Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely? Is it evidence of tactical unwind and a rebalancing of the Labour electoral advantage as they pile up dead votes in the south? Or are they getting lucky and getting tactical tourniquet from midland and northern lib Dems? Add a fourth party with 10% or so if they can convert..... UNS is useless
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:
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?
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
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.
Re ScotInd and turnout. Yes, a higher turnout us likely to be worse for NO, YES are far more committed to vote , they are 100% committed! that's what believing in yes means it's your one shot. no is a broader church, the pathological nos will vote, but the 'not sure about independence but not happy with the status quo' nos will likely not, the NO but I can't stand the Westminster party nos might stay home. And if the NO campaign doesn't stop with the bully boy, negative nonsense, a new group will start voting YES, the 'screw you' sector.
Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely?
We are just talking about floating voters in the end and all the parties will be tailoring their message to them in all the marginals just like at every other election. What matters is who can win them over and just how many there are.
Emily Thornberry being slaughtered by Andrew Neil on Daily Politics.. started losing her temper and accusing him of bring rude for pointing out Labour don't have a policy on tuition fees
Who on earth in the Labour party thinks its a good idea to keep putting her on the telly? Doesn't say a lot for their judgement
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely?
We are just talking about floating voters in the end and all the parties will be tailoring their message to them in all the marginals just like at every other election. What matters is who can win them over and just how many there are.
Yes, but it's more fundamental with the Lib Dem decline, that's a severe hollowing out. Where Lib Dems have some strength is a good guide to where Labour might see a more dramatic pick up in its share. However, point about marginals accepted in full of course.
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
I don't think that forcing people to move is a better option than reducing the subsidy, but, whatever the reason, the fact is that the system hasn't worked, and huge imbalances have built up.
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
Do local authorities have the ability to move people into cheaper accommodation? I'm pretty sure once you get a council house you get it for life. With rent subsidised for life as well. As for the incentive, I'm not sure that's clear either. Most local councillors will get elected or kicked out based on national political trends. The only way they buck that trend is if there's a huge controversy over Mr and Mrs Collins getting kicked out their home because it was written up from one side by the sole local newspaper.
Emily Thornberry being slaughtered by Andrew Neil on Daily Politics.. started losing her temper and accusing him of bring rude for pointing out Labour don't have a policy on tuition fees
Who on earth in the Labour party thinks its a good idea to keep putting her on the telly? Doesn't say a lot for their judgement
She was first out of the blocks as a Brown apologist whenever trouble reared its head.
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:
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?
The Smiths, of course, have not moved into Ms Dennis's former property because they live in a different part of the country. And therein lies the basic flaw in the Bedroom Tax. It is applying a one size fits all solution to a problem that is nuanced. What is barmy is to charge people more for living in homes when they are then faced with a choice of running up substantial debts to remain where they are or moving into council paid bed and breakfast accommodation.
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:
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?
This whole argument only works, however, if there are one beds available for Ms Dennis to go into. It seems pretty harsh if she gets fined each month for something she has no control over.
By far the most unfair and tax-wasting element of the present council housing system is that there are huge numbers of people that are now comfortably off continuing to use government property at subsidised prices, at huge opportunity cost to the taxpayer. Ideally, they should be told that they need to move by a certain date. If that's politically impossible, then the minimum should be that they are charged slightly above market rates to give them an economic incentive to move, so someone genuinely needy can move in.
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:
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?
The Smiths, of course, have not moved into Ms Dennis's former property because they live in a different part of the country. And therein lies the basic flaw in the Bedroom Tax. It is applying a one size fits all solution to a problem that is nuanced. What is barmy is to charge people more for living in homes when they are then faced with a choice of running up substantial debts to remain where they are or moving into council paid bed and breakfast accommodation.
Ideologically, those opposing this tax should come out with an alternative solution, or deny there is a problem that needs solving. Politically, as in all things, it is more expedient to say it is wrong, and leave it at that.
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:
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?
This whole argument only works, however, if there are one beds available for Ms Dennis to go into. It seems pretty harsh if she gets fined each month for something she has no control over.
By far the most unfair and tax-wasting element of the present council housing system is that there are huge numbers of people that are now comfortably off continuing to use government property at subsidised prices, at huge opportunity cost to the taxpayer. Ideally, they should be told that they need to move by a certain date. If that's politically impossible, then the minimum should be that they are charged slightly above market rates to give them an economic incentive to move, so someone genuinely needy can move in.
The real question is: why should the government be involved in the long-term provision of housing?
Was homelessness a real problem in the days before housing benefit and council houses? Or did the price of housing move to ensure that all houses were filled?
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
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:
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?
This whole argument only works, however, if there are one beds available for Ms Dennis to go into. It seems pretty harsh if she gets fined each month for something she has no control over.
By far the most unfair and tax-wasting element of the present council housing system is that there are huge numbers of people that are now comfortably off continuing to use government property at subsidised prices, at huge opportunity cost to the taxpayer. Ideally, they should be told that they need to move by a certain date. If that's politically impossible, then the minimum should be that they are charged slightly above market rates to give them an economic incentive to move, so someone genuinely needy can move in.
She's not being 'fined'.
This is the same weaselly corruption of language, whereby a reduction in a benefit, has somehow been twisted into 'a tax'.
@Southam - Of course those particular two cases haven't swapped, but the principle still remains.
You, and the Left generally, are quick to find the small number of cases where the changes have caused hardship in the short-term, and yet you seem to be coldly and completely uninterested both in the overcrowding, and in the unfairness, of the current system, which has built up over the long term and which the changes will gradually ameliorate. This is just an astonishing blind spot, since the numbers are so stark: a MILLION surplus rooms (according to the definition created by the last government), subsidised by taxpayers some of whom can't afford such accomodation themselves.
Mr and Mrs Smith pay taxes of various sorts: why should they, crowded into a two-bedroom flat with three children, subsidise the spare rooms of Ms Dennis? Do you not care about this manifest injustice?
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
I don't think that forcing people to move is a better option than reducing the subsidy, but, whatever the reason, the fact is that the system hasn't worked, and huge imbalances have built up.
For whatever reason? The whole point of having a government is that they can find they reason and fix it. Does anyone here know enough about the housing benefit system to explain why, having delegated the administration of this scheme to local authorities, they can't let them do the job?
PS The obvious explanation for violations of obvious principles of good administration like this is that the tabloids are saying this is a problem, and central the government think they'll get votes by pandering to them.
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a poor case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M but my old crackling there is no evidence that this equates to an improvement in YES.
Indeed YES continues to trail miserably for all the policy farts it emits and bluster that pours forth. You're done for like a fine Arbroath kipper - smoked out and ready for the eating.
Emily Thornberry being slaughtered by Andrew Neil on Daily Politics.. started losing her temper and accusing him of bring rude for pointing out Labour don't have a policy on tuition fees
Who on earth in the Labour party thinks its a good idea to keep putting her on the telly? Doesn't say a lot for their judgement
She was first out of the blocks as a Brown apologist whenever trouble reared its head.
Also ticks the "Local Comprehensives are ok for the masses but Im sending my children to a selective school in a different borough" box
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M but my old crackling there is no evidence that this equates to an improvement in YES.
Indeed YES continues to trail miserably for all the policy farts it emits and bluster that pours forth. You're done for like a fine Arbroath kipper - smoked out and ready for the eating.
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely?
We are just talking about floating voters in the end and all the parties will be tailoring their message to them in all the marginals just like at every other election. What matters is who can win them over and just how many there are.
Yes, but it's more fundamental with the Lib Dem decline, that's a severe hollowing out. Where Lib Dems have some strength is a good guide to where Labour might see a more dramatic pick up in its share.
Of course but it's still floating voters in the end. There is some utility in knowing previous voting patterns but you very soon end up slicing that block into ever smaller chunks and subsets since those who used to vote for a certain party will not all shift uniformly to any one party in 2015.
The thing about a GE campaign is that, while there can be a certain amount of micro-managing on the ground in seats, the national campaign can't send out 4 or 5 different messages to tailor to subsets of previous voters. All the parties will craft their message to appeal to what they can best define as the floating voter while trying not to alienate their base.
There is simply far more churn among the parties now which makes previous party allegiances less useful as a predictive tool. There's a good many political reasons why that churn is now so prevalent but it's fairly pointless to deny it isn't there.
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
Do local authorities have the ability to move people into cheaper accommodation? I'm pretty sure once you get a council house you get it for life. With rent subsidised for life as well. As for the incentive, I'm not sure that's clear either. Most local councillors will get elected or kicked out based on national political trends. The only way they buck that trend is if there's a huge controversy over Mr and Mrs Collins getting kicked out their home because it was written up from one side by the sole local newspaper.
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
Do local authorities have the ability to move people into cheaper accommodation? I'm pretty sure once you get a council house you get it for life. With rent subsidised for life as well. As for the incentive, I'm not sure that's clear either. Most local councillors will get elected or kicked out based on national political trends. The only way they buck that trend is if there's a huge controversy over Mr and Mrs Collins getting kicked out their home because it was written up from one side by the sole local newspaper.
The incentive point comes down to: If a council saves money on housing benefit, can they spend it elsewhere? If they can, they have an incentive to make savings if they reasonably can. I'm sure this is true even if their performance has zero effect on their reelection prospects, because they're bound to have schemes they'd like to fund.
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a poor case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M
That's a real number. He's not basing it on how badly stained his underpants are after a night of uncontrollable flatulence. Which is what you do JackArse. If you don't want to be an embarrassing laughing stock then stop pretending your own farts have any predictive value.
Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely?
We are just talking about floating voters in the end and all the parties will be tailoring their message to them in all the marginals just like at every other election. What matters is who can win them over and just how many there are.
Yes, but it's more fundamental with the Lib Dem decline, that's a severe hollowing out. Where Lib Dems have some strength is a good guide to where Labour might see a more dramatic pick up in its share.
Of course but it's still floating voters in the end. There is some utility in knowing previous voting patterns but you very soon end up slicing that block into ever smaller chunks and subsets since those who used to vote for a certain party will not all shift uniformly to any one party in 2015.
The thing about a GE campaign is that, while there can be a certain amount of micro-managing on the ground in seats, the national campaign can't send out 4 or 5 different messages to tailor to subsets of previous voters. All the parties will craft their message to appeal to what they can best define as the floating voter while trying not to alienate their base.
There is simply far more churn among the parties now which makes previous party allegiances less useful as a predictive tool. There's a good many political reasons why that churn is now so prevalent but it's fairly pointless to deny it isn't there.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I guess my point is the rule book is becoming less relevant, the shifts are four ways, not two ways as in previous elections. The Tory v the rest 97-10 situation is no longer definitive.
Oh dear Ed Miliband on the Royal Mail privatisation at PMQ's, 'it was a sale no one wanted'. The minute that Miliband uttered that after Cameron had already reminded him that the last Labour Government had tried desperately to flog Royal Mail, he proved yet again he cannot think fast on his feet.
@Southam - Of course those particular two cases haven't swapped, but the principle still remains.
You, and the Left generally, are quick to find the small number of cases where the changes have caused hardship in the short-term, and yet you seem to be coldly and completely uninterested both in the overcrowding, and in the unfairness, of the current system, which has built up over the long term and which the changes will gradually ameliorate. This is just an astonishing blind spot, since the numbers are so stark: a MILLION surplus rooms (according to the definition created by the last government), subsidised by taxpayers some of whom can't afford such accomodation themselves.
Mr and Mrs Smith pay taxes of various sorts: why should they, crowded into a two-bedroom flat with three children, subsidise the spare rooms of Ms Dennis? Do you not care about this manifest injustice?
The simple fact is that in most parts of the country Local Authorities operate a tenants incentive scheme where they actually pay a tenant in a house too big for them a tidy sum for moving to smaller accommodation. There is also the homeswap scheme which allows tenants to swap properties. The sensationalist media coverage never points that out. Of course there will be exceptions, but for the majority of tenants who live in accommodation that is too big for them moving to smaller accommodation via a transfer or a homeswap is easy.
Oh dear Ed Miliband on the Royal Mail privatisation at PMQ's, 'it was a sale no one wanted'. The minute that Miliband uttered that after Cameron had already reminded him that the last Labour Government had tried desperately to flog Royal Mail, he proved yet again he cannot think fast on his feet.
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M but my old crackling there is no evidence that this equates to an improvement in YES.
Indeed YES continues to trail miserably for all the policy farts it emits and bluster that pours forth. You're done for like a fine Arbroath kipper - smoked out and ready for the eating.
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
I prefer kippers. But whether smoked cold or smoked hot as haddock we'll find Arbroath folk will vote NO.
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%
I tend to agree with that. Yes clearly has substantial organisational advantages in terms of GOTV. The higher the vote is, the more that advantage will be diminished.
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a poor case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M
That's a real number. He's not basing it on how badly stained his underpants are after a night of uncontrollable flatulence. Which is what you do JackArse. If you don't want to be an embarrassing laughing stock then stop pretending your own farts have any predictive value.
I'll tell you what real numbers are.
Real numbers are the profits that PBers have made from previous emissions from my ARSE.
What you just can't stand is any Scot taking a view against the disaster that is independence and your continuing inability to convince a majority of Scots that Eck's Folly is worthy of our great nation.
Bercow no longer appears to make many interventions during PMQ's. Wonder why ? I thought that if they were speaker, that they were pretty safe in their seats.
Where are the switchers located? A key demographic, surely?
We are just talking about floating voters in the end and all the parties will be tailoring their message to them in all the marginals just like at every other election. What matters is who can win them over and just how many there are.
Yes, but it's more fundamental with the Lib Dem decline, that's a severe hollowing out. Where Lib Dems have some strength is a good guide to where Labour might see a more dramatic pick up in its share.
Of course but it's still floating voters in the end. There is some utility in knowing previous voting patterns but you very soon end up slicing that block into ever smaller chunks and subsets since those who used to vote for a certain party will not all shift uniformly to any one party in 2015.
The thing about a GE campaign is that, while there can be a certain amount of micro-managing on the ground in seats, the national campaign can't send out 4 or 5 different messages to tailor to subsets of previous voters. All the parties will craft their message to appeal to what they can best define as the floating voter while trying not to alienate their base.
There is simply far more churn among the parties now which makes previous party allegiances less useful as a predictive tool. There's a good many political reasons why that churn is now so prevalent but it's fairly pointless to deny it isn't there.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I guess my point is the rule book is becoming less relevant, the shifts are four ways, not two ways as in previous elections. The Tory v the rest 97-10 situation is no longer definitive.
Indeed. At least four ways. You can explain some of the frankly erratic movement we've seen from some of the pollsters with that which is why there will be even more uncertainty between the various ones this time around. That's not to say some won't have been pretty good and may even be bang on, but that the differences between some of the pollsters figures we see and actual voting may well be fairly stark. Even putting aside such things as prompting for the kippers etc. It's not a question of shy voters now but voters far more likely to move between all the parties and simply being harder to predict six months or a year down the road.
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Jack's knowledge of contemporary Scotland rests on talking to his ghillie and re-watching old episodes of Monarch of the Glen, hence the somewhat malleable and unpredictable outpourings of his arse. Perhaps a consultation with the good folk at Tena is advisable.
The problems with productivity are mainly sectoral.
The two sectors which most affect the figures are oil and gas extraction, and, investment and wholesale banking
Oil and Gas output has been declining at 15% per annum (peak) at the same time as all costs per unit of extraction are rising due to lower yields from smaller and depleted fields. This is not just a labour productivity problem. Higher investments per unit of output are also required. And to compound the problem this in turn is leading to higher tax offsets and lower exchequer revenues.
The investment and wholesale banking and, more generally, the financial services sector has also recorded large drops in productivity due to transaction volumes and value falling from their pre-recession peak. Unlike the oil and gas sector, financial services productivity is more likely to recover cyclically.
Manufacturing productivity however has been relatively robust, although more volatile than services. The general pattern is a large post recession fall in output per hour rates followed by a partial reversal in 2010-11, again a fall, then 2013 seeing the rates back above 2010 levels.
As the ONS state in this week's Labour productivity bulletin, taking the production sector as a whole masks a rather better productivity performance by manufacturing, which is the largest component of the production industries, and reflects steep falls in labour productivity in the non-manufacturing components of production, especially the oil and gas industry.
In general, the whole economy productivity rates reflect some measure of trade-off between retaining relatively high employment rates in the cyclical downturn and sacrificing employment as output falls. Better to have unemployment at 7.2% and falling (and flat real wages growth) rather than over 10% and rising, as in France. Would you have preferred to target high productivity levels rather tha low unemployment as the main policy objective?
If the distorting effects of the extraction and financial services industries are removed it looks as if productivity is recovering satisfactorily, albeit with a higher lag than in previous recession exits. Further, business investment levels through 2013 have been strong (above 5% growth) and the rate of growth is accelerating. Investment in manufacturing output comes principally from the private sector and tends to respond to rather than anticipate increased demand and confidence. George was busy delivering macro-economic incentives in 2011 and it now falls for manufacturers to respond.
You do realise George didn't spend all 2011 skiing, don't you Mr. Brooke?
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Jack's knowledge of contemporary Scotland rests on talking to his ghillie and re-watching old episodes of Monarch of the Glen, hence the somewhat malleable and unpredictable outpourings of his arse. Perhaps a consultation with the good folk at Tena is advisable.
Both dunce and muppet are unparliamentary language IMO. We shouldn't be hearing either of them
Insults should be allowed when they're witty. "Dunce of Downing Street" passes the test. "Muppets" by itself doesn't.
Of course both are taking the risk of being Bercowed because muppet will resonate with people who dislike the Eds and see them as clueless. Likewise those who detest Cameron and see him as a bit thick.
Most people will thumb their noses at it and call them all arseholes though.
@Southam - Of course those particular two cases haven't swapped, but the principle still remains.
You, and the Left generally, are quick to find the small number of cases where the changes have caused hardship in the short-term, and yet you seem to be coldly and completely uninterested both in the overcrowding, and in the unfairness, of the current system, which has built up over the long term and which the changes will gradually ameliorate. This is just an astonishing blind spot, since the numbers are so stark: a MILLION surplus rooms (according to the definition created by the last government), subsidised by taxpayers some of whom can't afford such accomodation themselves.
Mr and Mrs Smith pay taxes of various sorts: why should they, crowded into a two-bedroom flat with three children, subsidise the spare rooms of Ms Dennis? Do you not care about this manifest injustice?
Yes, I do care about it. But I also care about the injustice of forcing people into debt and/or inappropriate, taxpayer-funded accommodation because the bedroom tax is one size fits all and does not allow for the possibility that people's needs and/or circumstances do not fit a template designed in Whitehall.
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%
I tend to agree with that. Yes clearly has substantial organisational advantages in terms of GOTV. The higher the vote is, the more that advantage will be diminished.
One would have thought it was a logical consequence of the differential turnout issue we hear a lot about.
The first moves of The PB Death Match have been posted and, golly, the potential for a really good stabbing game looks tremendous.
Anyone looking at the board must be drawn to the remarkable outcome of the pre-game negotiations in the Western Triangle. England (Freggles) has gone North and France (Pulpstar) south, leaving the Channel demilitarized, and Germany (Corporeal) has played the Ancshulss opening (using its "spare" army to prop up Austria rather than threaten France). The net result is that all three countries are in line to pick up two builds this year and all the reachable neutrals will be occupied. The fur will start to fly in 1902 and when will see what secret deals have been cooked up between who and just how demilitarized the Channel will be.
In the East things are harder to read. Stand-offs in Galicia bewteen Austria (Uncle Monty) and Russia (Nick Palmer) and in the Black Sea between Russia and Turkey (Andy Cooke) are common and often occur by arrangement. In this game we see both along with standard openings elsewhere so not much can be read from the opening. As things stand each of the three can guarantee one build, though Russia would handover control of the Black See to Turkey to get his, a dangerous move (particularly with Mr. Cooke playing Turkey). Deft negotiation could get Turkey a second build in Greece, but Uncle Monty would be mad to agree to it, and again negotiation might see Russia get a second build from Sweden.
The Ethopia in the fuel store is, as ever, Italy (FoxinSox). In the North he has French Austrian and German units adjacent to Venice, in the South a fleet in the Ionian Sea and an army in bewteen them able to either support Venice or be convoyed to Greece or Tunis. The good Doctor has to get really good at negotiation or prepare for an early exit, alone of all the countries he could lose a centre in 1901 and cant't survive for long unless he finds a friend. Yet his precarious position also makes him a good prospect as an ally for Russia, Turkey (short term only) and, especially Austria. As I said in my pre-match commentary Italy is the player to watch in this game.
Too early for bets though.
A quick note on PB 2014 MK2, looks like a minor stab by England caught Germany by surprise, Russia picked up two useful builds but is still vulnerable to a German assault in the North (what are those German fleets doing in the Baltic?) and a French Fleet bombarding Liverpool may have driven up property prices there but achieved nothing for France because he couldn't free up a centre in which to build. Turkey is in a very good defensive position but looks as if he will struggle to break out. Alliance wins are allowed in this game and it maybe we are seeing an alliance build between Italy and Russia, whether they can subdue Turkey and start heading West before the Western Triangle is resolved is doubtful, maybe they should recruit France into their alliance.
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.
I'm sure @Easterross will understandably be most perturbed to hear you refer to him as "some loony old codger"
A disgraceful slur.
He produced verifiable evidence so the loony old codger is self-evidently the one who bases his predictions on sniffing their own farts. That's you in case you are having another 'senior moment' and have forgotten JackArse.
As usual my porcine fibber you make a poor case out of a sows ear.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M
That's a real number. He's not basing it on how badly stained his underpants are after a night of uncontrollable flatulence. Which is what you do JackArse. If you don't want to be an embarrassing laughing stock then stop pretending your own farts have any predictive value.
I'll tell you what real numbers are.
Real numbers are the profits that PBers have made from previous emissions from my ARSE.
What you just can't stand is any Scot taking a view against the disaster that is independence and your continuing inability to convince a majority of Scots that Eck's Folly is worthy of our great nation.
Perhaps if you had some data to back up your utterences about YES getting slaughtered Mick may not be laughing at you so much.
Shadsy - Many thanks for acceding to my request a couple of days ago by offering markets for Seats Bands for the three major parties at the next General Election. All one now has to do is to find these markets in the positively dreadful muddle that passes as Ladbrokes' website.
Both dunce and muppet are unparliamentary language IMO. We shouldn't be hearing either of them
Insults should be allowed when they're witty. "Dunce of Downing Street" passes the test. "Muppets" by itself doesn't.
"Dunce of Downing Street" could possibly be the first time a joke cracked in the Houses of Parliament has made me laugh... fitted perfectly, and didn't seem contrived (or not as contrived as jokes normally sound in the HofC)
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:
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?
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
My understanding is that, historically, they don't because council tenancies were granted for life (and in some very old cases could be passed down in certain circumstances) regardless of change in income. Hence the Daily Mail stories about Frank Dobson, etc. Councils recognised this problem, and set up swap sites, offering smallish incentives for people to switch - but very few people did.
The government was making some noise about giving more flexibility to councils on how they structure their tenancies and - I believe - that some councils (Hammersmith?) introduced time-limited tenancies which could be rolled-over depending on need. I don't think there were very many councils that took this route though, and it will take time to work through the bolus of existing tenancies.
Essentially all the government has asked people to do is that if they are occupying space that they don't "need" but "like", then they should contribute to the cost. But of course people don't like paying for something they were previously getting for free.
Yes, I do care about it. But I also care about the injustice of forcing people into debt and/or inappropriate, taxpayer-funded accommodation because the bedroom tax is one size fits all and does not allow for the possibility that people's needs and/or circumstances do not fit a template designed in Whitehall.
Fine. Over to you: if there's a better way of addressing the problem I'm sure Ed Miliband would be delighted to hear it, since he and his advisers seem completely unable to formulate one themselves. So far all we've had from the left has been hypocritical carping and a total lack of even a cursory interest in the plight of those millions of people badly hit by the system the coalition inherited.
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Jack's knowledge of contemporary Scotland rests on talking to his ghillie and re-watching old episodes of Monarch of the Glen, hence the somewhat malleable and unpredictable outpourings of his arse. Perhaps a consultation with the good folk at Tena is advisable.
I'm sorry you hold rural Scots in such disdain.
I'm sorry that you're labouring under the massive delusion that you represent 'rural Scots'.
'Now Murdo, I know you're a sensible chap and I wouldn't dream of putting any pressure on you to vote No to save this wonderful institution that in a roundabout way pays your wages and provides your tied cottage. No, what I really want to know is what's going down on the mean streets of Easterhouse and Shettleston?'
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Jack's knowledge of contemporary Scotland rests on talking to his ghillie and re-watching old episodes of Monarch of the Glen, hence the somewhat malleable and unpredictable outpourings of his arse. Perhaps a consultation with the good folk at Tena is advisable.
I know JackArse thinks he's an amusing novelty but the fact is he's trying to pretend smelling his own farts and pulling numbers out of his arse somehow makes him an authority on such things as voting patterns or even just basic politics. The old buffer really does seem to think that in scotland the tories are somehow popular and widely respected. His retreat into scatological fiction is entirely understandable given that basic and fundamental delusion.
@Southam - Of course those particular two cases haven't swapped, but the principle still remains.
You, and the Left generally, are quick to find the small number of cases where the changes have caused hardship in the short-term, and yet you seem to be coldly and completely uninterested both in the overcrowding, and in the unfairness, of the current system, which has built up over the long term and which the changes will gradually ameliorate. This is just an astonishing blind spot, since the numbers are so stark: a MILLION surplus rooms (according to the definition created by the last government), subsidised by taxpayers some of whom can't afford such accomodation themselves.
Mr and Mrs Smith pay taxes of various sorts: why should they, crowded into a two-bedroom flat with three children, subsidise the spare rooms of Ms Dennis? Do you not care about this manifest injustice?
The simple fact is that in most parts of the country Local Authorities operate a tenants incentive scheme where they actually pay a tenant in a house too big for them a tidy sum for moving to smaller accommodation. There is also the homeswap scheme which allows tenants to swap properties. The sensationalist media coverage never points that out. Of course there will be exceptions, but for the majority of tenants who live in accommodation that is too big for them moving to smaller accommodation via a transfer or a homeswap is easy.
But clearly the "tidy sum" is not sufficient or the problem would resolve itself.
Introducing a stick where the carrot isn't working makes sense.
Both dunce and muppet are unparliamentary language IMO. We shouldn't be hearing either of them
Insults should be allowed when they're witty. "Dunce of Downing Street" passes the test. "Muppets" by itself doesn't.
"Dunce of Downing Street" could possibly be the first time a joke cracked in the Houses of Parliament has made me laugh... fitted perfectly, and didn't seem contrived (or not as contrived as jokes normally sound in the HofC)
Cable's 'Mr Bean' jibe was better IMHO because it was withering. It also played into perceptions of the then-PM, and had been well-crafted not to appear a tacked-on soundbite.
he House has noticed the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation in the past few weeks from Stalin to Mr. Bean—[Laughter]—creating chaos out of order, rather than order out of chaos.
I seriously doubt anyone really believes that Cameron is a dunce, or Miliband a Muppet. On the other hand, Brown's hideousness did seem to come out of Stalin's playbook (or at least Voltaire's), whilst his incompetence did seem to mirror Mr Bean.
Well as long as I provide Porky with an element of amusement my life is complete, although I'm minded to consider he'll not be tittering too much come 19th September.
Further the format and framework I'm using for the Scottish referendum is very similar to that I've used for my highly successful previous endeavours.
My critics whether they have been Con/Lab/LibDems or McCain/Romney advocates over the years have all been wrong. Now it is the turn of the SNP and YES and come the day they will join that illustrious band of naysayers.
The bedroom tax is flawed because the government didn't have enough homes in the right places to decant those who are being priced out of their existing residence. That's why the HCA has suddenly found some nonexistent money to bribe housing associations to quickly build some more, before the proverbial jams the fan completely.
6-5 to Miliband. But Ed should have done much better given the material at his disposal.
For the second week in a row, I'm intrigued by Cameron's choice of response. This week he valiantly tried to defend the RM sale, when I would have just mentioned the Qinetiq sale to show that Labour was not averse to helping their big-business friends. Either that or such share sales are much harder to realise than Labour's current front bench realise:
In November 2007, the NAO reported that taxpayers could have gained "tens of millions" more and was critical of the incentive scheme given to Qinetiq managers, the 10 most senior of whom gained £107.5m on a total investment of £540,000 in the company's shares. The return of 19,990% on their investment was described as "excessive" by the NAO.
Perhaps Cameron didn't do that because he didn't want to hurt a large British business? I'm sure Qinetiq would rather that part of their history be buried.
Richard N ..... please would you kindly oblige again and explain where one can find Shadsy's newly listed GE Seat bands. The only one I can see is for the LibDems - which has been kicking around, on and off, for some time.
I wonder if Mr Pork hopes that your piscine taxonomy is on a level with your psephology. Surely Arbroath kippers are herring and although they exist, they are very much in a minority (whether piscine or anthropoid), whereas Arbroath smokies are haddock and very much in a majority ...
Jack's knowledge of contemporary Scotland rests on talking to his ghillie and re-watching old episodes of Monarch of the Glen, hence the somewhat malleable and unpredictable outpourings of his arse. Perhaps a consultation with the good folk at Tena is advisable.
I'm sorry you hold rural Scots in such disdain.
I'm sorry that you're labouring under the massive delusion that you represent 'rural Scots'.
'Now Murdo, I know you're a sensible chap and I wouldn't dream of putting any pressure on you to vote No to save this wonderful institution that in a roundabout way pays your wages and provides your tied cottage. No, what I really want to know is what's going down on the mean streets of Easterhouse and Shettleston?'
Yes, I do care about it. But I also care about the injustice of forcing people into debt and/or inappropriate, taxpayer-funded accommodation because the bedroom tax is one size fits all and does not allow for the possibility that people's needs and/or circumstances do not fit a template designed in Whitehall.
Fine. Over to you: if there's a better way of addressing the problem I'm sure Ed Miliband would be delighted to hear it, since he and his advisers seem completely unable to formulate one themselves. So far all we've had from the left has been hypocritical carping and a total lack of even a cursory interest in the plight of those millions of people badly hit by the system the coalition inherited.
It's the politics of momentum. If the system was being designed now then housing would be doled out based on need. But once people are in place then it's "evil" to swap them round afterwards.
Note Labour has second highest representation in the Socialist grouping, thus will have significant influence.
I wonder what the British Tories will do if they end up with the casting vote. The main principle they've expressed so far seems to be that the person who gets the most votes shouldn't get the job because the EU is undemocratic, or something like that.
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.
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].
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.
In other words you don't want to deal with reality.
Perhaps you'd like to visit the ONS site and do your own research Charles, or is that too much like hard work ?
I shall look in again this evening Charles to see if you've managed to do so or if you're still bleating excuses.
Regarding the change to Housing benefit that various people on here seem to be getting in a lather about, what are he figures? That is to say, how much money is a household losing if they fall into the criteria of this scheme?
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:
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?
What I don't get about this is, don't local authorities already have the ability and incentive to move people into cheaper accomodation where it's available? If so, why does central government need to micro-manage? If not, why aren't the government fixing that fundamental design flaw instead of tinkering at the edges?
My understanding is that, historically, they don't because council tenancies were granted for life (and in some very old cases could be passed down in certain circumstances) regardless of change in income. Hence the Daily Mail stories about Frank Dobson, etc. Councils recognised this problem, and set up swap sites, offering smallish incentives for people to switch - but very few people did.
The government was making some noise about giving more flexibility to councils on how they structure their tenancies and - I believe - that some councils (Hammersmith?) introduced time-limited tenancies which could be rolled-over depending on need. I don't think there were very many councils that took this route though, and it will take time to work through the bolus of existing tenancies.
Essentially all the government has asked people to do is that if they are occupying space that they don't "need" but "like", then they should contribute to the cost. But of course people don't like paying for something they were previously getting for free.
I've met, over the years, quite a few people who swapped Council Houses. Most surprising was the guy who swapped a three bed flat in a tower block in N London for a 2 bedroomed house in rural Lakeland. He was in his late 50's, and said that although it was sometimes difficult finding work, he wasn't too bothered.
Regarding the change to Housing benefit that various people on here seem to be getting in a lather about, what are he figures? That is to say, how much money is a household losing if they fall into the criteria of this scheme?
A friend of mine is disabled and lives alone in a two-bedroom flat. She is nearly a grand out of pocket due to the reduction in rent. She is ill, cannot work, and lives in a newly-built specially-adapted ground-floor flat.
Her only income is from benefits. Her illnesses were not caused by herself - she has not smoked, hardly ever drunk, and generally lived a good life. She was struck down in her early twenties.
She has decided that the extra room is vital, and so she struggles to pay the excess. ISTR the council actually let her see the plans of the flat before it was built, so that it could be adapted according to her needs. This was only five or six years ago. I *think* she is getting help from the council, and we try to help as well.
Now there's some anecdata for you ...
Having said all that, I find Labour's position on this increasingly hypocritical.
Dunce and muppets seem a little uncivilised. Then again, Balls is particularly repellent.
Mr. Llama, it's quite an interesting game to play. I haven't played before, but for some reason had an old account I discovered when I tried to sign up, so I must've been aware of Diplomacy.
If I were you, I'd watch out for Mr. Palmer. Only dastardly sorts play as Russia.
I've had another search on Ladbrokes' website and those seat bands for Lab & Con just aren't there, although most of their other political markets are duplicated - it's a total mess!
Poor Shadsy must be be totally frustrated by the hopeless manner in which the Company's portal is operated.
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.
In other words you don't want to deal with reality.
Perhaps you'd like to visit the ONS site and do your own research Charles, or is that too much like hard work ?
I shall look in again this evening Charles to see if you've managed to do so or if you're still bleating excuses.
You're the guy posting inaccurate stats. You fix them. I have a job to do.
Regarding the change to Housing benefit that various people on here seem to be getting in a lather about, what are he figures? That is to say, how much money is a household losing if they fall into the criteria of this scheme?
A friend of mine is disabled and lives alone in a two-bedroom flat. She is nearly a grand out of pocket due to the reduction in rent. She is ill, cannot work, and lives in a newly-built specially-adapted ground-floor flat.
Her only income is from benefits. Her illnesses were not caused by herself - she has not smoked, hardly ever drunk, and generally lived a good life. She was struck down in her early twenties.
She has decided that the extra room is vital, and so she struggles to pay the excess. ISTR the council actually let her see the plans of the flat before it was built, so that it could be adapted according to her needs. This was only five or six years ago. I *think* she is getting help from the council, and we try to help as well.
Now there's some anecdata for you ...
Having said all that, I find Labour's position on this increasingly hypocritical.
I assume that is a grand a year?!
Edge cases like this one and instances such as divorced parents with children visiting are difficult to cope with. And unless there is a tapering off of the benefit, the edge cases are always the ones that will generate the hard luck stories.
The general principle of the policy is sound. But the politics was always going to play badly. Does it solve the housing shortage problem or save enough money to have been worth the political damage? Or is it only damaging from the POV of people who wouldn't vote Tory anyway?
I've had another search on Ladbrokes' website and those seat bands for Lab & Con just aren't there, although most of their other political markets are duplicated - it's a total mess!portal is operated.
I did find them - British Politics, then click on 'Other Markets' and then 'See all'
Wishing to be ever helpful to the YES campaign in a completely disinterested fashion I offer a further option for a new post referendum Scottish currency.
Mindful of pre Union history the Scottish government might choose the Darien Scheme and Panama as a source of inspiration. Accordingly a link to the Panamanian Balboa seems apposite :
Regarding the change to Housing benefit that various people on here seem to be getting in a lather about, what are he figures? That is to say, how much money is a household losing if they fall into the criteria of this scheme?
A friend of mine is disabled and lives alone in a two-bedroom flat. She is nearly a grand out of pocket due to the reduction in rent. She is ill, cannot work, and lives in a newly-built specially-adapted ground-floor flat.
Her only income is from benefits. Her illnesses were not caused by herself - she has not smoked, hardly ever drunk, and generally lived a good life. She was struck down in her early twenties.
She has decided that the extra room is vital, and so she struggles to pay the excess. ISTR the council actually let her see the plans of the flat before it was built, so that it could be adapted according to her needs. This was only five or six years ago. I *think* she is getting help from the council, and we try to help as well.
Now there's some anecdata for you ...
Having said all that, I find Labour's position on this increasingly hypocritical.
I assume that is a grand a year?!
Edge cases like this one and instances such as divorced parents with children visiting are difficult to cope with. And unless there is a tapering off of the benefit, the edge cases are always the ones that will generate the hard luck stories.
The general principle of the policy is sound. But the politics was always going to play badly. Does it solve the housing shortage problem or save enough money to have been worth the political damage? Or is it only damaging from the POV of people who wouldn't vote Tory anyway?
It's under a grand, but not much under.
She's really annoyed about it, but also is thankful that she gets all this help - virtually her entire income comes from the state, and she's never really been able to pay in much. Exactly the sort of person the welfare safety net needs to help, and indeed it is helping her in far more ways than just housing.
(I could witter on about the way the NHS is not helping her in ways it could, but that's been the case for many years now, and well into the last government. A few years ago she was asked to choose between help with her excess weight - a function of her lack of movement due to her symptoms, and getting help with the (currently incurable) underlying illnesses. She should get both.)
Comments
Add a fourth party with 10% or so if they can convert..... UNS is useless
A disgraceful slur.
Yes, a higher turnout us likely to be worse for NO, YES are far more committed to vote , they are 100% committed! that's what believing in yes means it's your one shot.
no is a broader church, the pathological nos will vote, but the 'not sure about independence but not happy with the status quo' nos will likely not, the NO but I can't stand the Westminster party nos might stay home.
And if the NO campaign doesn't stop with the bully boy, negative nonsense, a new group will start voting YES, the 'screw you' sector.
Who on earth in the Labour party thinks its a good idea to keep putting her on the telly? Doesn't say a lot for their judgement
However, point about marginals accepted in full of course.
By far the most unfair and tax-wasting element of the present council housing system is that there are huge numbers of people that are now comfortably off continuing to use government property at subsidised prices, at huge opportunity cost to the taxpayer. Ideally, they should be told that they need to move by a certain date. If that's politically impossible, then the minimum should be that they are charged slightly above market rates to give them an economic incentive to move, so someone genuinely needy can move in.
Politically, as in all things, it is more expedient to say it is wrong, and leave it at that.
Was homelessness a real problem in the days before housing benefit and council houses? Or did the price of housing move to ensure that all houses were filled?
To be fair I might back all of them!
"Utter Nonsense" 5/1 "Madness" 2/1 "Liberal Establishment" 3/1
I think these are all close to odds on
This is the same weaselly corruption of language, whereby a reduction in a benefit, has somehow been twisted into 'a tax'.
You, and the Left generally, are quick to find the small number of cases where the changes have caused hardship in the short-term, and yet you seem to be coldly and completely uninterested both in the overcrowding, and in the unfairness, of the current system, which has built up over the long term and which the changes will gradually ameliorate. This is just an astonishing blind spot, since the numbers are so stark: a MILLION surplus rooms (according to the definition created by the last government), subsidised by taxpayers some of whom can't afford such accomodation themselves.
Mr and Mrs Smith pay taxes of various sorts: why should they, crowded into a two-bedroom flat with three children, subsidise the spare rooms of Ms Dennis? Do you not care about this manifest injustice?
PS The obvious explanation for violations of obvious principles of good administration like this is that the tabloids are saying this is a problem, and central the government think they'll get votes by pandering to them.
My good friend @Easterross noted that the register is at a high of 4.1M but my old crackling there is no evidence that this equates to an improvement in YES.
Indeed YES continues to trail miserably for all the policy farts it emits and bluster that pours forth. You're done for like a fine Arbroath kipper - smoked out and ready for the eating.
The thing about a GE campaign is that, while there can be a certain amount of micro-managing on the ground in seats, the national campaign can't send out 4 or 5 different messages to tailor to subsets of previous voters. All the parties will craft their message to appeal to what they can best define as the floating voter while trying not to alienate their base.
There is simply far more churn among the parties now which makes previous party allegiances less useful as a predictive tool. There's a good many political reasons why that churn is now so prevalent but it's fairly pointless to deny it isn't there.
The muppets are popular and have given me great joy.
Labour Seat Bands
25 0-200
14 201-225
8 226-250
5 251-275
4 276-300
7/2 301-325
4 326-350
10 351-375
16 376-400
20 401+
Conservative Seat Bands
16 0-200
10 201-225
6 226-250
4 251-275
7/2 276-300
9/2 301-325
5 326-350
16 351-375
25 376-400
25 401+
Real numbers are the profits that PBers have made from previous emissions from my ARSE.
What you just can't stand is any Scot taking a view against the disaster that is independence and your continuing inability to convince a majority of Scots that Eck's Folly is worthy of our great nation.
Mr. Brooke
The problems with productivity are mainly sectoral.
The two sectors which most affect the figures are oil and gas extraction, and, investment and wholesale banking
Oil and Gas output has been declining at 15% per annum (peak) at the same time as all costs per unit of extraction are rising due to lower yields from smaller and depleted fields. This is not just a labour productivity problem. Higher investments per unit of output are also required. And to compound the problem this in turn is leading to higher tax offsets and lower exchequer revenues.
The investment and wholesale banking and, more generally, the financial services sector has also recorded large drops in productivity due to transaction volumes and value falling from their pre-recession peak. Unlike the oil and gas sector, financial services productivity is more likely to recover cyclically.
Manufacturing productivity however has been relatively robust, although more volatile than services. The general pattern is a large post recession fall in output per hour rates followed by a partial reversal in 2010-11, again a fall, then 2013 seeing the rates back above 2010 levels.
As the ONS state in this week's Labour productivity bulletin, taking the production sector as a whole masks a rather better productivity performance by manufacturing, which is the largest component of the production industries, and reflects steep falls in labour productivity in the non-manufacturing components of production, especially the oil and gas industry.
In general, the whole economy productivity rates reflect some measure of trade-off between retaining relatively high employment rates in the cyclical downturn and sacrificing employment as output falls. Better to have unemployment at 7.2% and falling (and flat real wages growth) rather than over 10% and rising, as in France. Would you have preferred to target high productivity levels rather tha low unemployment as the main policy objective?
If the distorting effects of the extraction and financial services industries are removed it looks as if productivity is recovering satisfactorily, albeit with a higher lag than in previous recession exits. Further, business investment levels through 2013 have been strong (above 5% growth) and the rate of growth is accelerating. Investment in manufacturing output comes principally from the private sector and tends to respond to rather than anticipate increased demand and confidence. George was busy delivering macro-economic incentives in 2011 and it now falls for manufacturers to respond.
You do realise George didn't spend all 2011 skiing, don't you Mr. Brooke?
Both dunce and muppet are unparliamentary language IMO. We shouldn't be hearing either of them
...this allows the PM to say Miliband lacks 'gumption' to ask Welsh First Minister about Welsh NHS #PMQs
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman
Balls shouting "it was you who cut it you fool" at Cameron #pmqs
The pmq's today was awful.
http://pollwatch2014.eu/
Most people will thumb their noses at it and call them all arseholes though.
The first moves of The PB Death Match have been posted and, golly, the potential for a really good stabbing game looks tremendous.
Anyone looking at the board must be drawn to the remarkable outcome of the pre-game negotiations in the Western Triangle. England (Freggles) has gone North and France (Pulpstar) south, leaving the Channel demilitarized, and Germany (Corporeal) has played the Ancshulss opening (using its "spare" army to prop up Austria rather than threaten France). The net result is that all three countries are in line to pick up two builds this year and all the reachable neutrals will be occupied. The fur will start to fly in 1902 and when will see what secret deals have been cooked up between who and just how demilitarized the Channel will be.
In the East things are harder to read. Stand-offs in Galicia bewteen Austria (Uncle Monty) and Russia (Nick Palmer) and in the Black Sea between Russia and Turkey (Andy Cooke) are common and often occur by arrangement. In this game we see both along with standard openings elsewhere so not much can be read from the opening. As things stand each of the three can guarantee one build, though Russia would handover control of the Black See to Turkey to get his, a dangerous move (particularly with Mr. Cooke playing Turkey). Deft negotiation could get Turkey a second build in Greece, but Uncle Monty would be mad to agree to it, and again negotiation might see Russia get a second build from Sweden.
The Ethopia in the fuel store is, as ever, Italy (FoxinSox). In the North he has French Austrian and German units adjacent to Venice, in the South a fleet in the Ionian Sea and an army in bewteen them able to either support Venice or be convoyed to Greece or Tunis. The good Doctor has to get really good at negotiation or prepare for an early exit, alone of all the countries he could lose a centre in 1901 and cant't survive for long unless he finds a friend. Yet his precarious position also makes him a good prospect as an ally for Russia, Turkey (short term only) and, especially Austria. As I said in my pre-match commentary Italy is the player to watch in this game.
Too early for bets though.
A quick note on PB 2014 MK2, looks like a minor stab by England caught Germany by surprise, Russia picked up two useful builds but is still vulnerable to a German assault in the North (what are those German fleets doing in the Baltic?) and a French Fleet bombarding Liverpool may have driven up property prices there but achieved nothing for France because he couldn't free up a centre in which to build. Turkey is in a very good defensive position but looks as if he will struggle to break out. Alliance wins are allowed in this game and it maybe we are seeing an alliance build between Italy and Russia, whether they can subdue Turkey and start heading West before the Western Triangle is resolved is doubtful, maybe they should recruit France into their alliance.
The government was making some noise about giving more flexibility to councils on how they structure their tenancies and - I believe - that some councils (Hammersmith?) introduced time-limited tenancies which could be rolled-over depending on need. I don't think there were very many councils that took this route though, and it will take time to work through the bolus of existing tenancies.
Essentially all the government has asked people to do is that if they are occupying space that they don't "need" but "like", then they should contribute to the cost. But of course people don't like paying for something they were previously getting for free.
'Now Murdo, I know you're a sensible chap and I wouldn't dream of putting any pressure on you to vote No to save this wonderful institution that in a roundabout way pays your wages and provides your tied cottage. No, what I really want to know is what's going down on the mean streets of Easterhouse and Shettleston?'
http://tinyurl.com/nrbtpbu
I must say I didn't see the exchange so happy to be corrected if it was genuinely witty. What was it in reference to?
Parliament, down with the kids, innit
Introducing a stick where the carrot isn't working makes sense.
Perhaps if you had some data to back up your utterences about YES getting slaughtered Mick may not be laughing at you so much.
...........................................................
Well as long as I provide Porky with an element of amusement my life is complete, although I'm minded to consider he'll not be tittering too much come 19th September.
Further the format and framework I'm using for the Scottish referendum is very similar to that I've used for my highly successful previous endeavours.
My critics whether they have been Con/Lab/LibDems or McCain/Romney advocates over the years have all been wrong. Now it is the turn of the SNP and YES and come the day they will join that illustrious band of naysayers.
6-5 to Miliband. But Ed should have done much better given the material at his disposal.
For the second week in a row, I'm intrigued by Cameron's choice of response. This week he valiantly tried to defend the RM sale, when I would have just mentioned the Qinetiq sale to show that Labour was not averse to helping their big-business friends. Either that or such share sales are much harder to realise than Labour's current front bench realise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-privatisation-of-qinetiq/
Perhaps Cameron didn't do that because he didn't want to hurt a large British business? I'm sure Qinetiq would rather that part of their history be buried.
Mental.
PMQs: Muppets and dunces
https://audioboo.fm/boos/2039767-pmqs-muppets-and-dunces
Perhaps you'd like to visit the ONS site and do your own research Charles, or is that too much like hard work ?
I shall look in again this evening Charles to see if you've managed to do so or if you're still bleating excuses.
Cam was in a corner - "dunce" is pretty strong stuff, in PMQ terms, so if only for his backbenchers he had to hit back equally nastily.
Fail on both sides IMO although some would say "he started it..."
Her only income is from benefits. Her illnesses were not caused by herself - she has not smoked, hardly ever drunk, and generally lived a good life. She was struck down in her early twenties.
She has decided that the extra room is vital, and so she struggles to pay the excess. ISTR the council actually let her see the plans of the flat before it was built, so that it could be adapted according to her needs. This was only five or six years ago. I *think* she is getting help from the council, and we try to help as well.
Now there's some anecdata for you ...
Having said all that, I find Labour's position on this increasingly hypocritical.
Dunce and muppets seem a little uncivilised. Then again, Balls is particularly repellent.
Mr. Llama, it's quite an interesting game to play. I haven't played before, but for some reason had an old account I discovered when I tried to sign up, so I must've been aware of Diplomacy.
If I were you, I'd watch out for Mr. Palmer. Only dastardly sorts play as Russia.
Poor Shadsy must be be totally frustrated by the hopeless manner in which the Company's portal is operated.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
Edge cases like this one and instances such as divorced parents with children visiting are difficult to cope with. And unless there is a tapering off of the benefit, the edge cases are always the ones that will generate the hard luck stories.
The general principle of the policy is sound. But the politics was always going to play badly. Does it solve the housing shortage problem or save enough money to have been worth the political damage? Or is it only damaging from the POV of people who wouldn't vote Tory anyway?
"I've never voted Labour before - but we Muppets have to stick together"
I can't seem to find it on Google now!
Afternoon, my fellow PB Dunces
Wishing to be ever helpful to the YES campaign in a completely disinterested fashion I offer a further option for a new post referendum Scottish currency.
Mindful of pre Union history the Scottish government might choose the Darien Scheme and Panama as a source of inspiration. Accordingly a link to the Panamanian Balboa seems apposite :
100 Darien = 1 Balboa
But it isn't UKIP that discriminates between European and African immigrants, but the current Govt and the official opposition.
She's really annoyed about it, but also is thankful that she gets all this help - virtually her entire income comes from the state, and she's never really been able to pay in much. Exactly the sort of person the welfare safety net needs to help, and indeed it is helping her in far more ways than just housing.
(I could witter on about the way the NHS is not helping her in ways it could, but that's been the case for many years now, and well into the last government. A few years ago she was asked to choose between help with her excess weight - a function of her lack of movement due to her symptoms, and getting help with the (currently incurable) underlying illnesses. She should get both.)