politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the budget a Survation poll restricted to tho

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the budget a Survation poll restricted to those in employment has LAB lead of 17 percent

There’s a new Survation poll out this morning where the sample is restricted to those in employment either full-time or part-time. It was commissioned by Unions 21 but the target sample was all those working not just union members.

Read the full story here

JackW

Titters ....

Mick_Pork

Latest JackARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown :

1 hour 1 minute 11 seconds

The new and improved "old man methane" projection will be accompanied by a lavish illustration of the intense 'scientific' methodology employed for all to draw their own conclusions from.

*chortle*

Easterross

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Easterross

Jack hope your arse is doing its warm up exercises! Looking forward to your McArse poll in an hour

TGOHF

Were self employed included ?

Are employed people more likely to vote ?

Will the next poll be asking those called Kevin or who are Libra ?

GeoffM

There is nothing to compare this with in the past so it is hard to say whether there is a trend or not.

Eh? Hard to say? Under what circumstances is it "easy" to work out a trend from a single point?

[Deleted User]

I don't understand this poll. We are seeing the gold standard polling showing a Labour lead of a few % max right now. If there is a 17% Labour lead among those in work then those not in work must be strongly more towards Con. Makes no sense to me, especially so since unemployment is falling.

So...I'm wondering what the sample of 'in work' is. Is the split between public sector / private sector properly representative? I have no doubt that 17% makes absolute sense for in work public sector employees. Has the union commissioned a public sector poll without realising it?

JackW

Latest Mick_Pork ARSE Stalking Post Countdown :

Tick Tock ....

Alanbrooke

Brogan on parallels between Indyref and Euroref.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100264079/scotlands-independence-referendum-could-be-a-dry-run-for-a-euro-inout-vote-in-2017/

JackW

Easterross said:

Jack hope your arse is doing its warm up exercises! Looking forward to your McArse poll in an hour

It is in fine shape and in the words of OGH will be "interesting".

Mick_Pork

Latest JackARSE Petulant Post Countdown :

Tick Tock .....

Robert_Of_Sheffield

Patrick said:

I don't understand this poll. We are seeing the gold standard polling showing a Labour lead of a few % max right now. If there is a 17% Labour lead among those in work then those not in work must be strongly more towards Con. Makes no sense to me, especially so since unemployment is falling.

Could be high Conservative support among pensioners.

SimonStClare

It was commissioned by ‘Unions21’ and excludes those not in jobs, the retired, employers, students, full time mums etc. - Okey-dokey…!

Surely Eddie Izzard entering Scotland's referendum debate is more worthy of debate ?

GeoffM

Patrick said:

So...I'm wondering what the sample of 'in work' is. Is the split between public sector / private sector properly representative? I have no doubt that 17% makes absolute sense for in work public sector employees. Has the union commissioned a public sector poll without realising it?

The exclusion of "employers" is also interesting as they are more likely to be sympathetic to the current business friendly approach by government than ungrateful greedy selfish staff.

JackW

Latest Mick_Pork Crap Contribution Count :

5,710

BobaFett

Labour. Party of the working man.

Scott_P

BobaFett said:

Labour. Party of the working man.

Does he have a name?

BobaFett

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

Innocent_Abroad

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

Patrick said:

I don't understand this poll. We are seeing the gold standard polling showing a Labour lead of a few % max right now. If there is a 17% Labour lead among those in work then those not in work must be strongly more towards Con. Makes no sense to me, especially so since unemployment is falling.

Could be high Conservative support among pensioners.

Good to see you here, Robert. It is undoubtedly pensioners and the self-employed who provide the bulk of tory support since they always have - the only surprise is that some right-wing posters here are surprised (or pretend to be).

GeoffM

BobaFett said:

Labour. Party of the working man.

I am an employer and therefore excluded from this poll. But I am also a working man.
The groups which have been cobbled together to make up this survey are unrepresentative of anything.

CarlottaVance

*NB: the national poll of 14-15th January was weighted by 2010 vote, whereas the employees poll was not, as no such targets are available.

- See more at: http://survation.com/#sthash.p3xo80bW.dpuf

Innocent_Abroad

GeoffM said:

Patrick said:

So...I'm wondering what the sample of 'in work' is. Is the split between public sector / private sector properly representative? I have no doubt that 17% makes absolute sense for in work public sector employees. Has the union commissioned a public sector poll without realising it?

The exclusion of "employers" is also interesting as they are more likely to be sympathetic to the current business friendly approach by government than ungrateful greedy selfish staff.

So, if a party voted to criminalise employment (perhaps replacing it with slavery), you'd vote for it. eh, Geoff?

DavidL

As Mike says it is difficult to draw much from this without a comparator or base. Presumably as someone in self employment I would not be eligible to have my views taken into account. There are now several million self employed in this country.

What I think we can draw from the ancillary questions asked by Yougov and others is that over recent times those in employment have generally been apprehensive about their employment prospects and that they remain so in the public sector in particular. For those not in the public sector there has been a marked increase in confidence about the future over the last year but this was from an extremely low base and the Survation finding about continuing concern is not that surprising.

We have also undoubtedly endured one of the longest and most profound reductions in real earnings in history. We can argue about the causes of that all day but it is a fact that will impact on peoples' perceptions. The stats are confusing about this because aggregate pay is distorted by the significant increase of those in employment over the last year in particular along with ever increasing high pay at the top end (partly driven by the pressure put on the bonus culture) but the 73% are probably more right than not in their assessment.

Over the coming year confidence (outside the public sector where headcount reductions will continue) should continue to fall and real wages should begin to rise again. If this exercise is repeated it should show an improvement in tory fortunes. If it doesn't we have yet another example of the vote free recovery.

DavidL

As Mike says it is difficult to draw much from this without a comparator or base. Presumably as someone in self employment I would not be eligible to have my views taken into account. There are now several million self employed in this country.

What I think we can draw from the ancillary questions asked by Yougov and others is that over recent times those in employment have generally been apprehensive about their employment prospects and that they remain so in the public sector in particular. For those not in the public sector there has been a marked increase in confidence about the future over the last year but this was from an extremely low base and the Survation finding about continuing concern is not that surprising.

We have also undoubtedly endured one of the longest and most profound reductions in real earnings in history. We can argue about the causes of that all day but it is a fact that will impact on peoples' perceptions. The stats are confusing about this because aggregate pay is distorted by the significant increase of those in employment over the last year in particular along with ever increasing high pay at the top end (partly driven by the pressure put on the bonus culture) but the 73% are probably more right than not in their assessment.

Over the coming year confidence (outside the public sector where headcount reductions will continue) should continue to rise and real wages should begin to rise again. If this exercise is repeated it should show an improvement in tory fortunes. If it doesn't we have yet another example of the vote free recovery.

JackW

SimonStClare said:

It was commissioned by ‘Unions21’ and excludes those not in jobs, the retired, employers, students, full time mums etc. - Okey-dokey…!

Surely Eddie Izzard entering Scotland's referendum debate is more worthy of debate ?

Indeed so and with precisely six months to go before a decisive NO victory I think a thread with the following header, written by 'Peter the Punter' would be appropriate :

"Izzard Cross Dressing NO To Scottish Referendum Victory"

Monksfield

GeoffM said:

BobaFett said:

Labour. Party of the working man.

I am an employer and therefore excluded from this poll. But I am also a working man.
The groups which have been cobbled together to make up this survey are unrepresentative of anything.

I thought you lived in Gib too!

I guess the question is whether those currently in employment move to the right when they retire. In my experience the boomers definitely skew right whilst Gen X has a much more moderate left lean.

Mick_Pork

The JackARSE projection illustration is in fine shape and in the words of JackW himself will be

Titters ....

Latest JackARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown :

37 minutes 30 seconds

This exclusive look behind the methodology and rigorous scientific approach put into every JackARSE projection will sadly have it's critics among the crotchety and humourless.

Rest assured though the "old man methane" that went into this illustration of the JackARSE projection will at least be 100% more information than the 'shy' JackW himself ever gives to justify his numbers.

Meanwhile here's a sneak peak from the forthcoming JackARSE May EU Election projection of the headline figures and the intense scientific thought behind them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Sq4n4kt2k

Clearly the most thought provoking and rigorous psephology at the cutting edge.

JackARSE must surely have Farage worried with that projection.

DavidL

Sorry I am having real problems posting today and cannot correct the double posting or indeed the mistake in it where it says that confidence will continue to fall instead of rise.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

As Mike says it is difficult to draw much from this without a comparator or base. Presumably as someone in self employment I would not be eligible to have my views taken into account. There are now several million self employed in this country.

What I think we can draw from the ancillary questions asked by Yougov and others is that over recent times those in employment have generally been apprehensive about their employment prospects and that they remain so in the public sector in particular. For those not in the public sector there has been a marked increase in confidence about the future over the last year but this was from an extremely low base and the Survation finding about continuing concern is not that surprising.

We have also undoubtedly endured one of the longest and most profound reductions in real earnings in history. We can argue about the causes of that all day but it is a fact that will impact on peoples' perceptions. The stats are confusing about this because aggregate pay is distorted by the significant increase of those in employment over the last year in particular along with ever increasing high pay at the top end (partly driven by the pressure put on the bonus culture) but the 73% are probably more right than not in their assessment.

Over the coming year confidence (outside the public sector where headcount reductions will continue) should continue to fall and real wages should begin to rise again. If this exercise is repeated it should show an improvement in tory fortunes. If it doesn't we have yet another example of the vote free recovery.

The blues will recover votes on the strenghth of the economy but probably not enough in the right places to win a majority. They need votes in those parts of the country which haven't got in to full recovery yet. And then there's Scotland.

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

As Mike says it is difficult to draw much from this without a comparator or base. Presumably as someone in self employment I would not be eligible to have my views taken into account. There are now several million self employed in this country.

What I think we can draw from the ancillary questions asked by Yougov and others is that over recent times those in employment have generally been apprehensive about their employment prospects and that they remain so in the public sector in particular. For those not in the public sector there has been a marked increase in confidence about the future over the last year but this was from an extremely low base and the Survation finding about continuing concern is not that surprising.

We have also undoubtedly endured one of the longest and most profound reductions in real earnings in history. We can argue about the causes of that all day but it is a fact that will impact on peoples' perceptions. The stats are confusing about this because aggregate pay is distorted by the significant increase of those in employment over the last year in particular along with ever increasing high pay at the top end (partly driven by the pressure put on the bonus culture) but the 73% are probably more right than not in their assessment.

Over the coming year confidence (outside the public sector where headcount reductions will continue) should continue to fall and real wages should begin to rise again. If this exercise is repeated it should show an improvement in tory fortunes. If it doesn't we have yet another example of the vote free recovery.

The blues will recover votes on the strenghth of the economy but probably not enough in the right places to win a majority. They need votes in those parts of the country which haven't got in to full recovery yet. And then there's Scotland.

Not sure about that. There are probably enough marginals in the east midlands, the south west and London for the tories to get a majority and for differing reasons I think they have chances in all these areas. Even Scotland may chip in 2 or 3 more seats.

I do fear that there will be enough offsetting losses elsewhere though to leave them short.

CarlottaVance

BobaFett said:

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

Indeed, while polls commissioned by "special interest groups" do initially raise questions of "how was it conducted?" - the SNP Panelbase one being a recent example, in this case the questions seem straight forward and balanced:

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Budget-2014-FINAL.pdf

Easterross

BobaFett said:

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

YouGov the pogo pollsters have more in common with the yogic Natural Law party than reality. Voting intentions in the real world do not swing about 5%+ on a daily basis, regardless of the party they may favour on any particular day.

DavidL

Looking at the chart again that is a good figure for UKIP which slightly undermines the perception that their main support is drawn from those whose main occupation is keeping the 19th hole in business.

CarlottaVance

Alanbrooke said:

Brogan on parallels between Indyref and Euroref.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100264079/scotlands-independence-referendum-could-be-a-dry-run-for-a-euro-inout-vote-in-2017/

Don't buy this:

Losing the referendum would be a terminal event for the Conservative and Unionist Party and, as Westminster now acknowledges, would require his [Cameron's] immediate resignation

He agreed to a referendum - its up to Salmond to 'win' - and if he doesn't he's the one who should 'consider his position' - but a vote by 8% of the UK's population should not change the PM for the other 92%.....

Don't buy this either:

The qualifier is that defeat in Scotland would surely cost the Tories the election next year,

A Yes vote will change things - and 'who will fight rUK's corner?' will play to Tory, not Labour strengths....

NickPalmer

As Innocent says, this is usually true - the Tory vote is concentrated among pensioners and the self-employed. It's an interesting question why people turn more blue when they retire and whether this is changing at all as baby-boomers approach retirement.

YouGov today is interesting - Osborne's ratings much improved (to minus 6) from the same sample showing the largest Labour lead for a while. As usual one can read this two ways:

(a) It's a leading indicator and soon people will change their vote because they think better of Osborne
(b) This shows that people aren't primarily choosing their party on the basis of their view of the economy.

We all know what we'd rather believe, but I'd suggest that evidence for (a) is very scanty - the economy has been improving for some time, and the effect on voting intention in the same period has been imperceptible. The Tory problem is more fundamental IMO - 35-40% of people just dislike them strongly and want to get them out. But we'll be able to judge better in a couple of weeks once the Budget has been absorbed.

Off to Rome for 4 days. I won't ask for tips as I'm tied into a conference which will move around en masse.

Mick_Pork

Easterross said:

BobaFett said:

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

YouGov the pogo pollsters have more in common with the yogic Natural Law party than reality. Voting intentions in the real world do not swing about 5%+ on a daily basis, regardless of the party they may favour on any particular day.

You can't surely be questioning the motives and methodology of a British Polling Council member, can you? Granted, they don't quite have the reams of data and sampling that go into a JackARSE projection, but they do at least show their workings and have a body of polling that can be scrutinised against actual results with the other BPC members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Theuniondivvie

Off topic, Labour's big idea for a post No Scotland hits the fan - Devo Miniscule.

James Cook ‏@BBCJamesCook 1 hr
Labour does not propose to devolve corporation tax, national insurance, VAT, capital gains tax or air passenger duty. #indyref

BobaFett

Monksfield said:

GeoffM said:

BobaFett said:

Labour. Party of the working man.

I am an employer and therefore excluded from this poll. But I am also a working man.
The groups which have been cobbled together to make up this survey are unrepresentative of anything.

I thought you lived in Gib too!

I guess the question is whether those currently in employment move to the right when they retire. In my experience the boomers definitely skew right whilst Gen X has a much more moderate left lean.

Indeed. Emphatically so. The Boomers are a blue cohort, Gens X and Y strongly red. This will be a generational election that will pit working people against those in retirement and towards the end of their careers.

JackW

@Mick_Pork

May I thank you profusely for your efforts this morning in bringing my ARSE to a wider audience.

That McARSE has the firm support of one of PB most vociferous YES supporters is a testament to the completely disinterested nature of my fine organ.

Innocent_Abroad

Easterross said:

BobaFett said:

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

YouGov the pogo pollsters have more in common with the yogic Natural Law party than reality. Voting intentions in the real world do not swing about 5%+ on a daily basis, regardless of the party they may favour on any particular day.

Voting intentions don't. Sampling error does.

Mick_Pork

@JackW

You're far too modest as usual JackW. I'm afraid the credit for this and all the other forthcoming JackARSE projection illustrations (of which I am fairly sure there will be a great many) must go to yourself for zealously guarding your 'secret' methodology. The JackARSE projection illustration and it's "old man methane" methodology are the obvious response to such 'modesty' in not divulging any scientific basis or indeed any basis whatsoever for your numbers.

I'm sure they will be a firm answer to all the naysayers who might foolishly think you're just pulling random numbers out of your JackARSE and then bloviating endlessly about them.

SimonStClare

OT - Clarissa Dickson Wright – obit.

“On Two Fat Ladies she was known as “Krakatoa” for her temper, and once put two would-be muggers in intensive care. “I didn’t go around beating people up,” she said, “but if people were aggressive to me, then I hit them.”” - Sounds eminently sensible to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/10702886/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-obituary.html

Easterross

Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.

CarlottaVance

Easterross said:

Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.

I do find Mr Pork's interest in the intimate details of JackW's McARSE rather revealing!

I, for one, prefer to observe it from a safe distance!

Mick_Pork

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

As promised here it is.

The exclusive look behind the JackARSE Scottish Referendum Projection:

.....................................................................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QksNZ7HSgF8



"Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?"

YES - Faaaaaaaaaaaaart (+Plop) .. No - Faaaaaaaaaaaart (-Plop)

Turnout Projection Parp! (NC)

Obviously this is the RAW Data that JackW uses to make up his Scottish Referendum Projection so psephological novices should not be put off by the sheer volume of the 'science' and some of the sampling errors that might confuse them.

We shall of course go into the 'Data Tables' JackW uses for his "old man methane" projections in even more depth if required.

Definite proof that JackW and his JackARSE projections are not just hot air.

JackW

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

"Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?"

YES 40% (+4) .. No 60% (-4)

Turnout Projection 79% (NC)

.....................................................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

NickPalmer

DavidL said:

There are probably enough marginals in the east midlands, the south west and London for the tories to get a majority and for differing reasons I think they have chances in all these areas. Even Scotland may chip in 2 or 3 more seats.

I do fear that there will be enough offsetting losses elsewhere though to leave them short.

I can't speak about the SW or London, but in the E Mids there isn't much sign of a strong Tory effort in the marginals. We've not seen a constituency-wide Tory newsletter in Broxtowe since last May (Labour has had three in the same period), though they are doing selective direct mails. The main local paper (the Beeston Express) has had no Tory contributions for a year even though every other party contributes regularly to their politics section. A colleague in a Labour-held marginal tells me that he can't see any Tory activity at all.

Clearly it's possible they are doing lots under the radar, but success does require some visible activity too, or people draw appropriate conclusions. I'm hearing of more Tory activity a bit further up our target list and it may be that the main current effort is to prevent an overall Labour majority rather than gain one themselves.

Carnyx

Mick_Pork said:

As promised here it is.

The exclusive look behind the JackARSE Scottish Referendum Projection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QksNZ7HSgF8

Obviously this is the RAW Data that JackW uses to make up his Scottish Referendum Projection so psephological novices should not be confused by the sheer volume and some of the sampling errors that might confuse them.

Ww shall of course go into the 'Data Tables' JackW uses for his projections in eeven more depth if required.

Well, the gentleman in the video seems to be following in the footsteps, if that is the right expression, of Le Petomane, though hardly with his skill ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pétomane

Easterross

Jack has spoken. Now my day can progress.

TGOHF

Mick and Jack = better together

JackW

Easterross said:

Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.

I find the attention that @Mick_Pork lavishes on my ARSE most touching.

He's like a teenage lad who's suddenly found an additional use for his todger and can't let go. However I am concerned that should this substantial over indulgence continue it will lead to daily visits to Specsavers and possibly the need of a white stick and guide dog !!

Bless ....

JackW

Easterross said:

Jack has spoken. Now my day can progress.

Excellent .... someone has to pay the taxes.

BobaFett

The one ARSE joke is wearing a bit thin, to say the least...

Mick_Pork

Carnyx said:

Mick_Pork said:

As promised here it is.

The exclusive look behind the JackARSE Scottish Referendum Projection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QksNZ7HSgF8

Obviously this is the RAW Data that JackW uses to make up his Scottish Referendum Projection so psephological novices should not be confused by the sheer volume and some of the sampling errors that might confuse them.

Ww shall of course go into the 'Data Tables' JackW uses for his projections in eeven more depth if required.

Well, the gentleman in the video seems to be following in the footsteps, if that is the right expression, of Le Petomane, though hardly with his skill ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pétomane

I see you also have a psephological interest in just what makes the scientific approach in the JackW Scottish Referendum Projection so very different to just some old codger talking out of his JackARSE.

The "old man methane" methodology that JackW uses for his JackARSE projections actually used to be the the original "old man Petomane" sampling method but this was found to be inferior and could result in gross distortions of the raw numbers with a far greater MOE of as much as +/- 15 Farts. Unacceptable as I'm sure you'll agree. The "old man methane" method reduces this to a more managable MOE of +/- 7 Farts which is almost up there with the other British Polling Council members were it not for the fact that they stubbornly refuse to take JackW seriously. Clearly this is envy on their part as they cannot hope to match the JackARSE in it's rigour and they still haven't recovered from the JackARSE 'followthrough' to his predictions which can clear a room in seconds with their 'pungent' number crunching.

[Deleted User]

60 NO / 40 YES looks about right.

Mick_Pork

BobaFett said:

The one ARSE joke is wearing a bit thin, to say the least...

Oh I think after, say, another 5 or 6 of these JackARSE projections you won't be saying that.

Much.

TGOHF

BobaFett said:

The one ARSE joke is wearing a bit thin, to say the least...

That Ed Miliband will never be prime minister is not a joke.

Icarus

Will do well to get 79% of people in Scotland voting -only 55% voted in Glasgow at the last election.

GeoffM

Innocent_Abroad said:

GeoffM said:

Patrick said:

So...I'm wondering what the sample of 'in work' is. Is the split between public sector / private sector properly representative? I have no doubt that 17% makes absolute sense for in work public sector employees. Has the union commissioned a public sector poll without realising it?

The exclusion of "employers" is also interesting as they are more likely to be sympathetic to the current business friendly approach by government than ungrateful greedy selfish staff.

So, if a party voted to criminalise employment (perhaps replacing it with slavery), you'd vote for it. eh, Geoff?

Apologies but I don't have the slightest idea what you are getting at here.

JackW

Toodles PBers ....

I'm off to scrutinize tomorrows budget ....

Mick_Pork

JackW said:

He's like a teenage lad who's suddenly found an additional use for his todger and can't let go. However I am concerned that should this substantial over indulgence continue it will lead to daily visits to Specsavers and possibly the need of a white stick and guide dog !!

Bless ....

Don't give up now Jack. You seem to have moved straight on from your JackARSE 'ebullience' to crotchety and petulant. You were trying to pretend to be flattered remember. You should not flaunt your JackARSE so vigorously and then quickly move on to the subject of teenage lads and their todgers. It just won't do if you want your JackARSE to be taken seriously.

DavidL

Still think that Jack is being a bit optimistic myself. I would stick at 55-45 no although the lack of progress by yes in recent weeks is encouraging and it just might be a little better than that for no. Even allowing for Eddie Izzard's "contribution".

RochdalePioneers

73% are working hard to be worse off. 40% are worried about job security.

When you are struggling to get by and think your job may be at risk, you aren't feeling the recovery because for you there isn't one. You see other people higher up who clearly have had one, you have that obnoxious ponce on TV sneering at you that you actually are better off actually (and if you're not it's his predecessor that's to blame), and then you start to think it's not at all fair.

This ties back into the last couple of threads about Osborne and budgets - you can quote any stat you like from the papwe econony, in the real world it's not there. That's not to sat that the headline figures are anything other than a solus rogue with no comparable poll to benchmark against. I just tbought these two supplementaries might explain to PB Tories why the working pleb isn't happy.

RochdalePioneers

Incidentally the poll is employees not employers. I am a recruiting manager so both - would I have been excluded? A bit arbitrary nacht?

RationalPlan

If Labour has 31% lead amongst Public sector workers and the public sector make up a significant percentage of people who are employed, then it would be interesting to see the split for those employed in the private sector and for those not polled at all, all those who work for themselves.

TheWatcher

Easterross said:

Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.

Mrs Pork feels a bit let down, but once Mick fixes her puncture, all will be well again.

TCPoliticalBetting

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong. A shame that the SNP had not done a thorough job in preparing their case. Still they now need to focus on reducing the SLAB group at GE 2015. Only by becoming the largest party of Scots MPs at Westminster can the SNP create the base for the next referendum campaign.

OldKingCole

RochdalePioneers said:

73% are working hard to be worse off. 40% are worried about job security.

When you are struggling to get by and think your job may be at risk, you aren't feeling the recovery because for you there isn't one. You see other people higher up who clearly have had one, you have that obnoxious ponce on TV sneering at you that you actually are better off actually (and if you're not it's his predecessor that's to blame), and then you start to think it's not at all fair.

This ties back into the last couple of threads about Osborne and budgets - you can quote any stat you like from the papwe econony, in the real world it's not there. That's not to sat that the headline figures are anything other than a solus rogue with no comparable poll to benchmark against. I just tbought these two supplementaries might explain to PB Tories why the working pleb isn't happy.

Prices in the pubs round here are still rising.

TGOHF

No help to buy in China ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Bond_James_Bond

GeoffM said:

There is nothing to compare this with in the past so it is hard to say whether there is a trend or not.

Eh? Hard to say? Under what circumstances is it "easy" to work out a trend from a single point?

Well, you can use calculus to work out the gradient at any point on a curve. So presumably it's as easy as that.

Icarus

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong. A shame that the SNP had not done a thorough job in preparing their case. Still they now need to focus on reducing the SLAB group at GE 2015. Only by becoming the largest party of Scots MPs at Westminster can the SNP create the base for the next referendum campaign.

Next referendum date 2064?

Mick_Pork

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong.

Care to walk us through JackW's 'data'? Because it sounds suspiciously like the same old stale wind from the usual suspects.

libdemvoice ‏@libdemvoice

Charles Kennedy: Pro UK campaign needs to be more positive http://ldv.org.uk/38672 by @caronmlindsay


Mr Wood to you ‏@woodo79

Unionist Charles Kennedy criticises tone of 'No' campaign & calls for more coherent plan for post-referendum #indyref http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26602996 …

This would be Charles Kennedy who at least knew perfectly well what the consequences of the lib dem tory coalition 'love in' would be for scottish lib dems and then watched it play out as the lid dems were hammered by the scottish voters to a mere taxi full of MSPs.

TCPoliticalBetting

Icarus said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong. A shame that the SNP had not done a thorough job in preparing their case. Still they now need to focus on reducing the SLAB group at GE 2015. Only by becoming the largest party of Scots MPs at Westminster can the SNP create the base for the next referendum campaign.

Next referendum date 2064?

If the SNP had the largest group of Scots MPs they can then call the Westminster Govt as unrepresentative whoever is in power (unless the SNP are in a coalition with them). It may only take 5 to 10 years of that situation, for pressure to build up into a demand for a new referendum. 2020 or 2025 are realistic dates if the SNP "wins " Scotland in 2015.

Bond_James_Bond

Patrick said:

60 NO / 40 YES looks about right.

65 to 35 much likelier on the day. Turkeys don;t vote for Christmas.

I'm another who's finding all this ARSE stuff a bit fourth form. It was probably funny for 5 minutes 5 years ago but between that and the Scotch weenies it's wrecking every thread.

nigel4england

RochdalePioneers said:

73% are working hard to be worse off. 40% are worried about job security.

When you are struggling to get by and think your job may be at risk, you aren't feeling the recovery because for you there isn't one. You see other people higher up who clearly have had one, you have that obnoxious ponce on TV sneering at you that you actually are better off actually (and if you're not it's his predecessor that's to blame), and then you start to think it's not at all fair.

This ties back into the last couple of threads about Osborne and budgets - you can quote any stat you like from the papwe econony, in the real world it's not there. That's not to sat that the headline figures are anything other than a solus rogue with no comparable poll to benchmark against. I just tbought these two supplementaries might explain to PB Tories why the working pleb isn't happy.

Do you seriously think that mass immigration has had nothing to do with wages being kept low?

Labour = party of the working man = total bollocks.

MarqueeMark

BobaFett said:

Labour. Party of the working man.

All the more ironic that the party named after the working man always leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.

A fact that invariably makes those on the left squirm with embarrassment. Blame THAT on Thatcher...

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong.

sounds suspiciously like the same old stale wind from the usual suspects.

He writes, posting yesterday's news......

JosiasJessop

TGOHF said:

No help to buy in China ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Also remember that the construction quality of a large amount of what's being built in China isn't exactly to western standards. In many cases, they've been spending millions or even billions on buildings that will need drastic maintenance within a few years.

Also remember that the buildings being built in this boom will all age at similar rates even if built well, meaning that maintenance problems hit during the same period, requiring investment.

Chinese researchers have suggested that many buildings could reach the end of their lifespan in as little as 20 years. The average lifespan of a Chinese building is 35 years, according to property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield. That’s abysmal compared to the average 74 year life span of US buildings and 132 year lifespan of buildings in the UK.

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/Unstable-Foundations-Part-2

Mick_Pork

Bern O'Donoghue ‏@DearDaveandNick 16 Mar 2013

Mmmm, I can see the #Budget's going to go well: George Osborne to delay #childcare tax breaks http://gu.com/p/3efta/tw via @guardian

Frances Hinde ‏@FrancesHinde 1h

How much have Cameron and Osborne now promised for AFTER the election?

At least Osbrowne has moved on from Pasties to Jam tomorrow.

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong.

sounds suspiciously like the same old stale wind from the usual suspects.

He writes, posting yesterday's news......

No need to shriek so loudly because he's not as out of touch as the scottish tory surgers and old biddies in SCON. Then again, who isn't?

Bond_James_Bond

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

No help to buy in China ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Also remember that the construction quality of a large amount of what's being built in China isn't exactly to western standards. In many cases, they've been spending millions or even billions on buildings that will need drastic maintenance within a few years.

Also remember that the buildings being built in this boom will all age at similar rates even if built well, meaning that maintenance problems hit during the same period, requiring investment.

Chinese researchers have suggested that many buildings could reach the end of their lifespan in as little as 20 years. The average lifespan of a Chinese building is 35 years, according to property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield. That’s abysmal compared to the average 74 year life span of US buildings and 132 year lifespan of buildings in the UK.

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/Unstable-Foundations-Part-2

I don't understand why any commercial building is constructed to last more than about 30 years. All you can afford to spend on it is something less than the NPV of the net rental cashflows. At any plausible discount rate you choose, cashflows above 30 years out discount to pretty much nil. So to build something that will last longer adds cost you don't get paid for - unless I've misunderstood the economics somehow.

Mick_Pork

Jonathan Ashworth MP ‏@JonAshworth 1h

First Gove, then Warsi now Boris's dad on radio calling for Tory leadership rules to be changed. Talk about ferrets in a sack.... #torywars

Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 2m

Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.

OldKingCole

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

No help to buy in China ..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Also remember that the construction quality of a large amount of what's being built in China isn't exactly to western standards. In many cases, they've been spending millions or even billions on buildings that will need drastic maintenance within a few years.

Also remember that the buildings being built in this boom will all age at similar rates even if built well, meaning that maintenance problems hit during the same period, requiring investment.

Chinese researchers have suggested that many buildings could reach the end of their lifespan in as little as 20 years. The average lifespan of a Chinese building is 35 years, according to property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield. That’s abysmal compared to the average 74 year life span of US buildings and 132 year lifespan of buildings in the UK.

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/Unstable-Foundations-Part-2

This from the country that, in a previous incarnation, built the Great Wall!

OblitusSumMe

Easterross said:

BobaFett said:

Easterross said:

Shock horror, trade union funded poll finds Labour well in the lead. Never mind the 4m+ self employed people who work, employers who work etc etc. Remind us Mike how good is Survation's record on polls? It is as reliable as the pogo pollsters? Certainly not in the same league as ICM.

Just because it is funded by a union doesn't mean it is biased. You may as well argue that YouGov is biased to the Tories because it is funded by Rupert Murdoch.

YouGov the pogo pollsters have more in common with the yogic Natural Law party than reality. Voting intentions in the real world do not swing about 5%+ on a daily basis, regardless of the party they may favour on any particular day.

You've been posting on this site irregularly for years now, and you still don't understand the basics of polling errors and sampling uncertainty and the ways in which these can - entirely randomly and through no failing on the part of the opinion pollster - produce relatively large swings in support between two consecutive opinion polls when there is no underlying change in support.

I fear that not even a Mathematics teacher from Shaghai can save you now.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Sadly, I fear that JackW is right about the Scottish referendum and Mick Pork is wrong.

sounds suspiciously like the same old stale wind from the usual suspects.

He writes, posting yesterday's news......

No need to shriek

He squeals....oh no, its 'clucks' isn't it.....?

MikeK

Mick_Pork said:

Jonathan Ashworth MP ‏@JonAshworth 1h

First Gove, then Warsi now Boris's dad on radio calling for Tory leadership rules to be changed. Talk about ferrets in a sack.... #torywars

Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 2m

Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.

The news that Boris' dad is openly touting his sons name for leadership of the tories, first on the Daily Politics and this morning on BBC radio 4, speaks of a loss of reason and savvy in the Johnson family. This will put peoples backs up as there will be a great unwillingness to change one group of Old Etonians for another.

JosiasJessop

Bond_James_Bond said:

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

No help to buy in China ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Also remember that the construction quality of a large amount of what's being built in China isn't exactly to western standards. In many cases, they've been spending millions or even billions on buildings that will need drastic maintenance within a few years.

Also remember that the buildings being built in this boom will all age at similar rates even if built well, meaning that maintenance problems hit during the same period, requiring investment.

Chinese researchers have suggested that many buildings could reach the end of their lifespan in as little as 20 years. The average lifespan of a Chinese building is 35 years, according to property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield. That’s abysmal compared to the average 74 year life span of US buildings and 132 year lifespan of buildings in the UK.

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/Unstable-Foundations-Part-2

I don't understand why any commercial building is constructed to last more than about 30 years. All you can afford to spend on it is something less than the NPV of the net rental cashflows. At any plausible discount rate you choose, cashflows above 30 years out discount to pretty much nil. So to build something that will last longer adds cost you don't get paid for - unless I've misunderstood the economics somehow.

I know f'all about commerical rents, but surely the commercial building still has an intrinsic value for resale and rental? Buildings my dad built fifty years ago are still going strong, and being rented out. Maintenance is key.

If the building is still in good nick, you get more for it at resale because the need for maintenance will be less.

Then add in regulatory needs: building standards in this country are high, and it may be hard to build something to them that does have an obviously-limited lifespan of three decades. Especially for relatively mass-designed and standardised office blocks.

But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...

Mick_Pork

HuffPostUKPolitics ‏@HuffPostUKPol 18h

Ken Clarke says 'eccentric' eurosceptic Tory backbenchers do not represent party http://huff.to/1fCZpbT


Ken Clarke has said the view that Conservative MPs are anti-European Union is mistaken and has been driven by a few "eccentric" Tory backbenchers who find it easy to grab headlines. The veteran europhile cabinet minister told a meeting of Tory MPs on Monday afternoon that most Conservative ministers were in favour of Britain staying in the EU.

Probably because the fop chicken is still running scared from his own backbenchers, not to mention Farage.

BundesAngie ‏@BundesAngie

Cameron seeks limits on EU judicial powers and migration: Under pressure from eurosceptics in his Conservative... http://binged.it/1ky8mbS

OldKingCole

JosiasJessop said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

No help to buy in China ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

Also remember that the construction quality of a large amount of what's being built in China isn't exactly to western standards. In many cases, they've been spending millions or even billions on buildings that will need drastic maintenance within a few years.

Also remember that the buildings being built in this boom will all age at similar rates even if built well, meaning that maintenance problems hit during the same period, requiring investment.

Chinese researchers have suggested that many buildings could reach the end of their lifespan in as little as 20 years. The average lifespan of a Chinese building is 35 years, according to property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield. That’s abysmal compared to the average 74 year life span of US buildings and 132 year lifespan of buildings in the UK.

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/Unstable-Foundations-Part-2

I don't understand why any commercial building is constructed to last more than about 30 years. All you can afford to spend on it is something less than the NPV of the net rental cashflows. At any plausible discount rate you choose, cashflows above 30 years out discount to pretty much nil. So to build something that will last longer adds cost you don't get paid for - unless I've misunderstood the economics somehow.

I know f'all about commerical rents, but surely the commercial building still has an intrinsic value for resale and rental? Buildings my dad built fifty years ago are still going strong, and being rented out. Maintenance is key.

If the building is still in good nick, you get more for it at resale because the need for maintenance will be less.

Then add in regulatory needs: building standards in this country are high, and it may be hard to build something to them that does have an obviously-limited lifespan of three decades. Especially for relatively mass-designed and standardised office blocks.

But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...

Is it the the difference between those who are in business to create things which are useful and those who swoop in and out for a quick buck and damn the long-term consequences?

MikeK

Edjukaton! Edjukaton! Edjukaton! In Britain today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10704716/Excluded-the-schoolboy-who-demanded-more-homework.html

volcanopete

Interesting developments in the next Tory leader race with Baroness Warsi coming out for Gove,proxy for Osborne,and against Johnson,prompting his dad to appeal on the radio for the Tory party to change the rules to let a non-MP stand i e his son Boris.Nepotism rules OK.
There is a big stand-off between Cameron and Ms May over the Met's stop and search policy.If she gets her way,it is Cameron giving tacit support to her leadership bid.If she does not, Cameron is backing Osborne for successor.
Could be a volatile market.

Mick_Pork

MikeK said:

Mick_Pork said:

Jonathan Ashworth MP ‏@JonAshworth 1h

First Gove, then Warsi now Boris's dad on radio calling for Tory leadership rules to be changed. Talk about ferrets in a sack.... #torywars

Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 2m

Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.

The news that Boris' dad is openly touting his sons name for leadership of the tories, first on the Daily Politics and this morning on BBC radio 4, speaks of a loss of reason and savvy in the Johnson family. This will put peoples backs up as there will be a great unwillingness to change one group of Old Etonians for another.

Etonian or not Boris is still popular with the tory grass roots and base while Cammie and the chumocracy seem to do all in their power to antagonise the "swivel-eyed loons" as they have been called. The reason nobody seems in a hurry to change the leadership rules is that if you start to pull at one thread it's unlikely to stop at just a 'quick fix' to allow Boris in. The mechanism for choosing a leader is a flashpoint every bit as explosive as Europe for tory backbenchers. Should the leadership or indeed anyone else get any 'bright ideas' to implement in those leadership rules before 2015 that are not met with unanimity or something close to it. There is self-evidently a great deal of posturing going on right now for the tory leadership. Why now and not, say, after May? is a very interesting question that I suspect will be answered soon enough.

OldKingCole

MikeK said:

Edjukaton! Edjukaton! Edjukaton! In Britain today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10704716/Excluded-the-schoolboy-who-demanded-more-homework.html

Tomorrows Union leader!

HurstLlama

JosiasJessop said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I don't understand why any commercial building is constructed to last more than about 30 years. All you can afford to spend on it is something less than the NPV of the net rental cashflows. At any plausible discount rate you choose, cashflows above 30 years out discount to pretty much nil. So to build something that will last longer adds cost you don't get paid for - unless I've misunderstood the economics somehow.

I know f'all about commerical rents, but surely the commercial building still has an intrinsic value for resale and rental? Buildings my dad built fifty years ago are still going strong, and being rented out. Maintenance is key.

If the building is still in good nick, you get more for it at resale because the need for maintenance will be less.

Then add in regulatory needs: building standards in this country are high, and it may be hard to build something to them that does have an obviously-limited lifespan of three decades. Especially for relatively mass-designed and standardised office blocks.

But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...

Sound points, Mr. Jessop (as usual). I don't understand Mr. Bond's point either but I think that is because he is approaching the subject from an accounting perspective and you from an engineering perspective. Oil and water, the two don't mix.

That said there are a few places on the planet where, if building regs allowed, it might make sense to build commercial premises with short life-spans.Hong Kong and the City of London to name two. In both places office blocks that I remember being built in the 1970s have been torn down and replaced with bigger, taller blocks. In The City of course it is not, yet, a universal phenomenon - the are still Edwardian, and earlier, blocks giving sterling service and making money for their owners.

Bond_James_Bond

JosiasJessop said:

But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...

The point I'm making is that if the annual net rent you will earn from your new building is £100, then at (say) 10% return, the second year's rent is worth only £91, the third year's is worth £83, and so on. Rent received 30 years out is worth only £6 today, and rent received after 50 years is worth less than £1.

So while it is technically feasible to construct a commercial building to last 50 or 60 or 100 years, it's going to cost you more while not earning you any more. The NPV of the rents over 30, 50 or 100 years is about the same in each case.

This also applies to the eventual residual value of the building. It might be worth something, but "something" in 30 years' time is not much today, especially when you factor in the cost of the major works it's then likely to need to keep it in use.

A case in point is where I had my first job - in an office building along the steps between St. Paul's Cathedral and Queen Victoria Street, in London, in 1982. The building was about 10 or 15 years old at that time. It was completely vacated by its last tenant about 15 years later. It was then vacant for years and has since been ripped down and simply replaced. At that time, presumably a consideration was made of the economics of refitting and re-letting versus totally rebuilding and the answer was the latter, i.e. a 25-year-old building was essentially worthless. Of course a lot of this is to do with IT suitability but this just demonstrates how foolish it would be to assume that a building lettable to day will still be so in 30 years' time.

I know I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what it is.

Sometimes I have wished I was an architect but I understand that the Norman Fosters and those who make all the big bucks typically draw the new building on a fag packet and leave it to underpaid underlings to work out how to make it 1/ stand up and 2/ contain sufficient lettable space to pay for itself....

TGOHF

Any leadership contender would be advised to keep their powder dry - a tad too early to show any leg.

warelane

Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

OldKingCole

warelane said:

Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

Wasn’t there a poll recently that said the Tories were on about 60% among the retired?

JosiasJessop

Bond_James_Bond said:

The point I'm making is that if the annual net rent you will earn from your new building is £100, then at (say) 10% return, the second year's rent is worth only £91, the third year's is worth £83, and so on. Rent received 30 years out is worth only £6 today, and rent received after 50 years is worth less than £1.

So while it is technically feasible to construct a commercial building to last 50 or 60 or 100 years, it's going to cost you more while not earning you any more. The NPV of the rents over 30, 50 or 100 years is about the same in each case.

This also applies to the eventual residual value of the building. It might be worth something, but "something" in 30 years' time is not much today, especially when you factor in the cost of the major works it's then likely to need to keep it in use.

A case in point is where I had my first job - in an office building along the steps between St. Paul's Cathedral and Queen Victoria Street, in London, in 1982. The building was about 10 or 15 years old at that time. It was completely vacated by its last tenant about 15 years later. It was then vacant for years and has since been ripped down and simply replaced. At that time, presumably a consideration was made of the economics of refitting and re-letting versus totally rebuilding and the answer was the latter, i.e. a 25-year-old building was essentially worthless. Of course a lot of this is to do with IT suitability but this just demonstrates how foolish it would be to assume that a building lettable to day will still be so in 30 years' time.

I know I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what it is.

Sometimes I have wished I was an architect but I understand that the Norman Fosters and those who make all the big bucks typically draw the new building on a fag packet and leave it to underpaid underlings to work out how to make it 1/ stand up and 2/ contain sufficient lettable space to pay for itself....

But surely there's another factor in play there: land availability. As HurstLlama says below, there are a few areas (mainly the centre of big cities) where land becomes increasingly desirable. In the case of London, space is particularly short because of the multitude of listed buildings and other pressures such as sight lines to St Pauls, or no tall buildings south of the river (excepting the Shard).

Therefore there is an extra pressure: developers want to develop, and there are relatively few sites available. IMHO this is one of the reasons why Heseltine's fantastically successful Docklands has done so well. It was a vast land resource.

It's also why Old Oak Common (on Crossrail and HS2) should do well, and why developers will be salivating over the potential of Euston.

As my grandfather said to me when I was a kid: "buy land. It's a limited resource, and they'll never make any more."

Icarus

Re value of buildings, I think you are forgetting about rent reviews - usually upwards only, perhaps every 5 years and often at least as much as RPI.