money they earn might be ploughed back into their business, or into new businesses.
Hurting them hurts the country disproportionately. Perhaps you are just lucky in your choice of business.
Left arguments can seem for all the world like class war. The "rich", the "military-industrial complex" (oh yes), etc... I know it is a low blow but pop over to Polly or Seumas' latest article and you will see that this is precisely the language they use. Inflammatory, spiteful, patronising.
In their world the idea of someone making the transition from "honest worker" (whom they can patronise) to "rich toff" is the most treacherous of crimes.
There's a big difference between inviting 2000 people for a 1000 sample poll and having to invite 100,000 people to get 1000 responses within the necessary timeframe.
The closer you get to the latter the more I would worry, as participation in the poll becomes a lot less random, and a lot more self-selecting.
Solar - in its current form, in the UK - is uneconomic. In sunnier parts of the world, and places where peak power usage is driven by air conditioning, it is becoming more economic.
http://www.ibtimes.com/donation-help-pay-uk-national-debt-now-worth-547-million-after-maturing-85-years-stuck-legal-limbo
Firstly, it has rarely (never?) been done on a large GW scale, with the reservoirs far away from the generators. When it is used, it is mostly used for EOR.
Secondly, it dramatically reduces the efficiency of the power plants.
Thirdly, it is hideously expensive.
Fourthly, I have grave doubts about the capacity and security of the reservoirs.
Fifthly, as you say, I think a little too much attention is being put on CO2 as an atmpshperic pollutant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Industrial-scale_projects
Basically, I think we can get much better bang for our buck from other schemes.
Others may obviously differ. ;-)
Such interventions have their own price of course and are the main reason the recovery so far has been quite modest.
But the bubble in China is like Gordon Brown on stilts. It will take incredible skill.
"Still, most economists expect China's growth to remain relatively robust at 7.4 percent for the full year, compared with 7.7 percent in 2013, according to a recent Reuters poll."
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/taiwan-economy-gdp-idINL3N0L12HY20140128
With the US, UK, and even EU and Japanese economies now picking up steam, and sucking in goods, it is hard to see export and trade oriented China suddenly crashing to 5% growth (which would be the slowest they've experienced in several decades)
Smithson Junior's wager is, shall we say, not inaudacious.
They may factor in for "fast responders" - who may have more time or be online more..
I'm just wondering if its more possible after these latest polls. I just don;t see why labour voters have a reason to turn out.
They only ask me to contribute to polling on race or religion these days, or their sodding BrandIndex polls that go on forever.
Edit: I was yougov'd recently on what I thought about the Times/Sunday Times.
http://labourlist.org/2014/01/arnie-graf-is-not-an-immigrant-labour-hits-back-at-sun-attack-on-milibands-organising-guru/
"Yet others have asked how on earth details about Graf’s visa status ended up in The Sun – with some fingers being pointed at those who are perceived to have an axe to grind with Graf and his position in Labour’s campaign."
Incredible !!!!!!!!
The capacity and security of the reservoirs is definitely not an issue. Those same reservoirs have managed to keep high pressure gas safely underground for the last 250 million years. There is no reason why they should not be able to keep the CO2 in the same way. Indeed as the CO2 is soluble in water under pressure there is a much better storage capacity than with the gas that was taken out.
That said I think it is the right answer to the wrong problem.
Q4 2013 is 2.8% bigger than Q4 2012 however, and the strong growth in 2nd half of this year means 2014 will have a good headline annual figure, even if next year's quarterly rates are pretty ordinary.
Yes the Chinese have a housing boom - and debt - but they ALSO have enormous forex reserves ($3.3trn, about the size of the entire German economy), plus a massive trade surplus. Indeed they recently became the world's largest trading nation, supplanting America as number 1 for the first time in maybe a century.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25678415
China is not a house built on sand. It's a massive, very successful, rapidly industrialising economy with still more potential - though it is prone to the volatility of all huge countries that grow quickly.
Ask OGH - if you register as a one legged, vegetarian Labour voter from Kensington or something you get asked more often..
The big impact of these polls is the effect onparty morale. They soothe Cameron's awkward squad, and fire up those labour people deeply concerned about Ed's agenda.
One of the things we have learned from this downturn is that things that ought to be impossible can last a lot longer than one might expect. The Chinese bubble is one of them. Their fixed capital investment is totally absurd, a misallocation of scarce resources on an unimaginable scale .
The bubble should have burst years ago but the authorities were too scared of the political implications to let it. So they let the shadow banking and local authorities run riot.
Will this be the year? Why not? It will happen. It is the only way that capitalism can ensure that resources are allocated correctly over time.
And no I'm not backing or laying either side !
So, that's 1,150 YouGov VI polls in a 5 year parliament, about 1,500 respondents on average means over a parliament they would need 1,725,000 respondents in a parliament.
Anyway: the bet was for THIS year's growth and with the Developed World in firm recovery a sudden Chinese slowdown looks very unlikely, as things stand. I am 95% confident I'll win that wager. Only a Black Swan could take Chinese growth below 5% as its main export markets pick up speed.
As an exercise, starting with a basis figure of 100 for 4Q2011, compare what happens to the 2013 growth compared to 2012 if you have 2% growth each quarter for all eight quarters of 2012 and 2013 with 0% growth in the four quarters of 2012 and 2% growth in the four quarters of 2013.