Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » One of today’s TWO YouGov polls has the LDs trailing GRN fo

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited May 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » One of today’s TWO YouGov polls has the LDs trailing GRN for the Euros: The other has them comfortably ahead

For GE2015 the Sun on Sunday poll has CON 33, LAB 36, LD 10, Ukip 15. The S Times Westminster voting intentions poll from YouGov has CON 33, LAB 36, LD 9, UKIP.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    Among those who are 100% certain to vote, UKIP is on 34%, in both polls.

    The party comes first when voters are asked which party has the best policies, on immigration and the EU.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2014
    Turnout is usually pretty low for Euro elections. For example it was 34% in 2009. Do the pollsters attempt to take this into account?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)

    The winning party received just 4.2 million votes (27.7%) in 2009, equivalent to half the population of London.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    AndyJS said:

    Turnout is usually pretty low for Euro elections. For example it was 34% in 2009. Do the pollsters attempt to take this into account?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)

    Yougov surveys all voters, and also publishes figures for those who are 100% certain to vote. Other companies weight their numbers by likelihood to vote.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited May 2014
    It is very hard measuring who will vote in low turnout elections. Hopefully we'll see some phone polling in the next few days
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    ST: GE: 33/365/9/15
    LD 2010 split: Cons:10; LAB:29; LD: 35; UKIP 15; Green: 8

    Also UKIP supported by al age groups from 12%-17%

    SUN GE: 33/36/10/15
    LD 2010 split: Cons: 10; LAB: 32; LD:37; UKIP: 16; Green:3

    UKIP support across the ages from 5% to 21%
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2014
    Although Rallings & Thrasher are undoubtedly two of the best psephologists around, unfortunately we can't avoid looking at what happened with their prediction at last year's local elections:

    R&T, prediction of projected national share before 2013 local elections:
    LAB 38%
    CON 29%
    LD 16%
    UKIP 11%

    R&T, projected national share after the votes had been counted at 2013 local elections:
    LAB 29%
    CON 26%
    UKIP 22%
    LD 13%

    Difference:
    Lab -9%
    Con -3%
    LD -3%
    UKIP +11%


    Their prediction this year is as follows:
    LAB 33%
    CON 30%
    UKIP 16%
    LD 14%

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7349

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/05/exactly-two-years-to-the-day-after-the-av-referendum-this-is-how-rallings-and-thrasher-project-ge2015/

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/04/29/the-2014-rallings-and-thrasher-local-elections-forecasts/
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I don't take polling seriously but I especially don't take polling seriously when it's about elections that the public don't take seriously.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,031
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457
    RobD said:
    "(Ed Miliband) said the party was working on "innovative solutions", but did not spell out what they were."

    Yes, nationalisation has never been done before, and is really innovative. Sheesh.

    He hasn't even tried to look at what the problems are, and think of other possible solutions.

    An Ed Miliband governent would be truly dangerous to the country. Populist policies that are designed to appeal, not to fix problems.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    More polls showing parties seesawing between first and second, fourth and fifth - I don’t envy any PBer punting on the Euros this May.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Quite a lot on Farage & UKIP in the ST YouGov:

    Farage would make a better PM than (net Farage):
    Cameron: -40
    Miliband: -19

    UKIP candidates vs other parties' - racists:
    More likely: 58
    Less likely: 23
    Same: 29

    UKIP MEPs vs other parties - fiddled expenses:
    More likely: 16
    Less likely: 10
    Same: 62

    Motivation for publicity around UKIP candidates' views:
    Genuine concern & valid: 27
    Party political & valid: 30
    Party political & exaggerated: 25
    Lies: 4
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    RobD said:
    I never know what to do with my hands either.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    On Miliband intervention in the market:
    Right direction: 56
    Wrong Direction: 29

    The Private rented sector (net +37) was not as enthusiastic as Local Authority (+58) or Housing Association (+68) tenants - but this group is also a lot less pro-Labour (+2 vs Con) than either (+42 and +31 respectively).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    FPT: Congrats, Mr. Barber.

    And welcome to pb.com Mr./Miss Sarissa. Delightful name.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    From the Sunday Times

    POLICE will patrol polling stations in cities with large Asian communities during this month’s local elections in an effort to deter voting fraud.

    Officers will be stationed at sites in towns and cities identified by the Electoral Commission as being vulnerable to abuse. In a report earlier this year, the watchdog identified 16 “higher-risk” areas including Birmingham, Bradford, Burnley, Derby, Slough, Peterborough, and Tower Hamlets in east London.

    It won't be doing much for those pressuring people into giving them their postal or proxy votes.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8655697.stm
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited May 2014
    36% is low for Labour in the Sunday Times YouGov (Westminster). Only twice have they been this low since January 2012...last week and this week.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    But it is as though this murdered mother, dead for over 40 years and a figure of no political significance, has risen to pursue those responsible for her death – with all the implacability of Orestes’ Furies. Adams is history, in one sense. Could he become so in another?

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/05/is-adams-history.html

    YouGov ST:

    Northern Ireland historical crimes:
    Follow the evidence & prosecute: 68
    Leave in the past & move on: 15

    Adams arrest political:
    Probably: 27
    Probably Not: 39
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2014
    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Looking forward to Andrew Neil facing Grant Schapps,if that is his name today.Should be fun.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited May 2014
    35 years ago today, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Interesting comparision of wording for first GE wins for the two biggest game changers of the last 50 years in the UK.

    May 4th 1979: Election victory for Margaret Thatcher
    The Conservative Party wins the general election making Margaret Thatcher Britain's first woman prime minister.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/4/default.stm

    May 2nd 1997: Labour routs Tories in historic election
    The Labour Party wins the general election by a landslide, leaving the Conservative Party in tatters after 18 years in power.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    YouGov

    ST: GE: 33/365/9/15
    LD 2010 split: Cons:10; LAB:29; LD: 35; UKIP 15; Green: 8

    Also UKIP supported by al age groups from 12%-17%

    SUN GE: 33/36/10/15
    LD 2010 split: Cons: 10; LAB: 32; LD:37; UKIP: 16; Green:3

    UKIP support across the ages from 5% to 21%

    Interesting to see 10% of LD10 breaking to the Tories. Is this a normal level of break in historical terms or is there a coalition effect?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. JS, I wonder if Miliband might not agree to that. He gets the same airtime as Cameron, and more than Clegg.

    Farage would probably be delighted (not sure I see the rationale for Green inclusion, but there we are). Clegg's the one likeliest to kick up a fuss.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    No, unlike, for example, France, which roundly declares "The language of the French Republic is French" we speak many languages - and steal from nearly all of them - one of the reasons English is such a successful global language.

    If you want to persuade voters, why is addressing them in their native tongue a problem? Some might call it politeness, and initiative......
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Quite a lot on Farage & UKIP in the ST YouGov:

    Farage would make a better PM than (net Farage):
    Cameron: -40
    Miliband: -19

    UKIP candidates vs other parties' - racists:
    More likely: 58
    Less likely: 23
    Same: 29

    UKIP MEPs vs other parties - fiddled expenses:
    More likely: 16
    Less likely: 10
    Same: 62

    Motivation for publicity around UKIP candidates' views:
    Genuine concern & valid: 27
    Party political & valid: 30
    Party political & exaggerated: 25
    Lies: 4

    The last question: is the 4% the UKIP core vote perhaps?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    A Four-way (49) is the clear preference vs two-some (16) or three (18) in the ST YouGov - only LD (just) prefer a three-way.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,031
    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    The 2-3-5 plan sounds like a way to minimise the exposure Farage gets, given that they want to include the Green party leader too.
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    In Tower Hamlets they're going to have Bangladeshi interpreters at the polling stations:
    http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/placing-interpreters-in-polling-stations-is-dysfunctional-and-divisive-says-minister-brandon-lewis/

    All that politician-talk about immigrants having to speak English was horseshit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. T, UKIP have been on an upward curve for a while, there's a eurozone sovereign debt crisis, the political class generally is held in low regard and there's a coalition faced with an opposition led by Ed Miliband. It's nigh on perfect for UKIP (not that their current polling is other than very significant).
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    Oh get over yourself. It's ridiculous to expect all immigrants to have achieved the level of fluency adequate to understand nuanced political messages - not the same as saying they understand no English. English is already one of the world's most dominant languages and is likely to remain so.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2014
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    The 2-3-5 plan sounds like a way to minimise the exposure Farage gets, given that they want to include the Green party leader too.
    I think Mr Clegg will move heaven and earth to keep the Green Party leader out of a TV debate.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    RobD said:
    "(Ed Miliband) said the party was working on "innovative solutions", but did not spell out what they were."

    Yes, nationalisation has never been done before, and is really innovative. Sheesh.

    He hasn't even tried to look at what the problems are, and think of other possible solutions.

    An Ed Miliband governent would be truly dangerous to the country. Populist policies that are designed to appeal, not to fix problems.
    JJ, nationalisation is rarely the answer to the question, but rail fares are a real issue. I remember talking to Andy Hornby (when he was still at Boots, so probably in 2011) when he pointed out that the PAs in his office (off Oxford Street) were earning decent salaries (around £25K), but couldn't afford to live in London.

    The cost of a season ticket was about £3,500.

    That's a huge chunk of someone's disposable income.

    Perhaps the answer is just to make season tickets (on the assumption that they are mainly used to get to work and back - can't think of other examples) tax deductible?
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124
    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    They may be verbally fine with English but have more difficulty when it comes to reading it, especially when it comes to political jargon. Though I presume Poles will do what most of the country do with political leaflets, put them straight in the bin.

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Wil be a useful study in the distorting effect of the euro elections - if there are any to watch the Ukip share over the next 6 months. I would suggest they need a win from having all these MEPs - ok you got in so what may be the cry.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    At the 1997 general election only one UKIP candidate saved their deposit. It was Farage of course, in Salisbury:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2014
    SeanT said:

    Blueberry said:

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    In Tower Hamlets they're going to have Bangladeshi interpreters at the polling stations:
    http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/placing-interpreters-in-polling-stations-is-dysfunctional-and-divisive-says-minister-brandon-lewis/

    All that politician-talk about immigrants having to speak English was horseshit.
    I'm all in favour of a rigorous immigration policy, but what do you expect politicians to do about migrants who are already here, who cannot speak English? Ignore them? Let the Labour party hoover them all up?

    Daft.

    Moreover, English is such a globally dominant and mighty language any immigrant with half a brain will be desperate to learn it, and their kids will definitely learn it. They are far more likely to forget their mother tongue in two generations.

    The situation is different in places like Denmark and Sweden where migrants don't bother learning the tiny local language - they keep their mother tongue, and strive to learn English, not Swedish or Danish. This phenomenon explains much of the rise of hard right parties in Nordic countries.

    In places like Tower Hamlets and Hackney, thats precisely what the Labour party will attempt to do. In the a/m places the Labour and largely muslim councils, have the main immigrant populations and their so called ethnic leaders, under their thumb.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    The 2-3-5 plan sounds like a way to minimise the exposure Farage gets, given that they want to include the Green party leader too.
    I think Mr Clegg will move heaven and earth to keep the Green Party leader out of a TV debate.

    Then he'd better hope he out-polls them in the Euros then......if the Greens with one MP are excluded while UKIP with (currently) zero get in......

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Miss Vance, I do wonder if there's a shy Lib Dem effect. I don't expect the yellows to finish higher than fourth, but they could exceed (admittedly low) expectations.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2014

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
    I think the source for that may be Tim Congdon's 'How much does the EU cost Britain?' publication.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430571/REVEALED-How-Britain-is-170bn-worse-off-in-European-Union

    http://shukip.netnamenow.com/upload-articles/costoftheEU_2013.pdf
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124

    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    A Four-way (49) is the clear preference vs two-some (16) or three (18) in the ST YouGov - only LD (just) prefer a three-way.

    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    A Four-way (49) is the clear preference vs two-some (16) or three (18) in the ST YouGov - only LD (just) prefer a three-way.
    Anything other than a two way between Cameron and Miliband is pointless. After the election it will be either the Tory or Labour Leaders who are PM...why pretend otherwise. I personally don't think Cameron has too much to worry about in a debate with other leaders. Ed's weird, Clegg can't play both sides off against each other like he did in 2010. And as for Farage, his policies and claims could really do without scrutiny.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    SeanT said:

    Gday from Fremantle, WA.

    It is amazing how blase we have all become, about the significance of this potential UKIP breakthrough.

    If they do win the Euro elex it will be the first time a new party has won a nationwide UK election since the Labour party finally triumphed in 1929.

    In 1994 UKIP came eighth, got no seats (of course) and only beat the Natural Law party by 50,000 votes.

    http://tinyurl.com/m89bvrm

    @SeanT

    And G'day to you cobber,

    I love WA - have you shaken hands with the Doctor?

    I would not say blase about UKIP but some of what it says does chime with what may voters for other parties feel, even though UKIP may not get their vote in 2015, but it appears they may lend it for the EUROs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    FPT:
    sarissa said:


    In the Sunday Times, another reason for Scotland to vote no.

    VOTING for Scottish independence would destabilise Northern Ireland’s political process, former Ulster Unionist leader Lord Trimble has warned.

    The ex-Northern Ireland first minister said a Yes vote in September may also lead to increased violence, although he thinks mainstream republicans would see it as a reason to pursue change through the democratic process.

    Clarification from Lord Trimble on “Good Morning Scotland”, 3 May 2014 (31m 30s):

    “I want to correct what you said… [the website] reported me as saying that would threaten the peace process. I did not say that, that is not my view.

    Actually, a Yes vote in Scotland would reinforce the argument against violence, because it’s a demonstration of how you can achieve major change through the political democratic process.”
    More precisely, it may not be the ST at fault, at least primarily. It seems that the BBC was committing the original non-trivial terminological inexactitude. However (without seeing the original ST piece) I wonder if the ST journo took it off the BBC website without bothering to check other reports - and so missed this which has been up for a while, including the radio programme which has the correction:

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9136-former-ni-first-minister-attacks-bbc-over-indy-ni-peace-threat-claims

    Though I see the BBC hasn't seemingly modified its original piece, judging from the date stamp.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27258388

    While on the subject of corrections, I should also retract my moan the other day about the media being wholly Unionist: the Sunday Herald has declared in favour of independence today.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    "David Cameron 'Ready For Farage TV Debate'

    The PM is reportedly prepared to include UKIP's leader in one of three debates that could take place before the General Election."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1254663/david-cameron-ready-for-farage-tv-debate

    The 2-3-5 plan sounds like a way to minimise the exposure Farage gets, given that they want to include the Green party leader too.
    I think Mr Clegg will move heaven and earth to keep the Green Party leader out of a TV debate.

    Then he'd better hope he out-polls them in the Euros then......if the Greens with one MP are excluded while UKIP with (currently) zero get in......

    I'll be very surprised if Mr Cameron ever debates Mr Farage. I don't think Messrs Cameron, Miliband or Clegg want to present themselves to the voters alongside Mr Farage.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited May 2014
    Adams arrest:

    The other night after this thing broke I posted that the thing that looked most likely to swing the decision to charge Adams will not come from those now dead but instead come from the words of the living. This still looks true. The cops are genuinely looking to charge. If they do, Gerry's own bull talk over the years will actually cost him.

    Having said that, it is no surprise to anyone to know the the cops are very very worried themselves, not so much of the fallout of a charge but that they are triple locked with what they have in the books to charge.

    Time is running out and even the lads down at Sinn Fein towers were not sure as of last night what way it was going to go. Whilst Marty McGuinness was out making clear threats the response overall has been one of wait and see.

    Clarity on release or charge by lunchtime.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    They may be verbally fine with English but have more difficulty when it comes to reading it, especially when it comes to political jargon. Though I presume Poles will do what most of the country do with political leaflets, put them straight in the bin.

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
    The figures are probably based on calculations of both direct and indirect costs and are summarised in a study done in 2011 :

    http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/Cost_of_the_EU_25_5_11.pdf

    This put the overall net cost to the UK at 77bn a year for 2010.

    I am not saying I agree with this - just pointing out how they come to their figures.

    Apparently the £165 billion is a 2013 updating of this same document.

    http://www.junepress.com/book.asp?BID=880
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    I like tea. Dislike automated phone systems.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited May 2014
    Bad for Miliband to be on the same programme as Farage (Marr)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457
    Charles said:

    RobD said:
    "(Ed Miliband) said the party was working on "innovative solutions", but did not spell out what they were."

    Yes, nationalisation has never been done before, and is really innovative. Sheesh.

    He hasn't even tried to look at what the problems are, and think of other possible solutions.

    An Ed Miliband governent would be truly dangerous to the country. Populist policies that are designed to appeal, not to fix problems.
    JJ, nationalisation is rarely the answer to the question, but rail fares are a real issue. I remember talking to Andy Hornby (when he was still at Boots, so probably in 2011) when he pointed out that the PAs in his office (off Oxford Street) were earning decent salaries (around £25K), but couldn't afford to live in London.

    The cost of a season ticket was about £3,500.

    That's a huge chunk of someone's disposable income.

    Perhaps the answer is just to make season tickets (on the assumption that they are mainly used to get to work and back - can't think of other examples) tax deductible?
    Compare it to the cost of a car trip for the same journey - rail for commuting is frequently cheaper.

    The problem isn't rail fares.

    As an example. Say I live in St Neots. This return journey to Kings Cross, off-peak, is £16. Peak, £38.

    A 12-month standard season ticket is £5,872.00. That's a large amount. But say you use the ticket for 240 days, and it comes down to £24.46 per day, or £12.23 per single journey. This includes peak travel. So immediately by getting a season ticket, you are £13 per day better off than when getting daily returns. Each single journey takes between 40 and 55 minutes.

    So let's compare this to a car journey. St Neots to Kings Cross is 58 miles, and takes 1hr 25 mins for a single journey. That's 116 miles of travel for the return journey, and according to the AA calculator would cost £46 to drive. Not including parking at the London end (although you might need to park at St Neots).

    So the season ticket is nearly half the price of driving, and about twice as quick. That's quite competitive in my book. (prays that I've done the calculations correctly ...)
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    SeanT said:

    Y0kel said:

    Adams arrest:

    The other night after this thing broke I posted that the thing that looked most likely to swing the decision to charge Adams will not come from those now dead but instead come from the words of the living. This still looks true. The cops are genuinely looking to charge. If they do, Gerry's own bull talk over the years will actually cost him.

    Having said that, it is no surprise to anyone to know the the cops are very very worried themselves, not so much of the fallout of a charge but that they are triple locked with what they have in the books to charge.

    Time is running out and even the lads down at Sinn Fein towers were not sure as of last night what way it was going to go. Whilst Marty McGuinness was out making clear threats the response overall has been one of wait and see.

    Clarity on release or charge by lunchtime.

    I despise Sinn Fein but it is nuts to arrest and charge Adams. Peace is peace. The price we paid was allowing potential murderers - on all sides - to walk free. That was the deal. If we start to unpick it....

    Lunacy.
    Sean

    You only get off if you fess up. Gerry wasn't involved in anything.

  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
    I think the source for that may be Tim Congdon's 'How much does the EU cost Britain?' publication.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430571/REVEALED-How-Britain-is-170bn-worse-off-in-European-Union

    http://shukip.netnamenow.com/upload-articles/costoftheEU_2013.pdf
    Do you not think that if there was anything of value in this report that other eurosceptic sections of the media would have made a bigger song and dance about it and also that UKIP would have been screaming about it from the top of their lungs since September and would have made it a cornerstone of their campaign rather than burying it inside their leaflet (which only political saddoes like myself will tend to read. And also, you'd think someone like Dan Hannan would be bringing this up regularly in his blog. And with Tim Congdon being a prominent member of UKIP it's not exactly an impartial source. How come no other economists have spotted this? Or businesses?

    While I personally think leaving the EU would not be detrimental to our economy and we might even see a small boost I highly doubt it would equate to around 10% of GDP.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    He's not snorted anyone yet then?

    amol rajan‏@amolrajan·1 min
    So far, this is a rather good #Miliband performance on #Marr.
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    SeanT said:

    Blueberry said:

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    In Tower Hamlets they're going to have Bangladeshi interpreters at the polling stations:
    http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/placing-interpreters-in-polling-stations-is-dysfunctional-and-divisive-says-minister-brandon-lewis/

    All that politician-talk about immigrants having to speak English was horseshit.
    I'm all in favour of a rigorous immigration policy, but what do you expect politicians to do about migrants who are already here, who cannot speak English? Ignore them? Let the Labour party hoover them all up?

    Daft.

    Moreover, English is such a globally dominant and mighty language any immigrant with half a brain will be desperate to learn it, and their kids will definitely learn it. They are far more likely to forget their mother tongue in two generations.

    The situation is different in places like Denmark and Sweden where migrants don't bother learning the tiny local language - they keep their mother tongue, and strive to learn English, not Swedish or Danish. This phenomenon explains much of the rise of hard right parties in Nordic countries.

    Sean, if they can't read the ballot paper then they certainly can't read the manifestos or understand any of the debate that takes place before the vote. So they don't know what they're voting for. That said, we have a tradition in the UK for tribal voting and electing monkeys so I suppose it's part of the British tradition. Albeit something we shouldn't really be proud of.

    Interpreters at polling stations and translations of electoral literature point to the fact that we've allowed a very poor quality of immigrant to the come to the UK. If we'd had a points system in the first place - requiring a high standard of English - then we wouldn't be in this situation.

    How do we address the situation as it is? I wouldn't have interpreters. Or any translation of any state-produced document. Get rid of it. Save money. And more importantly send a message that if you come to the UK then, at minimum, you have to learn the language. Those who don't understand can use Google translate or make an effort to befriend someone who speaks English. After a while this group will get smaller and disappear.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2014

    Charles said:

    RobD said:
    "(Ed Miliband) said the party was working on "innovative solutions", but did not spell out what they were."

    Yes, nationalisation has never been done before, and is really innovative. Sheesh.

    He hasn't even tried to look at what the problems are, and think of other possible solutions.

    An Ed Miliband governent would be truly dangerous to the country. Populist policies that are designed to appeal, not to fix problems.
    JJ, nationalisation is rarely the answer to the question, but rail fares are a real issue. I remember talking to Andy Hornby (when he was still at Boots, so probably in 2011) when he pointed out that the PAs in his office (off Oxford Street) were earning decent salaries (around £25K), but couldn't afford to live in London.

    The cost of a season ticket was about £3,500.

    That's a huge chunk of someone's disposable income.

    Perhaps the answer is just to make season tickets (on the assumption that they are mainly used to get to work and back - can't think of other examples) tax deductible?
    Compare it to the cost of a car trip for the same journey - rail for commuting is frequently cheaper.

    The problem isn't rail fares.

    As an example. Say I live in St Neots. This return journey to Kings Cross, off-peak, is £16. Peak, £38.

    A 12-month standard season ticket is £5,872.00. That's a large amount. But say you use the ticket for 240 days, and it comes down to £24.46 per day, or £12.23 per single journey. This includes peak travel. So immediately by getting a season ticket, you are £13 per day better off than when getting daily returns. Each single journey takes between 40 and 55 minutes.

    So let's compare this to a car journey. St Neots to Kings Cross is 58 miles, and takes 1hr 25 mins for a single journey. That's 116 miles of travel for the return journey, and according to the AA calculator would cost £46 to drive. Not including parking at the London end (although you might need to park at St Neots).

    So the season ticket is nearly half the price of driving, and about twice as quick. That's quite competitive in my book. (prays that I've done the calculations correctly ...)
    And a massive component of the cost of the car journey is tax.

    But you are missing the point. andy's PA couldn't afford to live in London. And was paying something like 18% of her take home pay in getting to work.

    That's an issue for the country.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2014
    SeanT said:

    Blueberry said:

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    In Tower Hamlets they're going to have Bangladeshi interpreters at the polling stations:
    http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/placing-interpreters-in-polling-stations-is-dysfunctional-and-divisive-says-minister-brandon-lewis/

    All that politician-talk about immigrants having to speak English was horseshit.
    I'm all in favour of a rigorous immigration policy, but what do you expect politicians to do about migrants who are already here, who cannot speak English? Ignore them? Let the Labour party hoover them all up?
    How about accept there's a massive problem with integration and change their immigration policies to address it? The rate of immigration into this country is far faster than the two generations you mention it takes for people to integrate, so unless we want the UK to become an increasingly foreign land, we need to bring immigration right down - including from Eastern Europe - until those here have integrated.

    The joke is the Tories are just as bad as Labour as saying the EU is a positive good to this end, never mentioning a problem with integration, and then directly acknowledge it in their political strategy.

    It's absurd that the Conservative party is trying to get candidates to represent Britain in the European parliament off the back of votes of non-English speaking foreigners. If people don't have passports here, and haven't gone through the necessary processes to join the British nation they shouldn't be allowed to vote to represent Britain.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    I think it's fair to say the Lib-Dems are going to be pounded like....
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Yawn.... more interventionism in everything.....

    amol rajan‏@amolrajan·2 mins
    Miliband told senior Labour comrades to keep schtum about Pfizer deal so he could bang on about it on #marr so this better be good.

    George Eaton‏@georgeeaton·2 mins
    Miliband announces Labour would bring in new public interest test for foreign takeovers and says he is writing to Cameron today. #Marr
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
    I think the source for that may be Tim Congdon's 'How much does the EU cost Britain?' publication.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430571/REVEALED-How-Britain-is-170bn-worse-off-in-European-Union

    http://shukip.netnamenow.com/upload-articles/costoftheEU_2013.pdf
    Do you not think that if there was anything of value in this report that other eurosceptic sections of the media would have made a bigger song and dance about it and also that UKIP would have been screaming about it from the top of their lungs since September and would have made it a cornerstone of their campaign rather than burying it inside their leaflet (which only political saddoes like myself will tend to read. And also, you'd think someone like Dan Hannan would be bringing this up regularly in his blog. And with Tim Congdon being a prominent member of UKIP it's not exactly an impartial source. How come no other economists have spotted this? Or businesses?

    While I personally think leaving the EU would not be detrimental to our economy and we might even see a small boost I highly doubt it would equate to around 10% of GDP.

    This is a report that is updated regularly and which no economist yet has disproved. Of course that is in part because the government has not allowed a proper cost/benefit analysis to be done.

    If people want to argue against the document then they need to point out where the figures are wrong.

    I do believe that some of the assumptions made are open to debate but again it is up to supporters of EU membership to make their case. If not then this analysis seems to me to be supportable.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited May 2014
    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    Surprised me too - it's (65) a tie with Con (63) but ahead of Lab (58).

    They are however, more likely to believe in the devil:
    Con: -30
    Lab: -27
    LibD: -37
    UKIP: -4


    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/3s35pyaa5c/YG-Archive-131125-Prospects.pdf
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    Why are you surprised by that?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Miliband: "won't borrow for day to day spending in 2015/16"

    I thought Labour had signed up to the government's spending total in that year?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    If only Labour had ever been in power... it sure helped oversee one of the worst broken markets ever seen in 2008.

    Chris Mason‏@ChrisMasonBBC·2 mins
    Miliband claims on #marrshow that there's a "divide in British politics -- defenders of broken markets&there is Labour..with a bold agenda."
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2014

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    I did read the UKIP leaflet this week though. Apparently they're claiming EU membership costs Britain £165 billion a year, which would have eliminated the budget deficit without the need for any cuts (Though they're not giving a source for this spectacular claim) which is clearly bollocks, for if it were true Cameron and Osborne would have had an in/out referendum on it 4 years ago.
    I think the source for that may be Tim Congdon's 'How much does the EU cost Britain?' publication.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430571/REVEALED-How-Britain-is-170bn-worse-off-in-European-Union

    http://shukip.netnamenow.com/upload-articles/costoftheEU_2013.pdf
    Do you not think that if there was anything of value in this report that other eurosceptic sections of the media would have made a bigger song and dance about it and also that UKIP would have been screaming about it from the top of their lungs since September and would have made it a cornerstone of their campaign rather than burying it inside their leaflet (which only political saddoes like myself will tend to read. And also, you'd think someone like Dan Hannan would be bringing this up regularly in his blog. And with Tim Congdon being a prominent member of UKIP it's not exactly an impartial source. How come no other economists have spotted this? Or businesses?

    While I personally think leaving the EU would not be detrimental to our economy and we might even see a small boost I highly doubt it would equate to around 10% of GDP.

    UKIP have tried various messages to highlight the downside of EU membership. The only one that seems to have cut through is immigration.

    "also, you'd think someone like Dan Hannan would be bringing this up regularly in his blog"

    He doesn't mention the other studies often, why would he particularly latch onto this one? My impression is that democratic accountability of government is what that motivates Mr Hannan.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100170980/what-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-eu-membership-might-reveal/

    One interesting point raised by Prof Congdon in his speech at the recent UKIP Conference, was the absence of any government funded cost/benefit analysis of EU membership, which does seem odd.

    http://youtu.be/Cuv5OlPTtk4
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited May 2014
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    It's pretty predictable that UKIP voters would have far better understanding of history and where we've come from than the other parties, who don't seem to learn from the past.

    I also note this one:

    "Of people who cycle, Ukip supporters are least likely to run red lights themselves

    Only 2% confess to doing this – 14% of Lib Dems did, 20% of Tories did, and 26% of Labour party supporters said they had."

    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Nigel V Ed on Marr - did Ed just say that he'd leave it to broadcasters re having Farage on?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    Surprised me too - it's (65) a tie with Con (63) but ahead of Lab (58).

    They are however, more likely to believe in the devil:
    Con: -30
    Lab: -27
    LibD: -37
    UKIP: -4


    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/3s35pyaa5c/YG-Archive-131125-Prospects.pdf
    Yes but they don't agree on his name. At least 60% of them said it was Ted and another 20% said David. Funnily enough only 6% said Herbert and 4% said Manuel :-)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    You tories are all crackpots who believe in the divine right of kings, and bigwigs. Fess up!
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:

    I saw a certain forlorn look on her face: a poignant expression which said - one day my kids will forget Polish, and I won't be able to talk to them in their mother tongue. And she was right. They will forget Polish, just as they will forget Punjabi, Swahili, Chinese and Arabic.

    Yet, sixty years after the mass migration from the Indian subcontinent to Tower Hamlets, they still have Bengali translators at polling stations, and street signs in foreign languages.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Millsy said:

    Miliband: "won't borrow for day to day spending in 2015/16"

    I thought Labour had signed up to the government's spending total in that year?

    In other news, Labour will go bat-shit crazy on borrowing 2016-2020.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Charles

    "Perhaps the answer is just to make season tickets (on the assumption that they are mainly used to get to work and back - can't think of other examples) tax deductible?"

    Would yo not then have to make to the cost of travelling to one's normal place of work tax deductible for everyone? That would cost so much that taxes elsewhere would have to be raised to fill the hole and/or additional cuts to departmental spending found. Furthermore, would it not require the whole country to be put onto self-assessment and think of the ramifications of that.

    An alternative idea would be to go back to having "workman's ordinary" fares where tickets used before a certain time in the morning were much cheaper - the reverse of today's practice. in fact. That would help with the costs of working people but fares for pleasure travellers would have to rise significantly and would probably mean even more trains (and buses) running nearly empty during the day. Probably the economics of the thing won't work and the operators would need greater subsidies from the taxpayer.

    Or of course, companies could just pay more or otherwise provide assistance. When I worked in town my employer paid for my season ticket (and covered the additional income tax demand that resulted). Other businesses I know provided interest free loans to cover the purchase of an annual season ticket,though these days I imagine HMRC would have something to say about that.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    I was surprised that in his sentencing remarks he mentioned another case that was outside UK jusisdiction and which had not been studied in the court but which he seemed to be using as part of his decision on punishment. Is this allowed?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Scottish historian Allan Massie has fun with some tongue-in-cheek scenarios if YES wins in September.

    "So what happens when Scotland votes yes? Cameron's quit, the Queen is furious, the Shetlands have taken all the oil - and the Scottish economy is tanking: A brilliant 'imagining' of life after the Union"

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619458/So-happens-Scotland-votes-yes-Camerons-quit-Queen-furious-Shetlands-taken-oil-Scottish-economy-tanking-A-brilliant-imagining-life-Union.html#ixzz30jf54yWH

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    @JJ @Charles

    would it fly to point out how much the railways cost, the "true" cost of train travel and then to point out the susbsidy?

    I mean we need to stop short of a marginal private cost vs marginal social cost page of equations but the critical question is to what degree the taxpayer should subsidise train passengers and what social benefits are generated.

    Or will it just be tribal politics in the end?
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    i worked in a bar for a while in Fremantle, years back, when travelling. The Aussie air force were in town at the time. Good memories :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
    Sadly for UKIP supporters, they live in a uniquely lawless world:

    Net seen a bike run a red light in past month:
    Con: +8
    Lab: +4
    LibD: +5
    UKIP: +23

    No wonder they are more likely to believe in the devil!

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    felix said:

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    Oh get over yourself. It's ridiculous to expect all immigrants to have achieved the level of fluency adequate to understand nuanced political messages - not the same as saying they understand no English. English is already one of the world's most dominant languages and is likely to remain so.
    Get over yourself. If foreign nationals are incapable of understanding nuanced political messages in English, they shouldn't be voting in UK elections. The Tories are trying to beat UKIP on the back of foreign votes in a foreign language. They've clearly strayed a very long way from their values.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
    Sadly for UKIP supporters, they live in a uniquely lawless world:

    Net seen a bike run a red light in past month:
    Con: +8
    Lab: +4
    LibD: +5
    UKIP: +23

    No wonder they are more likely to believe in the devil!

    UKIP supporters are also more likely to drive every day, so that fits.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    To think of a tangible example, what are the Tory MEPs, elected off the back of these English illiterate Poles, going to think about the UK government providing child benefit to kids back in Poland... who will they be representing in that situation?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I don;t see any discussion of the telegraph's ICM wisdom poll on the threads today, showing a big north south divide and a narrowing in labour's lead to one point
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Carola said:

    Nigel V Ed on Marr - did Ed just say that he'd leave it to broadcasters re having Farage on?

    I heard it that way,Carola.In response to Farage goading Miliband into a direct head-to-head between the 2 of them,Miliband's response was to deflect the question back to his demand that Cameron does not manage to dodge out of the GE debates in 2015 but Miliband definitely said,as an important concession to Farage,should the broadcasters
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Good knockabout between Ed and Nigel at the end of Marr: two men with a common enemy.

    Interesting to hear Farage try a little distancing between himself and Mrs T. Clearly, he understands that unbridled adoration of the Lady is going to put off the working class Labour-inclined voters UKIP says it is now targeting. Ed clearly understands that too. For Labour it is clearly the way to attack.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457
    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    JJ, nationalisation is rarely the answer to the question, but rail fares are a real issue. I remember talking to Andy Hornby (when he was still at Boots, so probably in 2011) when he pointed out that the PAs in his office (off Oxford Street) were earning decent salaries (around £25K), but couldn't afford to live in London.

    The cost of a season ticket was about £3,500.

    That's a huge chunk of someone's disposable income.

    Perhaps the answer is just to make season tickets (on the assumption that they are mainly used to get to work and back - can't think of other examples) tax deductible?

    Compare it to the cost of a car trip for the same journey - rail for commuting is frequently cheaper.

    The problem isn't rail fares.

    As an example. Say I live in St Neots. This return journey to Kings Cross, off-peak, is £16. Peak, £38.

    A 12-month standard season ticket is £5,872.00. That's a large amount. But say you use the ticket for 240 days, and it comes down to £24.46 per day, or £12.23 per single journey. This includes peak travel. So immediately by getting a season ticket, you are £13 per day better off than when getting daily returns. Each single journey takes between 40 and 55 minutes.

    So let's compare this to a car journey. St Neots to Kings Cross is 58 miles, and takes 1hr 25 mins for a single journey. That's 116 miles of travel for the return journey, and according to the AA calculator would cost £46 to drive. Not including parking at the London end (although you might need to park at St Neots).

    So the season ticket is nearly half the price of driving, and about twice as quick. That's quite competitive in my book. (prays that I've done the calculations correctly ...)
    And a massive component of the cost of the car journey is tax.

    But you are missing the point. andy's PA couldn't afford to live in London. And was paying something like 18% of her take home pay in getting to work.

    That's an issue for the country.
    You are missing the point as much as me. "Andy's PA couldn't afford to live in London." is the biggest problem, followed by the salary she's getting. The cost of the journey is a poor third.

    The potential solutions:
    1) Make housing costs in London (indeed all cities) cheaper.
    2) Pay her more.
    3) Artificially depress rail ticket prices even more, at cost to the general taxpayer.

    What you are calling for is rail ticket prices to be subsidised even more by the taxpayer, just so companies can keep down wages. That's fair enough, but at least be honest about it.

    (As an aside, I fail to see how Miliband's latest wheeze will depress ticket prices in the medium or long term)
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    invite Farage in the GE debate,he would have no objections.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I saw a certain forlorn look on her face: a poignant expression which said - one day my kids will forget Polish, and I won't be able to talk to them in their mother tongue. And she was right. They will forget Polish, just as they will forget Punjabi, Swahili, Chinese and Arabic.

    Yet, sixty years after the mass migration from the Indian subcontinent to Tower Hamlets, they still have Bengali translators at polling stations, and street signs in foreign languages.
    That's because we are still getting new immigrants from the subcontinent, not because vast numbers of third generation immigrants haven't learned English. Apart from a few stay at home mums it just doesn't happen. People are DESPERATE to learn English around the world, the fact Britain speaks English is one of the main reasons we are such a magnet for migrants: they know that their kids will grow up speaking the global language, which will give them a head start in life.
    According to the 2011 census 726,000 people living in Britain reported they could not speak English well and a further 138,000 could speak no English at all.

    We should adopt the system they have in Norway where before you are granted permanent residency in the country you have to take 600 hours of compulsory Norwegian language lessons - including 50 hours on Norwegian culture and society.

    http://www.as.kommune.no/in-english.166219.no.html
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    taffys said:

    I don;t see any discussion of the telegraph's ICM wisdom poll on the threads today, showing a big north south divide and a narrowing in labour's lead to one point

    Is a north-south divide news? Labour and Conservative voters have always had a regional bias.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I saw a certain forlorn look on her face: a poignant expression which said - one day my kids will forget Polish, and I won't be able to talk to them in their mother tongue. And she was right. They will forget Polish, just as they will forget Punjabi, Swahili, Chinese and Arabic.

    Yet, sixty years after the mass migration from the Indian subcontinent to Tower Hamlets, they still have Bengali translators at polling stations, and street signs in foreign languages.
    That's because we are still getting new immigrants from the subcontinent, not because vast numbers of third generation immigrants haven't learned English. Apart from a few stay at home mums it just doesn't happen. People are DESPERATE to learn English around the world, the fact Britain speaks English is one of the main reasons we are such a magnet for migrants: they know that their kids will grow up speaking the global language, which will give them a head start in life.
    A few stay at home mums? Only a minority of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are in the labour market:

    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/census/CoDE-Employment-Census-Briefing.pdf

    The vast bulk are not working and are not looking to. And even many of those working will be doing so in their own community, in local shops and service companies etc, where they will talk to people in the language they prefer. I've certainly lived in parts of London where shop owners would speak to members of their own ethnic group at length in another language, and only mention a few words to the English people coming in.

    But, that aside, the fact they are getting new immigrants at a faster rate than the existing ones can learn English is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. At what point does it stop? At what point do we say, hang on, we're losing a sense of social solidarity and increasing alienation because an ever increasing share struggle to communicate in English? When will the Tories, let alone the left wing parties, recognise this? And when they do, when will they take action to actually stop mass immigration? Because none of them are doing what is needed right now.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    Carola said:

    Nigel V Ed on Marr - did Ed just say that he'd leave it to broadcasters re having Farage on?

    I heard it that way,Carola.In response to Farage goading Miliband into a direct head-to-head between the 2 of them,Miliband's response was to deflect the question back to his demand that Cameron does not manage to dodge out of the GE debates in 2015 but Miliband definitely said,as an important concession to Farage,should the broadcasters
    Sky reporting it as a goer.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2014
    Carola said:

    Carola said:

    Nigel V Ed on Marr - did Ed just say that he'd leave it to broadcasters re having Farage on?

    I heard it that way,Carola.In response to Farage goading Miliband into a direct head-to-head between the 2 of them,Miliband's response was to deflect the question back to his demand that Cameron does not manage to dodge out of the GE debates in 2015 but Miliband definitely said,as an important concession to Farage,should the broadcasters
    Sky reporting it as a goer.
    Reporting what as a goer?

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,054

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
    Sadly for UKIP supporters, they live in a uniquely lawless world:

    Net seen a bike run a red light in past month:
    Con: +8
    Lab: +4
    LibD: +5
    UKIP: +23

    No wonder they are more likely to believe in the devil!

    UKIP supporters are also more likely to drive every day, so that fits.

    Based on?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Seven pages of EdM's health plan are laid out in the Mail.

    "He wants ‘daily physical activity’ with ‘an ambition to get half the population physically active by 2025.’

    The document adds: ‘We are currently looking at the best definition of physically active for this purpose’.

    His get fit plan includes a lottery fund to ‘finance the construction of skateboard parks, BMX tracks, netball and basketball courts. All school pupils will be taught to swim and ride a bike safely.’ Labour will aim to ensure all children do a minimum of two hours of PE a week." Where that will be done is not explained.

    He will "introduce a tougher plan for the protection of playing fields" - so will he buy back those that Labour sold off for development and initiate a wholesale demolition program?

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619655/Labours-nanny-state-plan-drinkers-smokers-unhealthy-eaters-sparks-revolt-party-Red-Ed-says-FORCE-fit.html#ixzz30jhVOrVF



  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2014
    "Cyril Smith admitted spanking and touching boys, but I let him stay, says Lord Steel

    Lord Steel, the former Liberal leader, said he confronted Cyril Smith over allegations that he spanked and touched teenagers and was 'surprised' when he admitted they were true"

    An article in Private Eye in 1979 alleged that Smith, who was secretary of the Cambridge House boys hostel, put teenagers across his knee, pulled down their trousers and spanked them as a “punishment” in the 1960s.

    Lord Steel said: “I asked Cyril Smith about it. I was half expecting him to say it was all wrong, and I would have been urging him to sue to save his reputation. To my surprise he said the report was correct.

    “He had some kind of supervisory role, I don’t know what it was, in these institutions in Rochdale which he reckoned entitled him to be involved in corporal punishment.”


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10796546/Cyril-Smith-admitted-spanking-and-touching-boys-but-I-let-him-stay-says-Lord-Steel.html
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MaxPB said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
    Sadly for UKIP supporters, they live in a uniquely lawless world:

    Net seen a bike run a red light in past month:
    Con: +8
    Lab: +4
    LibD: +5
    UKIP: +23

    No wonder they are more likely to believe in the devil!

    UKIP supporters are also more likely to drive every day, so that fits.

    Based on?
    The survey we've been discussing.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    UKIP voters more likely to believe in theory of evolution than supporters of other parties... Eh?
    I return to a more law abiding world would be a welcome one.
    Sadly for UKIP supporters, they live in a uniquely lawless world:

    Net seen a bike run a red light in past month:
    Con: +8
    Lab: +4
    LibD: +5
    UKIP: +23

    No wonder they are more likely to believe in the devil!

    They are also a lot less likely than supporters of another party to break the law themselves, if you see the companion question. It would seem they are just more aware of the law and infractions of it.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    The neo-cons up to their usual tricks.This time on clean air.Why don't these bloody greens realise that the Koch Bros need to increase their personal fortune preceeds any of this green crap about clean air?
    And then there's ALEC on an umbilical chord to the Koch Bros..

    http://insideclimatenews.org/content/koch-brothers-alec-expand-fight-clean-energy-users
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Blueberry said:

    Socrates said:

    In parts of London the Tories are sending out Polish language leaflets for the EU elections. It just shows how they recognise that many of the people here aren't even integrated enough to read the native language properly. I thought we were supposed to be an English-speaking country?

    Oh get over yourself. It's ridiculous to expect all immigrants to have achieved the level of fluency adequate to understand nuanced political messages - not the same as saying they understand no English. English is already one of the world's most dominant languages and is likely to remain so.
    Agreed. And in reply to the comment downthread that all immigrants must be required to learn good English, all I can say is that the proportion of Brits resident in other countries who bother to learn the local language is far smaller than the other way round. Generally immigrants to Britain do try to improve their English as part of their general effort to get on. By contrast, I knew Brits in German Switzerland who took a perverse pride in not learning German and who spent their evenings in the English-Speaking Club, watching videos of English football and drinking imported British beer, even during the spectacular local carnival season.

    It's clearly desirable for immigrants to learn a local language and have a go at mingling. But Britain is possibly the very worst-placed country in the world to be self-righteous about it.

    Just for anecdotal amusement: there's a voter in Broxtowe who believes that it should be ILLEGAL to speak a foreign language in Britain, even for tourists.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Good knockabout between Ed and Nigel at the end of Marr: two men with a common enemy.

    Interesting to hear Farage try a little distancing between himself and Mrs T. Clearly, he understands that unbridled adoration of the Lady is going to put off the working class Labour-inclined voters UKIP says it is now targeting. Ed clearly understands that too. For Labour it is clearly the way to attack.

    I think this is less potent than you believe. Hardly anyone under 40 remembers Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Instead of going to the enormous expense, financial and social, of teaching immigrants English why not just do what the non West does and have no immigrants.

    My mother has lived in this country for 30 years and has never voted on the principal its not her country. Bizarre that EU and Commonwealth are allowed the vote. Of course if the Conservatives were sensible tightening the franchise and voting procedures would be more of a priority. As for immigration, current trends will ensure they will share the same fate as the California Republican party, or the Republican Party in general when Texas goes majority Hispanic. Elysium.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Millsy said:

    Miliband: "won't borrow for day to day spending in 2015/16"

    I thought Labour had signed up to the government's spending total in that year?

    Did he really say that? Really? And did no one ask him how he proposed to pay the bills? If Milliband really did say that then he was either not telling the truth or revealing that he hasn't got a bleedin' clue. Either way its an astonishing statement and one that deserves the maximum publicity.
This discussion has been closed.