Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever so slightly the two most important measures for GE2015

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited April 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever so slightly the two most important measures for GE2015 have edged to the Tories in March

As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    First!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    First to say margin of error!

    Though with further polls, we may see that it is real but slow swing back.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    These changes clearly prove that the Conservative Party is definitely going to win a landslide majority in 2015. Anybody who tries to wobble, prevaricate or vacillate away from this basic fact is a nincombooliak who just doesn't understand statistics.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    JohnLoony said:

    These changes clearly prove that the Conservative Party is definitely going to win a landslide majority in 2015. Anybody who tries to wobble, prevaricate or vacillate away from this basic fact is a nincombooliak who just doesn't understand statistics.


    Or hasn't spent 2 minutes watching Ed speak..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    The above charts show the progress made over the last month, especially as a result of a very successful budget (remarkable given how little money he had to play with). What worries me now as a Conservative supporter is that there is little evidence of continuing momentum. After a series of polls with different pollsters showing a lead of only 1% Yougov at least suggests a drifting apart again.

    In the next couple of weeks we will have evidence of further growth in Q1, possibly another 0.7%, and unemployment will continue to fall, albeit at a much slower pace. The evidence that either of these are capable of moving the polls over the last year is scant. What can move things the tories' way? They are running out of opportunities.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    One thing that the tories do seem to have abandoned is subtlety. This was the latest billet-doux from those boys in the Treasury: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqsklg1FpfA&feature=youtu.be

    I suspect we will be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,789
    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    UK productivity stats are grossly distorted by the very sharp fall in production in the north sea which remains a major headwind that other countries do not have. In recent years the loss of the froth which was the merry-go-around in the City selling bundles of debt in ever increasing circles also had a negative effect.

    That said, there are clearly underlying problems which arise from our relative failure in education (for the masses not the elite) and very poor levels of investment over extended periods of time. The best hope for productivity last year was the pick up in investment which grew about 8% over the year. We need a lot more of that. Gove's reforms, if successful, are a much longer term solution.

    The budget did quite a lot to incentivise investment as did the previous one but arguably more should have been done sooner. It is also undeniable that our productivity would receive a tremendous boost if we dumped our 10% least productive workers on the dole as much of the EZ has. That does not strike me as a good idea but the marginal cost of subsidising the employment of those workers by in work benefits needs greater consideration.

  • DavidL [7.38am] We are not going to fix our educational problems - we just don't like other people's children enough (be interesting to know how many kids Peebies have by comparison with siblings). Fracking isn't going to replace North Sea oil.

    When Osborne talks of "full employment" he means zero-hours contracts on £3-£5 an hour. It's all we're worth.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    You.d almost think there was an election coming up and Osborne was trying to court Nuneaton factory workers.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will have flattered the figures at the beginning of your data series and depressed the end]; and (b) normalising the City boom in 2006 which, it has subsequently been demonstrated, contained a huge amount of hot air [hence your choice of 2006 as a basis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL [7.38am] We are not going to fix our educational problems - we just don't like other people's children enough (be interesting to know how many kids Peebies have by comparison with siblings). Fracking isn't going to replace North Sea oil.

    When Osborne talks of "full employment" he means zero-hours contracts on £3-£5 an hour. It's all we're worth.

    I am hopeful about the educational reforms in England (the exact opposite in Scotland where the Curriculum for Excellence is looking like another bureaucratic nightmare that covers a further lowering of standards and reduction in rigour) will shake our educational establishment from their entirely unmerited complacancy and that the range and variety of the changes should show over time what works and what does not. If the more succesful practices can then be adopted more widely then results should improve.

    I am also encouraged by Gove's focus on the performance gap with poorer children giving them additional help and funding. But there is a very long way to go.

    I have 3 children and 2 siblings.



  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Charles said:

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will have flattered the figures at the beginning of your data series and depressed the end]; and (b) normalising the City boom in 2006 which, it has subsequently been demonstrated, contained a huge amount of hot air [hence your choice of 2006 as a basis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
    All youre saying Charles is we need to make major economic changes if we are to survive.

    1. North Sea oil is in terminal decline - possibly falling off a cliff come September
    2. The City has been overhyped in the noughties and won't go back to where it was

    For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    edited April 2014
    Charles said:

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will have flattered the figures at the beginning of your data series and depressed the end]; and (b) normalising the City boom in 2006 which, it has subsequently been demonstrated, contained a huge amount of hot air [hence your choice of 2006 as a basis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
    To be honest they are not great. David Smith had a decent stab at it on 16th March: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002000.html#more
    edit there was more in his original ST article. This is not as useful as I remembered. Sorry.


    We undoubtedly have problems in this area but blaming a government that has been in power for less than 4 years is once again completely underestimating the scale of our problems and the solutions.

  • Why don't I just read ConHome?

    Is there a difference these days?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    Sorry to delve into Scottish matters, but I was curious about this. I saw a story that was top 4 on the BBC and imagined it an April Fool, but it actually dates to the middle of 2007:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6234290.stm

    Do Scots need a licence to wear a sporran?
  • Charles said:



    For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)

    We do indeed need to rebuild the real economy. Major supply side reforms and measures to boost our competitiveness are needed. But before you can build you need to drain the swamp. Osborne is still draining. The land may be nearly dry enough to start digging foundations after 2015.

    The foundations must be based on competitiveness, private sector/public sector rebalancing, education, sound money/austerity, etc. Never underestimate the scale of damage 13 years of Gordon n Ed did to this country.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Abroad, not been to ConservativeHome for ages. I'm reasonably sure they don't have an F1 chap, though.
  • I had a wonderful, insightful post in response to Alanbrooke. Seems I screwed up the blockquotes and it is lost to posterity.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Patrick, I just got signed out and back in by refreshing, so it might have been a Vanilla issue rather than something you did wrong.

    Must admit, I sometimes copy long comments (elsewhere too) just in case they disappear.

    Bahrain: I'd forgotten it was set for night time, but that does mean I'll be able to watch (well, listen to) P3 and perhaps offer a qualifying bet. I think there might be opportunity (Rosberg for pole seems an early bet, but laying Vettel for top 3 and some bets around the top 10 could be of interest).

    Also, the height issue really doesn't seem to be doing Hulkenberg any harm. Either it was overblown, or he's even better than most people thought. However, Perez, who is smaller, has not had a trouble-free race yet (puncture in Oz and DNS in Malaysia) so we can't say that conclusively, yet.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    When was it that populus changed their methodology? If it was in Feb then you can't really compare these figures.

    Does anyone have the date?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:

    1971-1978 +18%
    1978-1985 +19%
    1985-1992 +20%
    1992-1999 +22%
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will have flattered the figures at the beginning of your data series and depressed the end]; and (b) normalising the City boom in 2006 which, it has subsequently been demonstrated, contained a huge amount of hot air [hence your choice of 2006 as a basis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
    All youre saying Charles is we need to make major economic changes if we are to survive.

    1. North Sea oil is in terminal decline - possibly falling off a cliff come September
    2. The City has been overhyped in the noughties and won't go back to where it was

    For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)
    I've always been on board with concept of a diversified economy! GO has made some progress - more would have been nice - but Cable bears a lot of the blame.

    All I'm really saying is that @another_richard should stop torturing statistics to make his point. It's unkind.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Patrick said:

    I had a wonderful, insightful post in response to Alanbrooke. Seems I screwed up the blockquotes and it is lost to posterity.

    I read it... You can use the "show previous quotes" function to find the test and copy paste...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Debate stuff, things to beware:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26753299

    "In Australia, debate coverage is dominated by "The Worm," an electronic line that runs along the bottom of the screen controlled by a panel of floating voters. Politicians speak of the The Worm in awed tones. It can make or break them. In a 2007 debate between Kevin Rudd and John Howard there were even accusations of political skulduggery, with the "Worm Moderator" accusing Howard's ruling Liberal Party of sabotage. If there was foul play, it didn't work - Rudd went on to win."

    Over here, the General Election debates also found that the Worm had a significant impact upon viewer perception. That's why it should be abolished. It's wide open to letting a die-hard supporter or loather of a given party/individual onto the panel, the mob effect and involves a very small (I think 20 or fewer) people having substantial power to alter opinions about the debate. It simply must be axed.

    I strongly suspect it won't be, though. That would mean TV airheads giving up a gimmick some people like to watch and use for news clips.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will asis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
    All youre saying Charles is we need to make major economic changes if we are to survive.

    1. North Sea oil is in terminal decline - possibly falling off a cliff come September
    2. The City has been overhyped in the noughties and won't go back to where it was

    For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)
    I've always been on board with concept of a diversified economy! GO has made some progress - more would have been nice - but Cable bears a lot of the blame.

    All I'm really saying is that @another_richard should stop torturing statistics to make his point. It's unkind.

    Charles AR is merely teasing with statistics, to torture with statistics you need yellow boxes round them ;-)

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Those returning to the Coalition are the trendsetters. The trickle will become a tide...

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The productivity stats yesturday allow for some whole year comparisons.

    The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven
    1999-2006 +19%
    2006-2013 -1%

    Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.

    Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.

    What are the figures adjusted for (a) the secular decline in oil and gas production [this will asis for the most recent numbers is distorted]
    All youre saying Charles is we need to make major economic changes if we are to survive.

    1. North Sea oil is in terminal decline - possibly falling off a cliff come September
    2. The City has been overhyped in the noughties and won't go back to where it was

    For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)
    I've always been on board with concept of a diversified economy! GO has made some progress - more would have been nice - but Cable bears a lot of the blame.

    All I'm really saying is that @another_richard should stop torturing statistics to make his point. It's unkind.

    Charles AR is merely teasing with statistics, to torture with statistics you need yellow boxes round them ;-)

    I think about yellow boxes as more like Angel Delight: sweet tasting but ultimately unsatisfying
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Patrick said:

    I had a wonderful, insightful post in response to Alanbrooke. Seems I screwed up the blockquotes and it is lost to posterity.

    Patrick I read it and still stick to my original point. For a recovery we need to sell more and spend less. GO has only tried the latter. Given the biggest difficulty is productivity and that's investment driven he should have started earlier with juicier incentives for those cash rich corporates.

    The problem is that major Investment will take about 2-3 years to kick in. About a year or so for Boards to react to a new environment and allocate money, and about 1-2 years for machines\buildings to be built, delivered, installed and commissioned - probably longer in your industry. So if GO had started off in 2011investment would be kicking in about now. Since he hasn't it will be 2016/17. It's all out of sync hence my view we have lost a Parlt on our way to recovery.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    IOS said:

    When was it that populus changed their methodology? If it was in Feb then you can't really compare these figures.

    Does anyone have the date?

    Populus changes their methodology at the start of Feb - so both the two months are under the new regime and therefore this is a valid comparison.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.

    My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457

    Debate stuff, things to beware:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26753299

    "In Australia, debate coverage is dominated by "The Worm," an electronic line that runs along the bottom of the screen controlled by a panel of floating voters. Politicians speak of the The Worm in awed tones. It can make or break them. In a 2007 debate between Kevin Rudd and John Howard there were even accusations of political skulduggery, with the "Worm Moderator" accusing Howard's ruling Liberal Party of sabotage. If there was foul play, it didn't work - Rudd went on to win."

    Over here, the General Election debates also found that the Worm had a significant impact upon viewer perception. That's why it should be abolished. It's wide open to letting a die-hard supporter or loather of a given party/individual onto the panel, the mob effect and involves a very small (I think 20 or fewer) people having substantial power to alter opinions about the debate. It simply must be axed.

    I strongly suspect it won't be, though. That would mean TV airheads giving up a gimmick some people like to watch and use for news clips.

    The worm's terrible, and so easy for the media organisations to game.

    "The killer finding is that the participants' own subsequent perception of the debate was influenced by the manipulated worm."

    http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/live-worm-during-political-tv-debates.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    F1: Not quite a self-fulfilling prophecy, I think, but more a statement of the obvious. Wolff reckons the driver rivalry at Mercedes will 'boil over' this season:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/151897.html

    What's more interesting is his criticism of Brawn's handling of Malaysia last year, when he (Brawn) ordered Rosberg to hold position behind Hamilton (an order duly obeyed in stark contrast to Horner's wimpish wibbling with Vettel). It does make me wonder if they've decided to openly have no team orders, unless only one driver still has a shot at the title.

    At the moment, Mercedes are dominant. They've taken both poles, and from 3 finishes have been 1st, 1st and 2nd. But, nothing lasts forever. Brawn in 2009 won 6/7 of the first races, I think, but Button only just clung on. Red Bull lack horsepower but are strong aerodynamically (the reverse is true of Williams and McLaren, and also Force India [although they seem better aerodynamically compared to the other two teams]).

    If Red Bull or another team catches up Mercedes could pay a price. In 2007, McLaren really should've won, but the Alonso-Hamilton battle let Raikkonen slip through the middle and claim the title by a single point.

    After Bahrain there's a fortnight to China, the last of the initial fly-aways, and then a three week gap to the European season. There will probably not be any serious updates prior to Spain (first European race), but every team will be trying to improve for that and the order could be shuffled a bit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Jessop, I couldn't agree more.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The two most important measures? No.

    Two interesting internals to keep an eye on? Yes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/britain-in-europe-debate/winner


    Best price on Clegg now 6-4. Thought Paddy would move it in.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +

    Of course by 2015, Sottish votes will be an irrelevance if the YES vote wins in September.

    Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591

    F1: Not quite a self-fulfilling prophecy, I think, but more a statement of the obvious. Wolff reckons the driver rivalry at Mercedes will 'boil over' this season:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/151897.html

    What's more interesting is his criticism of Brawn's handling of Malaysia last year, when he (Brawn) ordered Rosberg to hold position behind Hamilton (an order duly obeyed in stark contrast to Horner's wimpish wibbling with Vettel). It does make me wonder if they've decided to openly have no team orders, unless only one driver still has a shot at the title.

    At the moment, Mercedes are dominant. They've taken both poles, and from 3 finishes have been 1st, 1st and 2nd. But, nothing lasts forever. Brawn in 2009 won 6/7 of the first races, I think, but Button only just clung on. Red Bull lack horsepower but are strong aerodynamically (the reverse is true of Williams and McLaren, and also Force India [although they seem better aerodynamically compared to the other two teams]).

    If Red Bull or another team catches up Mercedes could pay a price. In 2007, McLaren really should've won, but the Alonso-Hamilton battle let Raikkonen slip through the middle and claim the title by a single point.

    After Bahrain there's a fortnight to China, the last of the initial fly-aways, and then a three week gap to the European season. There will probably not be any serious updates prior to Spain (first European race), but every team will be trying to improve for that and the order could be shuffled a bit.

    The bit that's often left out in the the 2013 Malaysia story is that the team were telling Hamilton to push and harry the Red Bulls through the first half of the race, knowing this left him short on fuel, whilst Rosberg pootled along on the time trial strategy.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2014
    However, the most interesting event of the day, is likely to be round two of the Clegg V Farage.

    The BBC is now bigging it up, whereas they were practically mute before the first debate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited April 2014

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sorry to delve into Scottish matters, but I was curious about this. I saw a story that was top 4 on the BBC and imagined it an April Fool, but it actually dates to the middle of 2007:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6234290.stm

    Do Scots need a licence to wear a sporran?

    Obviously, it's not the sporran but the animals which it could have been made from that is the issue, just as with ivory or whale material or an old birds' eggs collection. With such things it can be prudent in some circumstances to have documentation that one owned X before the relevant date after which gathering of the raw animal (so to speak), and trade, etc. were banned.

    But your reference did surprise me as I had never heard of a sporran licence, and a quick check suggests that the story was seriously inaccurate in its listing of species in what was in any case a "maybe something terrible will happen" story - badger and seal in particular were not licensed in this way.

    http://naturenet.net/blogs/2007/06/24/scotsmen-will-need-a-sporran-licence-no-seriously/

    As a bat would be useless for a sporran (apart possibly from the fruit bats, which are hardly native to Scotland) that basically would mean that it's otters and wildcats which were given this protection, which is hardly unreasonable given the wider issues [edit: affecting those species in particular].


  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MikeK said:

    However, the most interesting event of the day, is likely to be round two of the Clegg V Farage.

    The BBC is now bigging it up, whereas they were practically mute before the first debate.

    No one sane cares. No one sane will remember it by the time Populus comes to poll the public on the recalled news stories of the week - unless one of the participants says something hugely damaging to his own cause.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Pulpstar said:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/britain-in-europe-debate/winner


    Best price on Clegg now 6-4. Thought Paddy would move it in.

    No way! Cleggover is a loser all the way.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Maaarsh, I forget what occurred earlier with Hamilton, but if a team strategy cost him late on that could well explain why they didn't want him to end up behind Rosberg (it could be seen as shafting Hamilton by buggering up his strategy).
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sorry to delve into Scottish matters, but I was curious about this. I saw a story that was top 4 on the BBC and imagined it an April Fool, but it actually dates to the middle of 2007:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6234290.stm

    Do Scots need a licence to wear a sporran?

    No but Englishmen and other foreigners do (Jack W "titters")
  • Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.

    My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.

    Fingers crossed. Go Scotland!

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.

    My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.

    I'm sorry to hear you're experiencing a bad case of the trots .... you've not been purchasing poorer quality fayre of the pie variety have you ??

    I fear you have, as increased turnout will undoubtedly lead to a greater NO vote. Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.

    McARSE latest turnout projection is 79%



  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    edited April 2014
    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    However, the most interesting event of the day, is likely to be round two of the Clegg V Farage.

    The BBC is now bigging it up, whereas they were practically mute before the first debate.

    No one sane cares. No one sane will remember it by the time Populus comes to poll the public on the recalled news stories of the week - unless one of the participants says something hugely damaging to his own cause.
    Farage virtually welcomed the Red army into Europe. Also basically called British cars crap. He still won and I can't recall any news being made about the gaffes.

    The plane was the highest precisience news story at the time, now it is 7 a day, so the news is slower at the moment. Also this debate is BBC rather than LBC and everyone loves a rematch so that combined with the slower news at the moment MIGHT push it slightly higher in the public conscious.

    Will Farage say the EU has blood on it's hands ?

    I reckon Clegg could well win this time tbh.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Easterross, as a descendent of those who invented the kilt, surely I don't need a licence? :p
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    AF,

    "unless one of the participants says something hugely damaging to his own cause." Or which can be twisted or interpreted to be so. That would then be a media story. So no wonder politicians dissemble.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    "For the polling of the past four years has seen very little switching between the two main parties. Rather it is the impact of other movements which are driving the numbers and underpinning the LAB lead."
    This isn't true, as I've shown with the ICM data before.

    See this chart.

    The chart uses data from ICM Guardian polls since the general election, though it hasn't been updated since I created it a few months ago. Unfortunately, I can't work out how to get datawrapper to show meaningful dates on the x-axis, but one can clearly see the polling effects of the Lib Dem betrayal, the Omnishambles budget and the UKIP surge.

    The y-axis is Labour polling percentage and the number of poll respondents for the swing voters. You can clearly see that the effect of direct Con-Lab swing voters was greater than the Lib-Lab swing voters during the peak of the effects of the Omnishambles budget.

    What's particularly important about this switching is that it has changed, several times, during the course of the Parliament, while the Lib-Lab switching is only declining very gradually. It is the potential for change that we are most interested in, and I contend that this polling evidence points to direct Con-Lab swing voters as being the subset of voters who are most likely to change their minds before the election and most likely to change the eventual result.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +

    Of course by 2015, Sottish votes will be an irrelevance if the YES vote wins in September.

    Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
    Well as the likelihood of a YES win is about as high as Farage receiving the "Freedom of Ukraine" then I assure you the wonderful swirl of the bagpipes will be heard in celebration of the good sense of the Scottish nation in remaining in the Union, which I would remind you is a fundamental principle of the party you most assiduously support.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited April 2014

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +

    Of course by 2015, Sottish votes will be an irrelevance if the YES vote wins in September.

    Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
    Surely not quite that soon - there is a GE in 2015 in which there will still be Scottish constituencies*. But yes, the basic principles stand!

    *edit: subject to some special interim arrangement, of course

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    The chart uses data from ICM Guardian polls since the general election, though it hasn't been updated since I created it a few months ago.

    I've now updated the chart to March 2014.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457

    F1: Not quite a self-fulfilling prophecy, I think, but more a statement of the obvious. Wolff reckons the driver rivalry at Mercedes will 'boil over' this season:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/151897.html

    What's more interesting is his criticism of Brawn's handling of Malaysia last year, when he (Brawn) ordered Rosberg to hold position behind Hamilton (an order duly obeyed in stark contrast to Horner's wimpish wibbling with Vettel). It does make me wonder if they've decided to openly have no team orders, unless only one driver still has a shot at the title.

    At the moment, Mercedes are dominant. They've taken both poles, and from 3 finishes have been 1st, 1st and 2nd. But, nothing lasts forever. Brawn in 2009 won 6/7 of the first races, I think, but Button only just clung on. Red Bull lack horsepower but are strong aerodynamically (the reverse is true of Williams and McLaren, and also Force India [although they seem better aerodynamically compared to the other two teams]).

    If Red Bull or another team catches up Mercedes could pay a price. In 2007, McLaren really should've won, but the Alonso-Hamilton battle let Raikkonen slip through the middle and claim the title by a single point.

    After Bahrain there's a fortnight to China, the last of the initial fly-aways, and then a three week gap to the European season. There will probably not be any serious updates prior to Spain (first European race), but every team will be trying to improve for that and the order could be shuffled a bit.

    The Hamilton<>Rosberg rivalry feels different to previous rivalries, such as Vettel<>Webber, or Alonso<>Prost. Unlike many previous top-rank rivalries, at least in modern times, they have been apparently firm friends for years. More importantly, they have raced each other for years - they were even in the same karting team.

    This means that either that friendship will take the edge off the rivalry - at least off the circuit - or become even more explosive.

    You have to separate the on-track rivalry with the off-track friendships - an example being Lauda and Hunt. They were rivals on track, friends off (this is one thing the film got very wrong).

    Hamilton's long-standing friendship with Sutil allegedly ended when the former refused to turn up as a witness in Sutil's court case.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    JackW said:

    Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.

    The Sao Tome and Principe dobra is linked to the Euro. So it was doomed to fail. Like the currency union with the pound.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549

    IOS said:

    When was it that populus changed their methodology? If it was in Feb then you can't really compare these figures.

    Does anyone have the date?

    Populus changes their methodology at the start of Feb - so both the two months are under the new regime and therefore this is a valid comparison.

    My understanding is that the first Feb poll was on the old basis, and the second on the new.

    I do not know whether the Feb monthly summary included the first Feb poll or adjusted it for the new basis.

    It is unlikely to be material in the Feb monthly summary and so the Feb and March summaries should be directly comparable.

    Why doesn't yougov do a fortnightly comparison? That would be useful if it had properly adjusted subsamples.


  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    The Red Liberals and the Purple Tories - forget about everyone else, these hold the key to Number 10.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.

    The Sao Tome and Principe dobra is linked to the Euro. So it was doomed to fail. Like the currency union with the pound.
    Another plank of YES fails !!

    And my word YES is full of planks .... perhaps we should offer Eck & Co some currency and barter options as time runs down with little more than five months to the vote.

    My favoured currency option for cultural reasons remains a link with the Armenian Dram. Barter is more tricky but an interim barter of one swirl of the kilt to the pound would clearly offer value for money in the future "Strictly Come Bankruptcy" economic plan of the SNP.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Liberals withdrawing support for the Bedroom Tax. Why they ever supported this dog of a policy is another question but at least they have come to their senses.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2014
    Morning all.

    There was some discussion yesterday about high-frequency trading and an (annual) return on investment target of 25%. Of course that is far from risk-free.

    Pah! 25% ROI in a year is for wimps. Shadsy is offering you 25% in a day:

    Buzzword Bingo - N Clegg v N Farage BBC Debate
    'Putin' 1/4

    http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/N-Clegg-v-N-Farage-BBC-Debate/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z0t43xZ1z141ne/

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    BobaFett said:

    Liberals withdrawing support for the Bedroom Tax. Why they ever supported this dog of a policy is another question but at least they have come to their senses.

    Are they? How odd, given that this week we've had the preliminary evidence of how successful it has been in beginning the much-needed reallocation of resources to those who most need them.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Nice spot Mr Nabavi. I'm on!
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2014

    Morning all.

    There was some discussion yesterday about high-frequency trading and an (annual) return on investment target of 25%. Of course that is far from risk-free.

    Pah! 25% ROI in a year is for wimps. Shadsy is offering you 25% in a day:

    Buzzword Bingo - N Clegg v N Farage BBC Debate
    'Putin' 1/4

    http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/N-Clegg-v-N-Farage-BBC-Debate/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z0t43xZ1z141ne/

    In to 1/8 now, unfortunately.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sort of on-topic, Sunny Hundal frets about ex-Lib Dem supporters of Labour:

    http://labourlist.org/2014/04/why-labour-could-be-the-biggest-loser-from-clegg-vs-farage-tonight/

    He's wrong about this specific debate (no one will care), but right about the general concern for Labour.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Morning all.

    There was some discussion yesterday about high-frequency trading and an (annual) return on investment target of 25%. Of course that is far from risk-free.

    Pah! 25% ROI in a year is for wimps. Shadsy is offering you 25% in a day:

    Buzzword Bingo - N Clegg v N Farage BBC Debate
    'Putin' 1/4

    http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/N-Clegg-v-N-Farage-BBC-Debate/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z0t43xZ1z141ne/

    In to 1/8 now, unfortunately.
    1/50 would be more like it.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    BobaFett said:

    Liberals withdrawing support for the Bedroom Tax. Why they ever supported this dog of a policy is another question but at least they have come to their senses.

    Are they? How odd, given that this week we've had the preliminary evidence of how successful it has been in beginning the much-needed reallocation of resources to those who most need them.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    "A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2014
    BobaFett said:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    "A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."

    And your point is what exactly? That you don't care a toss about the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in hopelessly over-crowded accomodation whilst the taxpayer subsidises a million empty bedrooms?

    Well, it's a view, I suppose.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Liberals pull support for Bedroom Tax. First the Royal Mail fiasco, now this. Not a great week for the government.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/lib-dem-president-withdraw-party-support-bedroom-tax
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    BobaFett said:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    "A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."

    And your point is what exactly? That you don't care a toss about the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in hopelessly over-crowded accomodation whilst the taxpayer subsidises a million empty bedrooms?

    Well, it's a view, I suppose.
    Total and utter rubbish Richard. There aren't enough single bedroom homes to accommodate those thrown out. Read the story and the evidence and come back to me when you grasp the impact of the policy.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BobaFett said:

    Liberals pull support for Bedroom Tax. First the Royal Mail fiasco, now this. Not a great week for the government.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/lib-dem-president-withdraw-party-support-bedroom-tax

    Tim Farron isn't "Liberals" and isn't a member of the government.

    It's somewhat like saying "Labour pulls support from Benefits Cap" only to find the report is about Diane Abbott not supporting her front bench.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    BobaFett said:


    Total and utter rubbish Richard. There aren't enough single bedroom homes to accommodate those thrown out. Read the story and the evidence and come back to me when you grasp the impact of the policy.

    This is the most daft argument I have every heard. It is so spectacularly stupid that only someone like Ed Miliband could attempt to use it. Of course there aren't enough single- or two-bedroom homes available. That's because they are full of families living in overcrowded conditions.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, in the first few months of the new policy, we have already achieved a 6% shift, well on track for the 30% reduction in the problem which the government is targeting over 5 years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727

    It is staggering how short-term a view people take. It will take years to clear up the welfare mess, of which the misallocation of social housing is one glaring example.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    JackW said:

    BobaFett said:

    Liberals pull support for Bedroom Tax. First the Royal Mail fiasco, now this. Not a great week for the government.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/lib-dem-president-withdraw-party-support-bedroom-tax

    Tim Farron isn't "Liberals" and isn't a member of the government.

    It's somewhat like saying "Labour pulls support from Benefits Cap" only to find the report is about Diane Abbott not supporting her front bench.

    It says he will withdraw his party's support for the policy.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    BobaFett said:

    BobaFett said:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    "A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."

    And your point is what exactly? That you don't care a toss about the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in hopelessly over-crowded accomodation whilst the taxpayer subsidises a million empty bedrooms?

    Well, it's a view, I suppose.
    Total and utter rubbish Richard. There aren't enough single bedroom homes to accommodate those thrown out. Read the story and the evidence and come back to me when you grasp the impact of the policy.
    Who's been 'thrown out'?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    BobaFett said:

    The Red Liberals and the Purple Tories - forget about everyone else, these hold the key to Number 10.

    Of course the Red Liberals were Red Labs before they switched at GE2010 as even they couldn't bring themselves to vote GB and Lab in again.

    The question is, have Lab done enough for them to return to the fold or has the coalition c*cked it up enough for them to desert?

    As to the first, I'm not sure. There has been no concrete example of a firm policy change plus 95% of the principals are still there so no real distance between Lab 2009 and Lab today (with the obvious exception). I don't disagree with the tactic of waiting to release a manifesto/policies but for this sub-group (Lab=>LD=>?) they need a reassuring reason why they can come back to Lab and so far I can't see it.

    As to the second, the first, middle and last charge is it's the "wrong sort of recovery benefiting the few and not the many". That is (if you are a Lab-er) a hostage to fortune because just like the triple-dip and other scare stories, they might not happen and by GE2015 more people might be affected by the recovery. That said, it will take some time to wean people off a credit-fuelled lifestyle and many people will be hurting/in cold turkey for some time to come.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BobaFett said:

    JackW said:

    BobaFett said:

    Liberals pull support for Bedroom Tax. First the Royal Mail fiasco, now this. Not a great week for the government.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/lib-dem-president-withdraw-party-support-bedroom-tax

    Tim Farron isn't "Liberals" and isn't a member of the government.

    It's somewhat like saying "Labour pulls support from Benefits Cap" only to find the report is about Diane Abbott not supporting her front bench.

    It says he will withdraw his party's support for the policy.

    Tim Farron isn't in a position to "withdraw" anything apart from his own windy assertion that he has the power to do so.

  • Anorak said:

    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564

    Is there something you know about Ségolène Royal that the rest of us don't?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 2014
    On topic, for a bit of fun, I'm undertaking a project to do something similar with YouGov.

    I'll be aggregating their polls by month, from the 2010 general election onwards to see if we're seeing a similar trend.

    I'm hopeful to have this completed when my next stint as Guest Editor begins.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564

    Is there something you know about Ségolène Royal that the rest of us don't?
    Born Kevin Jones, Pontypridd. Fifteen years down the mines before gender reassignment and reinvention as a French red princess.
  • If you need your irony meters calibrating.....

    Chelsea's Jose Mourinho complains about another club, PSG, spending far too much money

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/01/chelsea-paris-saint-germain-jose-mourinho
  • Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564

    Is there something you know about Ségolène Royal that the rest of us don't?
    Born Kevin Jones, Pontypridd. Fifteen years down the mines before gender reassignment and reinvention as a French red princess.
    So that makes her half Welsh and half French?

    How unlucky can one person be?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    BobaFett said:

    BobaFett said:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    "A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."

    And your point is what exactly? That you don't care a toss about the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in hopelessly over-crowded accomodation whilst the taxpayer subsidises a million empty bedrooms?

    Well, it's a view, I suppose.
    Total and utter rubbish Richard. There aren't enough single bedroom homes to accommodate those thrown out. Read the story and the evidence and come back to me when you grasp the impact of the policy.

    Richard believes that feckless parents who breed children should be prioritised over the disabled and hardworking families whose crime is that one of their children may have left home.
  • LIKE the ancient Egyptian city of Tanis, the south east of England is, at last, being wiped clean by the wrath of God.

    Saharan sand is sweeping across Britain’s greediest and most materialistic region, erasing its temples of avarice and sending a stark warning to all those who would worship at the altar of Mammon.

    Dr Marcus Brody, an expert in Biblical weather, said: “Like the sandstorm that consumed Tanis, it will probably last a whole year and will destroy much of London as well as Colchester, Basildon and, of course, Peterborough, the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/south-east-finally-being-wiped-clean-by-the-wrath-of-god-2014040285317
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2014
    I can see why François Hollande felt it necessary to rebalance his government and appoint Ms Royal. The previous cabinet was a bit thin on Hollande's personal classmates from the École Nationale d'Administration, but the natural balance is now restored with the President, Finance Minister and Environment Minister all from the same 1978 ENA intake (plus others such as Laurent Fabius from different years, of course).
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    BobaFett said:


    Total and utter rubbish Richard. There aren't enough single bedroom homes to accommodate those thrown out. Read the story and the evidence and come back to me when you grasp the impact of the policy.

    This is the most daft argument I have every heard. It is so spectacularly stupid that only someone like Ed Miliband could attempt to use it. Of course there aren't enough single- or two-bedroom homes available. That's because they are full of families living in overcrowded conditions.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, in the first few months of the new policy, we have already achieved a 6% shift, well on track for the 30% reduction in the problem which the government is targeting over 5 years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727

    It is staggering how short-term a view people take. It will take years to clear up the welfare mess, of which the misallocation of social housing is one glaring example.

    So it was wrong to allow people to buy their council houses?

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564

    Is there something you know about Ségolène Royal that the rest of us don't?
    Born Kevin Jones, Pontypridd. Fifteen years down the mines before gender reassignment and reinvention as a French red princess.
    Arf - then she's the hottest 'Kevin' I've seen in quite a while...!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +

    Of course by 2015, Sottish votes will be an irrelevance if the YES vote wins in September.

    Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
    Well as the likelihood of a YES win is about as high as Farage receiving the "Freedom of Ukraine" then I assure you the wonderful swirl of the bagpipes will be heard in celebration of the good sense of the Scottish nation in remaining in the Union, which I would remind you is a fundamental principle of the party you most assiduously support.

    Luckily my party gives it's membership freedom to think for themselves. I will not miss Scotland one bit should it decide on independence.
    There could even be a stirring silence from the highlands, should that turn out to be the case.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited April 2014

    I can see why François Hollande felt it necessary to rebalance his government and appoint Ms Royal. The previous cabinet was a bit thin on Hollande's classmates from the École nationale d'administration, but the natural balance is now restored with the President, Finance Minister and Environment Minister all from the same 1978 intake.

    How does that compare with Etonians in the British government?

  • I can see why François Hollande felt it necessary to rebalance his government and appoint Ms Royal. The previous cabinet was a bit thin on Hollande's classmates from the École nationale d'administration, but the natural balance is now restored with the President, Finance Minister and Environment Minister all from the same 1978 intake.

    How does that compare with Etonians in the British government?

    Just the one Old Etonian?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm looking at repeating the project I undertook before the 2010 election comparing bookies' odds in constituencies with majorities:

    http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/constituency-betting-choosing-which.html

    This is quite an undertaking, however, so please be patient with me.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    Hollande promotes his ex-partner and father of his children to environment minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564

    Is there something you know about Ségolène Royal that the rest of us don't?
    Born Kevin Jones, Pontypridd. Fifteen years down the mines before gender reassignment and reinvention as a French red princess.
    Also a useful loosehead prop for Ponty RFC, I believe.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    To be fair, the Tories are not very au fait with the bedroom tax and its impact. They claim, for example, that Labour introduced the same thing for private tenants, when that is not the case.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Richard believes that feckless parents who breed children should be prioritised over the disabled and hardworking families whose crime is that one of their children may have left home.

    Interesting language.

    I'm a simple chap. If we're going to subsidise housing, then subsidising a three-bedroom home occupied by Ms Jayne Dennis, living by herself, doesn't seem a very good use of taxpayers' money, nor fair to Mark and Marion Smith, stuck with their three children in a two-bedroom flat:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727

    Of course I have every sympathy with Ms Dennis who has had to move, which is I'm sure disruptive and distressing for her. I have even more sympathy for Mr and Mrs Smith and the three children. Over the medium term, reforming a barmy system where we pay for rooms which are not needed, and don't provide rooms which are needed, is sensible enough, is it not?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2014
    JackW said:

    Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.

    My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.

    I'm sorry to hear you're experiencing a bad case of the trots .... you've not been purchasing poorer quality fayre of the pie variety have you ??

    I fear you have, as increased turnout will undoubtedly lead to a greater NO vote. Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.

    McARSE latest turnout projection is 79%
    The difference is he's using verifiable evidence because his isn't some loony old codger basing absurd 'predictions' on just how loud his farts are on any given morning of decrepit incontinence. You know, like you do.

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

  • antifrank said:

    I'm looking at repeating the project I undertook before the 2010 election comparing bookies' odds in constituencies with majorities:

    http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/constituency-betting-choosing-which.html

    This is quite an undertaking, however, so please be patient with me.

    Excellent, reviewing the 2010 list, the top ones that the Tories failed to take were Lib Dem seats.

    A precedent for those Lib/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in 2015?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 2014
    Oh my, just when you thought Paddy Power couldn't sink any lower, they do something with tonight's Clegg/Farage debate (Lots of mind bleach is required)

    Their faces will forever haunt me.

    twitter.com/pppolitics/status/451305292970479616/photo/1
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 2014
    Damnit, there goes Liverpool's plan to sign Messi this summer

    Spanish champions Barcelona have been given a 14-month transfer ban by Fifa for breaking rules on signing international players under 18.

    The Catalan club cannot buy or sell players until the summer of 2015 after the world governing body imposed a transfer ban for the next two windows.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26852466
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    I can see why François Hollande felt it necessary to rebalance his government and appoint Ms Royal. The previous cabinet was a bit thin on Hollande's classmates from the École nationale d'administration, but the natural balance is now restored with the President, Finance Minister and Environment Minister all from the same 1978 intake.

    How does that compare with Etonians in the British government?

    You have it all wrong. Why even Gove is on board with the deep rooted social justice aims of the chumocracy.

    Stacie Lewis ‏@MamaLewisBlog 13h

    From TES article: Michael Gove claimed today that the Conservatives were now “the real party of social justice” driven by a “moral purpose”.


    And all it took was a damn good moral thrashing from the fops to convince him of it.


    Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics

    Blog: Michael Gove gets a thrashing, Eton-style http://tgr.ph/1j0r2z4
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    OGH thread leader said :

    "As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."

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

    Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.

    IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.

    In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.

    In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.

    In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.

    In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.

    In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.

    Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +

    Of course by 2015, Sottish votes will be an irrelevance if the YES vote wins in September.

    Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
    Well as the likelihood of a YES win is about as high as Farage receiving the "Freedom of Ukraine" then I assure you the wonderful swirl of the bagpipes will be heard in celebration of the good sense of the Scottish nation in remaining in the Union, which I would remind you is a fundamental principle of the party you most assiduously support.

    Luckily my party gives it's membership freedom to think for themselves. I will not miss Scotland one bit should it decide on independence.
    There could even be a stirring silence from the highlands, should that turn out to be the case.
    And the nation is grateful that such freedom of thought from Ukip members has enhanced the gaiety of the our lives with "Bongo Bongo land", wives chained to their kitchen appliances and most useful of all determining long range cataclysmic weather patterns because of gay marriage.

    Dull it certainly isn't.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.

    My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.

    That is for sure, downhill all the way for them, they will pay a heavy price for all their lies and distortion. You would have thought by putting the Labour losers in charge that they would have by now grasped the fact that negative campaigning is not the way to go, especially as you have nothing good to say about yourself.
This discussion has been closed.