politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Crossover on the Betfair GE2015 outcome market: LAB majorit

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Crossover on the Betfair GE2015 outcome market: LAB majority edges back to favourite for first time since June

The charts are from Betfair’s mobile site which annoyingly don’t show dates. The price data, expressed as a perentage chance, is linked to actual trades on the betting exchange.

Read the full story here

JackW

The first shall be the last .... again.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: apparently, Azerbaijan is now on F1's radar.

SouthamObserver

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

DaemonBarber

As much as I would love to believe that Ed Will Never Be PM, I fear that we are heading that way.
The very thought of it makes me want to vote Yes on 18th September.

Financier

FPT

Re: YouGov

The major reason for the disparity in the VI between today and yesterday is mainly due to the split of the 2010 LibDems. Yesterday it was split 42/31 in favour of Labour and today it is 32/36 in favour of the LDs - which is more usual split..

Re: Trickle Down Effect

We are still suffering from a shortage of starter jobs that used to be filled by school leavers and by returners to work. Technology has and is continuing to eliminate all those low-skilled clerical jobs that used to exist. Hence there is a continuing shake-out in the public sector.

Those that do exist (like call centres) employ people who have no decision-making responsibility and can only parrot a set script. Theoretically that can be done anywhere is the world as long as there are no strong accents. Thus jobs are increasingly being split between the skilled thinkers and creators and the low-skilled dooers (sweepers etc).

Jobs for the unemployable and uneducated currently exist only at minimum wage level or below and these are being grabbed eagerly by immigrants, whilst the UK's unemployed exist unhealthily on unaffordable benefits.

It will be difficult to break this cycle of increasing division of fortune.

MikeSmithson

JackW said:

The first shall be the last .... again.

On this one you are wrong. 2010 LDs are key and, according to all the polling, are staying with their new allegiance. That kills your thesis.

This is just like our argument over Watford at GE2010. I said it would go CON you were resolute that it would be taken by the LDs. What happened - CON won.

anotherDave

Re: UKIP/OfCom
The quote below is from Mr Farage's "Flying Free" book, ch.8 p.130.

"In all that [1999 EU Parliament] campaign UKIP received 3.5 minutes of national coverage out of a total of 624 hours, and yet we won 7% of the nation's votes."

Innocent_Abroad

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

I agree 100%.

A thought: should Ed offer the LibDems a coalition even if he gets an overall majority? Is Labour's benefit from FPTP likely to last beyond the next General Election and if not, what has it to lose by offering a further PR referendum?

TOPPING

Gah...repost fpt

A healthy dose of spite notwithstanding I do think that Lab's heart is in the right place. But if ever there was a case of not growing up and clinging onto left wing student idealism then the Labour party is it.

I think we have seen that they are manifestly not able either to run the economy or to take responsibility for their actions when faced with challenges. One of the several egregious actions they took while in office and perhaps one of the most pernicious was to exclude mortgage costs from its measure of inflation by switching from RPI(X) to CPI (HICP). This meant that although the BoE had autonomy the inflation measure it tracked didn't take into account the rampant house price inflation. (Are you listening @RochdalePioneers?)

But as I say, that was a pre-2010 conversation. My point now is that I think Lab are well-meaning but incompetent (and sometimes disingenuous) while I suppose that the Cons could be portrayed as nasty but competent (and sometimes out of touch).

DaemonBarber

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...
...
In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.
...

What do yo propose that any single government do about the problems with multinational corporations and wealthy footloose peoples?
Bit of a bind isn't it? All very well being able to say you'll be tough on them whilst in opposition, but when in government Labour's record isn't exactly glowing is it? Besides, isn't it better to have these wealthy companies and people here in the country and paying some taxes and spending real money and employing people and investing etc., than taxing them out of here completely?

CD13

HYUFD,

Thanks for the Ashcroft survey ... "Voters think David Cameron is ‘posh and out of touch’, Ed Miliband is a ‘weak idiot’ and Nick Clegg is a ‘spineless liar’, according to a survey".

I reassured by it.

Reassured that my views are common. Ed may still be PM if a weak idiot is the best option. If Ed were not seen as weak, he'd be seen as dangerous instead, and that would cost him at the election.

Better a harmless fool than a malevolent one. Claudius?

compouter2

Show me the crossover....Show me the crossover....oh, wait there.So that is what the PB Hodges meant ;-)

JackW

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: apparently, Azerbaijan is now on F1's radar.

And probably Putin's too !!

TOPPING

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

It is working extremely well for the people in China, India, other emerging economies.

I can never remember whether the Left is for or against globalisation (it is for "aid", for example, but against a diminution of own-country wages - have I got that right?) but this is one of the consequences.

We are a global economy and all global citizens so we should all rejoice that people in the UK (relatively extremely well-off to start with) have effected a wealth transfer to people in LDCs and emerging economies. I mean the parallel is to take money off a banker and give it to a train driver isn't it?

Because surely the left doesn't have a little-Englander mindset which resents a transfer of welath to the less well off regardless of where they are on the planet? Does it?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 13, shade harsh to call Claudius a fool. He was probably far better than the average Roman emperor.

Mr. W, I saw a piece on Azerbaijan a few years ago, suggesting it could become immensely wealthy due to a low population and tons of oil. Not sure what the political situation is, though.

Jonathan

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

The first shall be the last .... again.

On this one you are wrong. 2010 LDs are key and, according to all the polling, are staying with their new allegiance. That kills your thesis.

This is just like our argument over Watford at GE2010. I said it would go CON you were resolute that it would be taken by the LDs. What happened - CON won.

This 2010 LD "new allegiance" is actually probably people returning to an old allegiance. And that is why they are sticky. 2010 was the exception.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

So many unpleasant trends have kicked in simultaneously. Globalisation, while good for people in poor countries, is hammering living standards in rich countries. ICT is making a lot of clerical jobs redundant. Well-off men marry well-off women, concentrating wealth. Indeed, marriage has largely reverted to being the preserve of the well-off. Western countries are over-taxed and over-regulated. Add to that toxic mix, an ageing population.

DaemonBarber

CD13 said:

HYUFD,

Thanks for the Ashcroft survey ... "Voters think David Cameron is ‘posh and out of touch’, Ed Miliband is a ‘weak idiot’ and Nick Clegg is a ‘spineless liar’, according to a survey".

I reassured by it.

Reassured that my views are common. Ed may still be PM if a weak idiot is the best option. If Ed were not seen as weak, he'd be seen as dangerous instead, and that would cost him at the election.

Better a harmless fool than a malevolent one. Claudius?

I just can't help it... Every time I see Ed at the dispatch box, I can't shake the picture of Pitt the Younger from Blackadder the Third.
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I shall be brief, as I have rather unfortunately become Prime Minister right in the middle of my exams."

MikeSmithson

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Innocent_Abroad

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

It is working extremely well for the people in China, India, other emerging economies.

I can never remember whether the Left is for or against globalisation (it is for "aid", for example, but against a diminution of own-country wages - have I got that right?) but this is one of the consequences.

We are a global economy and all global citizens so we should all rejoice that people in the UK (relatively extremely well-off to start with) have effected a wealth transfer to people in LDCs and emerging economies. I mean the parallel is to take money off a banker and give it to a train driver isn't it?

Because surely the left doesn't have a little-Englander mindset which resents a transfer of welath to the less well off regardless of where they are on the planet? Does it?

I also agree with this 100%. Perhaps the most interesting question is this: if we define a "western lifestyle" as one in which the infant mortality rate is say 1 per 500 live births (so far achieved only be Singapore, by the way) can Planet Earth sustain the level of resource exploitation this requires?

NickPalmer

DaemonBarber said:

What do yo propose that any single government do about the problems with multinational corporations and wealthy footloose peoples?
Bit of a bind isn't it? All very well being able to say you'll be tough on them whilst in opposition, but when in government Labour's record isn't exactly glowing is it? Besides, isn't it better to have these wealthy companies and people here in the country and paying some taxes and spending real money and employing people and investing etc., than taxing them out of here completely?

Tony Blair certainly took your view, as you imply. Ed Miliband doesn't - he can't see a sectional interest (banks, energy companies, Murdoch, the Mail, even the odd Labour structure) without itching to take it on. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's very different, though not obvious because Tony's style was far more overtly combative.

Personally I don't favour each country sucking up to multinationals and pleading for a little slice of the cake. I think we have to be multinational too (EU yes, and more G8/G20 work too), and work to reignite the drive on tax havens that briefly flourished after the 2008 crisis and made a bit of genuine progress. Many other governments are quite receptive as they have the same problem, but Britain is usually hesitant as we have the Channel Islands (hello Carlotta) and worse, so we flatter ourselves that we get a bit more cake from the big boys.

Will it be easy? No. But as you imply, we are among the victims of a global protection racket, and playing along with it forever is a bad idea.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Smithson, like gay marriage and overseas aid?

Mr. Abroad, technological progress means it's a shifting situation. Also, there was a very interesting statistical piece linked to here a week or two ago suggesting the global population will stabilise (I forget the figure, probably 9-11bn).

compouter2

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Jonathan

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Just imagine if Blair had spent his time in office obsessing about Respect and forgetting the mainstream. Cameron really created the UKIP phenomenon by pandering to it.

Scrapheap_as_was

Humbug!

I'm off to bury my head in the sand.

TOPPING

NickPalmer said:

...we are among the victims of a global protection racket, and playing along with it forever is a bad idea.

Seriously Nick? Who is running this protection racket (bearing in mind the UK is what, the 4th largest economy in the world)?

I worry that this is the sort of soundbite that secures eg @RochdalePioneers' vote at the expense of pragmatic politics.

JohnWheatley

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

This is "moaning middle class" syndrome.

Are you saying GDP in UK is going to decline in the future. No sign of the long term trend of a couple of hundred years going into reverse.

It is tougher for youngsters in one sense because there are more people competing for the jobs. In my yoof 15% of students did tertiary education - now I suppose it is 40%+. But the total number of "graduate placements" has not doubled.

Basically those pesky working classes and immigrants have had the temerity to take jobs previously the preserve of nice middle class kids. Also we have exported jobs - so the world's wealth is being more evenly spread

Isn't that a good thing?

Innocent_Abroad

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Smithson, like gay marriage and overseas aid?

Mr. Abroad, technological progress means it's a shifting situation. Also, there was a very interesting statistical piece linked to here a week or two ago suggesting the global population will stabilise (I forget the figure, probably 9-11bn).

You mean that you don't know. Neither do I. Yes, the human population will stabilise once people have insurance systems of one sort or another for their old age and so don't need grandchildren to look after them. Whether other people's grandchildren will actually be willing to do so in a "westernized" world is another good question...

stodge

Morning all

I'm fairly relaxed about Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister if it happens. All LOTOs are characterised as "naïve" or "not up to the task" by their opponents. It happened to Cameron, Blair and even Margaret Thatcher.

To be fair, very few of those coming into Government in either 1997 or 2010 had serious Ministerial experience (Ken Clarke a notable exception) so it's just not important. All incoming leaders are by definition new and of course in global terms there will be a new US President in early 2017 and even Angela Merkel won't be there forever so the passage of time helps with the formation of experience.

I do think if I were (to quote Seth) the "blessed St George", I'd be looking at the 40% threshold for tax rather than cutting rates as well as raising personal allowances. The proportion paying higher rate tax, especially but not exclusively in London, is worth considering if you're looking at suburban marginal seats.

As for the polls, the Conservative figure on ComRes looks light but the remarkable solidity of the Labour vote remains key. Sometimes, as some on here understand so despondently, it's not about logic or reason but emotion.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, I think it's legitimate to flag up Conservative failings in handling UKIP (including ignoring white van man and the like to create fertile ground for the purple beanstalk to take root). However, I also think this would be a good Parliament for UKIP regardless of what the blues did.

My reasoning is thus:
1) Coalition. This means two parties of government to kick, reducing the national protest vote (of established parties) to just the one.
2) Ed Miliband. Not the most charismatic of leaders.
3) Cameron, Miliband, Clegg. All about the same age, all with the same background and current worldview, all with pretty similar approaches to many areas. The difference on the EU is an issue of shade, not hue. Anybody wanting something different has to look to a nationalist party or UKIP.
4) General dissatisfaction with politics, combination of expenses hangover and current identi-kit leaderships.

macisback

Of course Miliband is weak, he was to spineless to move Burnham, who is a lame duck in Health. He though is totally single minded in his determination to gain power, it seems he wants it more than the Tories.

What he offers that make anybody think they will be better off though is beyond me.

Sean_F

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Just imagine if Blair had spent his time in office obsessing about Respect and forgetting the mainstream. Cameron really created the UKIP phenomenon by pandering to it.

Respect's support was limited to a minority of the Muslim population. UKIP's support is far greater.

Had Cameron been more determinedly left-wing, then UKIP's support would be even greater than it now is.

CD13

Mr Dancer,

As young people say ..."How can I be expected to know anything about that, I wasn't born then." So I accept your expert opinion. I only watched the BBC series 'I Claudius' and was under the impression that the Praetorian guard thought he was a harmless fool. They sort of elected him on that basis.

OGH,

Whether Ed is weak or not is irrelevant, he just looks like softy Walter. He needs to be careful, though. Once the electorate realise he means it, rather than means well, he could be in trouble.

richardDodd

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

compouter2

What has happened to right wing band of sarcastics who joined D.U.E.M.A. recently, seemed to have gone very very quiet across the media outlets. Cannot think why.

JackW

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

The first shall be the last .... again.

On this one you are wrong. 2010 LDs are key and, according to all the polling, are staying with their new allegiance. That kills your thesis.

This is just like our argument over Watford at GE2010. I said it would go CON you were resolute that it would be taken by the LDs. What happened - CON won.

My dear old Bedford Kiddies Sweetie Snatcher I fear you have hold of the wrong end of the liquorice stick.

The "First Shall be The Last" is a biblical reference. It refers to Jesus indicating that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be no hierarchies and in my context indicates that in this earthy world there will no majority government for one party but another Coalition government where the yellows and blues will live in perfect harmony for another five years.

As for Watford, tis true.

I regard the result as a warning from the political gods that us mere mortals are mere flesh and bones and potential pies and we should not flirt with the sin of hubris .... my ARSE excepted of course as that indeed is a gift from the gods.

You will also find that when the grim reaper comes, like Mary I of England who said Calais would be found lying in her heart, you will find "Watford" emblazoned on my non-beating organ !!

BobaFett

macisback said:

Of course Miliband is weak, he was to spineless to move Burnham, who is a lame duck in Health. He though is totally single minded in his determination to gain power, it seems he wants it more than the Tories.

What he offers that make anybody think they will be better off though is beyond me.

Simple: a willingness to take on vested interests. People are sick of being ripped off by privatised monopolies. It may or may not work, but he has the cojones to have a crack at them.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 13, I, Claudius is splendid. A leading female character in Kingdom Asunder is loosely inspired by Livia.

Claudius might have been thought of as a fool, but as both his predecessor and successor met sticky ends it seems better a fool than a knave.

Miliband cried over Copenhagen and played party politics over Syria (a matter of war and peace). I think I'd rather Clegg became PM.

Miliband also has yet to apologise for his comments about Mitchell.

compouter2

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

One of his notable ones is he will do something which Cameron failed to do, win a majority.

foxinsoxuk

Social mobility in both directions? Unless we have a continuing expansion of the middle class there will be those descending as well as ascending.

Mostly the movement is lower middle to upper middle and vice versa, with both very top and very bottom unchanging...

JohnWheatley said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

This is "moaning middle class" syndrome.

Are you saying GDP in UK is going to decline in the future. No sign of the long term trend of a couple of hundred years going into reverse.

It is tougher for youngsters in one sense because there are more people competing for the jobs. In my yoof 15% of students did tertiary education - now I suppose it is 40%+. But the total number of "graduate placements" has not doubled.

Basically those pesky working classes and immigrants have had the temerity to take jobs previously the preserve of nice middle class kids. Also we have exported jobs - so the world's wealth is being more evenly spread

Isn't that a good thing?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, that's true, but Miliband's cackhandedness in the energy sector (which he was responsible for as Secretary of State) suggests a serious lack of understanding.

And yes, I'm aware that the policy generally has gone down well, but as Ammianus Marcellinus wrote in the late 4th century (AD), it's well-known that fixing the price of commodoties leads to shortages, famines and even a total loss of supply.

Jonathan

TOPPING said:

Gah...repost fpt

A healthy dose of spite notwithstanding I do think that Lab's heart is in the right place. But if ever there was a case of not growing up and clinging onto left wing student idealism then the Labour party is it.

This is one of the weaknesses of the right these days. They are often so self-assured (if not self-righteous), they frequently label anyone who disagrees as not grown-up. Not only is it patronising, it is ultimately entirely self-defeating as they fail to engage in the argument.

Ironically, right wingers like Gove, Hannan or Carswell hardly exude gritty, down-to-earth realism do they? As for the ultimate grown-up, I wonder if Rees-Mogg still canvases with his nanny?

BobaFett

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

Verulamius

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

The first shall be the last .... again.

On this one you are wrong. 2010 LDs are key and, according to all the polling, are staying with their new allegiance. That kills your thesis.

This is just like our argument over Watford at GE2010. I said it would go CON you were resolute that it would be taken by the LDs. What happened - CON won.

This 2010 LD "new allegiance" is actually probably people returning to an old allegiance. And that is why they are sticky. 2010 was the exception.

If you look at the Populus 14k data at the party ID label the 2010 LD to L switchers are mainly L ID. The L ID was very split in its voting in 2010, probably a Brown and Cleggasm joint effect. We are seeing the rewind from that.

richardDodd

C2.. Hero worship does not hack it..can you point out his strength's please... not what you dream about

BenM

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

Not sure I share your pessimistic analysis SO.

While I still think a hung parliament is the most likely outcome in May 2015 with Ed leading up another coalition, the window for a Tory recovery is narrowing every week, and there is little prospect of this kind of Osborne-ite Tory 'recovery' benefitting enough people to feed through to the polls.

It will be critical for Ed to trash Osborne's dreadful legacy as soon as possible after May 2015 in order to buy enough time to implement the kind of economic policy that will make a real difference to the most people. There will be howls of outrage from Tory quarters, but just as the Tories ignored their lack of mandate after 2010, Ed can ignore the screeching from his political enemies who have near enough now fatally underestimated him.

You're right, Ed'll only have a window of 4 years say which is why some sort of budget intervention a few months into the parliament setting out massively increased investment, the end of wage freezes with above inflation settlements and so on will be needed. Otherwise the economy will continue to suffer this crypto stagnation, growing but going nowhere and not feeding into the polls.

If he does this, then 2020 prospects will be much brighter, the Tories perhaps permanently diminished with their bankrupt ideology in tatters. The downside risks aren't as high as everyone thinks so long as he grabs the City by the throat and keeps it on a very short leash.

compouter2

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

DaemonBarber

NickPalmer said:

DaemonBarber said:

...
Will it be easy? No. But as you imply, we are among the victims of a global protection racket, and playing along with it forever is a bad idea.

It's not really a protection racket is it? Global corporations seeking to base factories/offices/shops/blah/blah here in the UK are not the same as the Vercotti Brothers threatening to break a few tanks should we not pay them.
They are seeking the best environment for them (lowest tax and regulation regimes) which in turn they provide jobs, wealth, taxes etc. I know the left likes to portray this as equivalent to a protection racket but the reality is quite different.

Have we got the right balance between tax and regulation levels?

TGOHF

Ed on camera every night for 6 weeks ? Won't end well.... look what happened to Hague and Brown.

If the Cons want to remain in gov they have to earn their corn starting with the budget - no "steady as she goes" nonsense - the danger has passed - time to be radical - even if it isn't a massive giveaway in total.

compouter2

richardDodd said:

C2.. Hero worship does not hack it..can you point out his strength's please... not what you dream about

May 2015 - Dream becomes a reality. Don't fight the inevitable, embrace it.

TGOHF

compouter2 said:

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

One of his notable ones is he will do something which Cameron failed to do, win a majority.

Ed has certainly shown his strengths in the IndyRef campaign - he has been like a majestic badger : hidden sleeping in a dark hole...

[Deleted User]

FPT

I certainly do not think Labour should be criminalised.

Any decent functioning democracy needs a viable choice of left wing party. But I do think the premise for both right and left options should, as a minimum, be not wrecking the national finances. There is a good and moral argument to be had for balancing the books in a high spend high tax social democratic way. Personally I don't support this as it tends over time to lower growth and shrink the pie. There is a good and moral case, which I support, for a low spend low tax / more dynamic economy. And yes this does mean less social justice and is my preference over general impoverishment.

What there is no moral or coherent argument for whatsoever is 'high spend low tax borrow the difference forever' financial lunacy. All I want is for Labour to leran to tax the money they wish to spend instead of borrowing it.

compouter2

TGOHF said:

Ed on camera every night for 6 weeks ? Won't end well.... look what happened to Hague and Brown.

If the Cons want to remain in gov they have to earn their corn starting with the budget - no "steady as she goes" nonsense - the danger has passed - time to be radical - even if it isn't a massive giveaway in total.

But haven't the Tories and most notably Gideon and Dave effed this up. One says we must remain cautious, while the other says within 24 hours of this statement that for the marginals, money is no object. Mixed messages from the top.

TGOHF

compouter2 said:

TGOHF said:

Ed on camera every night for 6 weeks ? Won't end well.... look what happened to Hague and Brown.

If the Cons want to remain in gov they have to earn their corn starting with the budget - no "steady as she goes" nonsense - the danger has passed - time to be radical - even if it isn't a massive giveaway in total.

But haven't the Tories and most notably Gideon and Dave effed this up. One says we must remain cautious, while the other says within 24 hours of this statement that for the marginals, money is no object. Mixed messages from the top.

Pouter - the budget is as yet undelivered - might be premature to write it off quite yet. Similar to "Ed's huge majority" - as yet it is just a theory.

Jonathan

Sean_F said:

Respect's support was limited to a minority of the Muslim population. UKIP's support is far greater.

It wasn't just Respect, but the LDs too who spent most the noughties trying to outflank Labour on the left picking up anti-war support. Blair didn't give a toss and ploughed on. And regardless of whether you think that right, it was quite effective electorally.

Sean_F said:

Had Cameron been more determinedly left-wing, then UKIP's support would be even greater than it now is.

Cameron has essentially let UKIP set his agenda and that is never good. He has spent less time talking about the economy as a result. If the focus had been on the economy and demonstrable domestic progress, he would have kept more kippers like yourself on board.

richardDodd

C2..So Milliband only has strength's in your dreams.. that figures.. dream on boy.

eek

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: apparently, Azerbaijan is now on F1's radar.

Considering they spend $6bn a year on architecture (its fabulous and totally useless) a F1 race would be a bargain in comparison...

Worth looking at http://www.yatzer.com/heydar-aliyev-center-baku-azerbaijan-zaha-hadid-architects for just 1 building

compouter2

TGOHF - While I would love Ed to get a huge majority, I very much doubt it. However, as the right wingers across the press used to post in a sarcastic manner, but has strangely gone very quiet. D.U.E.M.

TwistedFireStopper

PM Milliband won't be that much different from PM Cameron, who wasn't that far removed from PM Blair (I'm not counting Brown as PM, he was barmy).
They've all got similar backgrounds, world views and aims for the future (which is pretty much just to get the job, and not feck it up enough to foul the lucrative job offers after they get booted out, cf Brown).

Anyone who thinks Milliband is going to lead us to the Sunny Uplands is as foolish as anyone who thinks he's going to lead us to destruction. He talks tough at the moment, but his wings'll get clipped once he gets into number 10. Meet the new Boss, same as the old 'un.

BobaFett

@Compouter2
Avery is just an amenable Tory spinner - a nice chap but not to be taken seriously.
Fitalass is a very nice lady but I think even her colleagues on the centre-right would say she is not known for her tips. Rod however is - so we have to take him seriously even if we don't want to. That's why I am focused on his May 1 prediction - if that goes bust it may be game on.

Sean_F

I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.

Financier

BenM said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

snip

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

Not sure I share your pessimistic analysis SO.

While I still think a hung parliament is the most likely outcome in May 2015 with Ed leading up another coalition, the window for a Tory recovery is narrowing every week, and there is little prospect of this kind of Osborne-ite Tory 'recovery' benefitting enough people to feed through to the polls.

It will be critical for Ed to trash Osborne's dreadful legacy as soon as possible after May 2015 in order to buy enough time to implement the kind of economic policy that will make a real difference to the most people. There will be howls of outrage from Tory quarters, but just as the Tories ignored their lack of mandate after 2010, Ed can ignore the screeching from his political enemies who have near enough now fatally underestimated him.

You're right, Ed'll only have a window of 4 years say which is why some sort of budget intervention a few months into the parliament setting out massively increased investment, the end of wage freezes with above inflation settlements and so on will be needed. Otherwise the economy will continue to suffer this crypto stagnation, growing but going nowhere and not feeding into the polls.

If he does this, then 2020 prospects will be much brighter, the Tories perhaps permanently diminished with their bankrupt ideology in tatters. The downside risks aren't as high as everyone thinks so long as he grabs the City by the throat and keeps it on a very short leash.

@BernM

Please will you explain the results of your suggested economic policy in terms of: interest rate, inflation rate; balance of payments; unemployment rate; exchange rates; the deficit and the debt (including cost of international borrowing).

compouter2

richardDodd said:

C2..So Milliband only has strength's in your dreams.. that figures.. dream on boy.

Would you like to give a prediction for a polling crossover. Just for laughs?

TGOHF

compouter2 said:

TGOHF - While I would love Ed to get a huge majority, I very much doubt it. However, as the right wingers across the press used to post in a sarcastic manner, but has strangely gone very quiet. D.U.E.M.

I hope Ed stays as Labour leader until the GE - and the one after that. He can't win the GE - he is just too crap - he is relying on Cameron losing it (which is possible).

BobaFett

@Compouter2
Avery is just an amenable Tory spinner - a nice chap but not to be taken seriously.
Fitalass is a very nice lady but I think even her colleagues on the centre-right would say she is not known for her tips. Rod however is - so we have to take him seriously even if we don't want to. That's why I am focused on his May 1 prediction - if that goes bust it may be game on.

compouter2

BobaFett said:

@Compouter2
Avery is just an amenable Tory spinner - a nice chap but not to be taken seriously.
Fitalass is a very nice lady but I think even her colleagues on the centre-right would say she is not known for her tips. Rod however is - so we have to take him seriously even if we don't want to. That's why I am focused on his May 1 prediction - if that goes bust it may be game on.

Less than two months to go....oooh the anticipation.

Bond_James_Bond

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

Margaret Thatcher made it respectable to be prosperous. Miliband wants to make it respectable to be envious.

I would call it a personality defect rather than a strength, but there's no doubt it resonates.

BobaFett

@Morris
I am willing to have a charity bet with you that Miliband's policy will not lead to power cuts - you've bought the spin line from the energy companies. They would say that, wouldn't they?

Next target should be the train companies and their insane ticketing structures.

Pulpstar

The conservative majority price has consistently been utterly wrong on Betfair for yonks.

I'd love to know the idiots buying at 7/2.

JackW

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

compouter2 said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

I too am looking forward to General Election night ....

Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.

And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.

Jonathan

Sean_F said:

I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.

It's a good point, the Labour lead is too small to be counted on on polling day.

But on the other hand. Unlike 2005-10 we are in a hung parliament. The Tory position in parliament is very weak. It would take very little for Labour to become the largest party and a majority is a much smaller ask than it was for Cameron in 2010.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, I didn't say it'd lead to power cuts. I said the policy was stupid (and it is).

Also, I don't bet with pbers, only a bookie/exchange.

Bond_James_Bond

BenM said:

The downside risks aren't as high as everyone thinks so long as he grabs the City by the throat and keeps it on a very short leash.

The City is no longer regulated by the UK government. This activity has been outsourced to ESMA. What Ed does or does not do is neither here nor there.

richardDodd

C2 A prediction for crossover?..No..I am still waiting for a Milliband supporter to list his strengths...no one seems to be able to think of any

Charles

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

compouter2

JackW said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

compouter2 said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

I too am looking forward to General Election night ....

Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.

And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.

Wonder who will be the Stephen Twigg of 1997. The memorable win against a well known Tory foe. Who do you think the public would like to see humbled before the cameras out of the current cabinet?

TGOHF

Charles said:

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

Sssh - just top up on NOM at better prices

BobaFett

@Morris

You have just bought the spin line from the energy companies!

BobaFett

JackW said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

compouter2 said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

I too am looking forward to General Election night ....

Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.

And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.

The Right take solace in 1992.
In 1992 Labour had to overcome a Tory majority of 100+ IIRC...

Bond_James_Bond

Jonathan said:

It wasn't just Respect, but the LDs too who spent most the noughties trying to outflank Labour on the left picking up anti-war support. Blair didn't give a toss and ploughed on. And regardless of whether you think that right, it was quite effective electorally.

Except inasmuch as his voye share declined to a level that would not ordinarily have gained him a majority.

Blair was fortunate in his economic inheritance and even more fortunate in his boundaries. Had he inherited the economic situation of say 1979 or 2010, can anyone doubt he'd have been a one-term PM?

BobaFett

JackW said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

compouter2 said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

I too am looking forward to General Election night ....

Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.

And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.

You too will wiggle your Arse if the "facts change"

SouthamObserver

JohnWheatley said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

This is "moaning middle class" syndrome.

Are you saying GDP in UK is going to decline in the future. No sign of the long term trend of a couple of hundred years going into reverse.

It is tougher for youngsters in one sense because there are more people competing for the jobs. In my yoof 15% of students did tertiary education - now I suppose it is 40%+. But the total number of "graduate placements" has not doubled.

Basically those pesky working classes and immigrants have had the temerity to take jobs previously the preserve of nice middle class kids. Also we have exported jobs - so the world's wealth is being more evenly spread

Isn't that a good thing?

I am all for wealth being exported to poorer countries, but I am also in favour of it being redistributed in richer countries. Whether it is middle class whinging or not, the reality is that many, many voters are correct to believe that their living standards will not improve and that their children will also struggle. You can class such voters as moaners if you wish, but the fact is that they are still voters. if they feel they have no stake in an economic system which is increasingly benefiting only a minority, in the end they will vote for very radical solutions - not just in the UK but in many other places too. As someone who would prefer to avoid that scenario, I think we need to be looking much more closely at managed change now, rather than leaving it to populist demagogues on the left and the right further down the line.

compouter2

Charles said:

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

Wonder if he does a thread on Rod's prediction of a polling crossover by May 1st, throws a few graphs together and then shows Rods accuracy with previous predictions, will the markets move back?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, I'm reasonably sure Ammianus Marcellinus' history of the Later Roman Empire was not influenced by British Gas.

SouthamObserver

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...

It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.

The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.

In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.

It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.

It is working extremely well for the people in China, India, other emerging economies.

I can never remember whether the Left is for or against globalisation (it is for "aid", for example, but against a diminution of own-country wages - have I got that right?) but this is one of the consequences.

We are a global economy and all global citizens so we should all rejoice that people in the UK (relatively extremely well-off to start with) have effected a wealth transfer to people in LDCs and emerging economies. I mean the parallel is to take money off a banker and give it to a train driver isn't it?

Because surely the left doesn't have a little-Englander mindset which resents a transfer of welath to the less well off regardless of where they are on the planet? Does it?

As far as I can see the neither the mainstream left nor the mainstream right have begun to think about these things in the depth they should. That's why I say that if Labour do get in next time they are highly likely to be kicked out again in 2020. In fact, seeing all this through the prism of traditional left and right is so tediously 20th century in the first place. It's easy to do and is in many ways comforting, but it is not going to solve the problems that we have in the west and which are beginning to appear - and be noticed - in Asia too.

Jonathan

Charles said:

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

But why does OGH move markets? It's because he tends to be right and people make money backing his predictions.

TheScreamingEagles

Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage are to go head-to-head on BBC television in a debate on Britain's future in Europe.

The hour-long debate will be shown on BBC2 from 7pm on Wednesday, 2 April, and will be hosted by David Dimbleby.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26443312

Charles

NickPalmer said:

DaemonBarber said:

What do yo propose that any single government do about the problems with multinational corporations and wealthy footloose peoples?
Bit of a bind isn't it? All very well being able to say you'll be tough on them whilst in opposition, but when in government Labour's record isn't exactly glowing is it? Besides, isn't it better to have these wealthy companies and people here in the country and paying some taxes and spending real money and employing people and investing etc., than taxing them out of here completely?

Tony Blair certainly took your view, as you imply. Ed Miliband doesn't - he can't see a sectional interest (banks, energy companies, Murdoch, the Mail, even the odd Labour structure) without itching to take it on. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's very different, though not obvious because Tony's style was far more overtly combative.

Personally I don't favour each country sucking up to multinationals and pleading for a little slice of the cake. I think we have to be multinational too (EU yes, and more G8/G20 work too), and work to reignite the drive on tax havens that briefly flourished after the 2008 crisis and made a bit of genuine progress. Many other governments are quite receptive as they have the same problem, but Britain is usually hesitant as we have the Channel Islands (hello Carlotta) and worse, so we flatter ourselves that we get a bit more cake from the big boys.

Will it be easy? No. But as you imply, we are among the victims of a global protection racket, and playing along with it forever is a bad idea.

Great. So when is he taking on the vested interests in the education and health sector?

Or is it just nasty non-Labour supporting vested interests that he can't resist taking on?

And you are being very unfair to Osborne- he has been at the forefront of closing down tax loopholes and making life harder for tax havens. After 13 years of ignoring the problem by the guys you backed and voted with.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I hope Ladbrokes will offer a market on words/phrases used.

Pulpstar

compouter2 said:

Wonder who will be the Stephen Twigg of 1997. The memorable win against a well known Tory foe. Who do you think the public would like to see humbled before the cameras out of the current cabinet?

Danny Alexander could well be 2015's Portillo.

SouthamObserver

DaemonBarber said:

SouthamObserver said:

Repost ...
...
In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.
...

What do yo propose that any single government do about the problems with multinational corporations and wealthy footloose peoples?
Bit of a bind isn't it? All very well being able to say you'll be tough on them whilst in opposition, but when in government Labour's record isn't exactly glowing is it? Besides, isn't it better to have these wealthy companies and people here in the country and paying some taxes and spending real money and employing people and investing etc., than taxing them out of here completely?

Which bit of "Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it is returned to power in 2015" is so difficult to understand?

There is no single country solution to dealing with the growing inequities that our current economic model is producing. But that does not mean that the wealthy beyond imagination corporations and individuals will be able to go on gaming things indefinitely. In the end, there will be changes - and the longer it takes, the more radical and harmful to the interests of the super wealthy they will be.

TGOHF

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

But why does OGH move markets? It's because he tends to be right and people make money backing his predictions.

Any update on the John Kerry for Democrat nomination price ?

Charles

compouter2 said:

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

One of his notable ones is he will do something which Cameron failed to do, win a majority.

You can't isolate that to being Ed Miliband vs. the structural advantages that Labour currently has.

JackW

BobaFett said:

JackW said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

compouter2 said:

BobaFett said:

compouter2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

People who think EdM is weak are fools.

The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.

Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.

Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.

I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.

I too am looking forward to General Election night ....

Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.

And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.

You too will wiggle your Arse if the "facts change"

When months before the 2010 GE my ARSE was predicting a hung parliament in the face of substantial Conservative leads it was consistently attacked from the right and now the reverse is true with Labour supporters ignoring the coming truth and indeed with a much narrower lead for the opposition than that enjoyed by the Tories

Accordingly and for the avoidance of any doubt let me say :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Ishmael_X

compouter2 said:

Charles said:

Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.

- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour

In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics

Wonder if he does a thread on Rod's prediction of a polling crossover by May 1st, throws a few graphs together and then shows Rods accuracy with previous predictions, will the markets move back?

This is truly pathetic stuff. Rod called GE2010 right, from years out. You "leaked" a YouGov on this site a couple of hours ahead of time on the basis of insider knowledge, and were wrong. Making you, unassailably, the most ridiculous poster on the site.

SouthamObserver

Bond_James_Bond said:

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

Margaret Thatcher made it respectable to be prosperous. Miliband wants to make it respectable to be envious.

I would call it a personality defect rather than a strength, but there's no doubt it resonates.

That is a very warming comfort blanket, no doubt; but it is, of course, fatuous nonsense. Or can you explain how Miliband wants to make envy respectable?

anotherDave

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage are to go head-to-head on BBC television in a debate on Britain's future in Europe.

The hour-long debate will be shown on BBC2 from 7pm on Wednesday, 2 April, and will be hosted by David Dimbleby.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26443312

There will also be a debate on LBC on 26th March.

"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."

http://www.lbc.co.uk/lbc-to-host-nick-v-nigel-debate-on-europe-86943

TheScreamingEagles

From the BBC audience will ask Clegg/Farage questions.

@robindbrant: Dimbleby to host. BBC says reputable polling firm will chose audience

TGOHF

SouthamObserver said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

richardDodd said:

What exactly are Millibands strength's ?...if he has any he certainly keps them well hidden.

Margaret Thatcher made it respectable to be prosperous. Miliband wants to make it respectable to be envious.

I would call it a personality defect rather than a strength, but there's no doubt it resonates.

That is a very warming comfort blanket, no doubt; but it is, of course, fatuous nonsense. Or can you explain how Miliband wants to make envy respectable?

Proof of that is he doesn't like the tax thresholds being raised as it only benefits those working.

TheScreamingEagles

These debates are going to be like the Rumble in the jungle.

Or like a comic book crossover if Loki took on Batman.