There's many reasons for them to be maintaining strength at local level and still lose it at national.
It was the only local campaign in a battleground seat for next year. You can be sure that both LDs and Lab threw the sink at it. Winning that seat is simply not compatible with the GE share reducing to less than 25% of what it was last time regardless of differences between the elections or quality of candidates etc.
Or it's an area of strength in a seat slipping away. Time will tell
But if they're holding up well enough to win in one ward they'd have to be, what, in negative territory in their worst areas to be at 10% overall?
Dont get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the Lib Dems are going to hold onto Redcar (Labour are clearly favourites here). I just think a 10% rating is outlandish enough to cast serious doubts on this poll (and perhaps the others).
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
The fieldwork dates
Cambridge 4th-8th April Twickenham 11th-16th april Wells 11th-18th April Redcard 17th-19th April Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May Inverness 23rd-26th May
''Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife! ''
I'd have thought cam is viewing this with dread....he needs the libs to divide the left vote.
"One nation acting cohesively" is the antithesis of modern capitalism. It requires people to think in term of consumer wealth without regard to abstract concepts like "value"
Not really.
But then I'm a believe in stakeholder value. Shareholders come way down the list in our business (customers, regulators, family, society and shareholders is the rule of thumb)
Part of the difficulty is that 'modern capitalism' isn't really capitalism - it's corporatism. Companies run for the benefit of top management and which target short-term (ie quarterly or yearly) share price performance.
''Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife! ''
I'd have thought cam is viewing this with dread....he needs the libs to divide the left vote.
Clegg gone and replaced with a left winger would do exactly that...
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron should dissolve the coalition and call a snap election? You are Ed Miliband AICMFP.
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
" Several weeks ago, I told Vince the results of those four polls too."
That's the crux here for Vince - he knew about these polls weeks ago Lord O says and yet Vince said y'day the below - he's relying on the publishing bit to let him off... that's pretty nuanced.
BBC report On Tuesday Mr Cable described Lord Oakeshott's actions as "totally inexcusable and unacceptable". "Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament, as in the case of Sheffield Hallam, is utterly reprehensible," he said on Tuesday.
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron will not intervene to stop LD bickering, it isn’t his place to do so – not in public anyway.
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
" Several weeks ago, I told Vince the results of those four polls too."
That's the crux here for Vince - he knew about these polls weeks ago Lord O says and yet Vince said y'day the below - he's relying on the publishing bit to let him off... that's pretty nuanced.
BBC report On Tuesday Mr Cable described Lord Oakeshott's actions as "totally inexcusable and unacceptable". "Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament, as in the case of Sheffield Hallam, is utterly reprehensible," he said on Tuesday.
I think Cables going to need a bit more than playing on the head of a pin over the word 'and' to get himself out of this.
Well, I'm not Mark Senior so I'll have to do as someone who supports and is a member of the Liberal Democrats and of course those not well disposed toward the Party are having a field day as might be expected though of course this kind of thing happens to all parties at some point.
I'm not really that bothered about Matthew Oakeshott. He was playing the same game as befell Margaret Thatcher in 1990 when a number of polls showed the Conservatives would do much better with Michael Heseltine as leader and they were perhaps one of the factors which led to her extraordinary removal from office.
His comment about the Party having lost its "roots, principles and values" is of more interest. In truth, the Party has struggled ever since the election of David Cameron as Conservative leader. With Hague, IDS and Howard, Charles Kennedy was able to position himself as "Mr Nice Guy" in contrast to the perception of the various Tory leaders.
In many ways, Kennedy was only doing then what Farage is now with opposition to the Iraq War in place of withdrawing from the EU. Cameron's election changed the dynamic and for those who remember 2005-06 it was soon evident Kennedy and his leadership had no response to the "lovebombing" from Cameron.
The Party's response in electing Sir Menzies Campbell was to replace levitas with gravitas but the problem was Sir Menzies, who was more in the style of his countryman Jo Grimond than a Paddy Ashdown, was just the wrong man for the job. Nick Clegg fitted the mould of the kind of leader we could put up against Cameron and out-telegenic the Tory leader.
The problem was Nick Clegg was far too inexperienced and found himself in May 2010 in a situation which wiser heads could and probably would have managed better. That said, I believe the Coalition has been broadly positive for the country though, as I said on Monday, tuition fees destroyed Nick's personal credibility.
I made my position on Nick's leadership clear on Monday and still think he needs to lead us over the cliff next year. Those who survive the fall will be able to regroup and rebuild.
The other point I would make, in response to Marquee's posting this morning, is that we don't really know the policies of any of the parties at this time.
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
The fieldwork dates
Cambridge 4th-8th April Twickenham 11th-16th april Wells 11th-18th April Redcard 17th-19th April Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May Inverness 23rd-26th May
The chronology of those dates doesn't stack up with Lord O's story.... that said Twickers came first?
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron should dissolve the coalition and call a snap election? You are Ed Miliband AICMFP.
Cammo was too cute in 2010, he has hamstrung himself and his party by the 5 year rule for parliaments.
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron should dissolve the coalition and call a snap election? You are Ed Miliband AICMFP.
Cammo was too cute in 2010, he has hamstrung himself and his party by the 5 year rule for parliaments.
Meh, that rule can got around if the will was there.
These polls really don't tell us all that much I don't think. They're nice numbers to laugh over but if any of them pan out I'd be more than surprised.
I certainly wouldn't want to be holding a betslip of any decent size on Danny Alexander in Inverness, Bairn, Strasthpey.
In a sample of 500 voters they only found 50 Lib Dems. Weight that up, down or sideways, add in the maximum MOE for any degree of confidence you like and it is pretty clear to me that Wee Danny is losing his seat.
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron will not intervene to stop LD bickering, it isn’t his place to do so – not in public anyway.
Sun Tzu : "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
"One nation acting cohesively" is the antithesis of modern capitalism. It requires people to think in term of consumer wealth without regard to abstract concepts like "value"
Not really.
But then I'm a believe in stakeholder value. Shareholders come way down the list in our business (customers, regulators, family, society and shareholders is the rule of thumb)
Part of the difficulty is that 'modern capitalism' isn't really capitalism - it's corporatism. Companies run for the benefit of top management and which target short-term (ie quarterly or yearly) share price performance.
I agree.
So to some extent do I, although it is imo rather less narrow than that.
It is certainly true that most large corporations are run for the benefit of top management and that they scratch each others' backs by providing work for each other and setting their own pay by sitting on each others' remuneration boards.
This mutual cooperation extends however to a number of professions, notably legal and accountancy but others too, which benefit from the lucrative work provided by mergers and acquisitions that are of little benefit to anybody but these groups.
The recent failed Pfizer bid is a very good example. The professional fees involved in such a bid are colossal, and are of course payable whether it succeeds or not.
''Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife! ''
I'd have thought cam is viewing this with dread....he needs the libs to divide the left vote.
I'm in having fun mode today, the short term giggle is outweighing the long term effect
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
The fieldwork dates
Cambridge 4th-8th April Twickenham 11th-16th april Wells 11th-18th April Redcard 17th-19th April Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May Inverness 23rd-26th May
The chronology of those dates doesn't stack up with Lord O's story.... that said Twickers came first?
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
The fieldwork dates
Cambridge 4th-8th April Twickenham 11th-16th april Wells 11th-18th April Redcard 17th-19th April Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May Inverness 23rd-26th May
The chronology of those dates doesn't stack up with Lord O's story.... that said Twickers came first?
To be fair to Oakshott, he may have been carrying out regular polling of LD constituencies well before this current batch and it may just have been part of his party role.
The recent failed Pfizer bid is a very good example. The professional fees involved in such a bid are colossal, and are of course payable whether it succeeds or not.
On Pfizer's size, the bankers would not be paid much [relatively speaking!] unless the bid succeeded - the 'success fee' would be the real prize. On the AstraZeneca side, I doubt if the fees were very high because the deal didn't go to a formal bid.
Cable may have known about Richmond but not Sheffield polls ? That would allow them both to be telling the truth..
Yes, you're right.
"That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. "
At what point in time did Cable know about those polls though?
The fieldwork dates
Cambridge 4th-8th April Twickenham 11th-16th april Wells 11th-18th April Redcard 17th-19th April Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May Inverness 23rd-26th May
The chronology of those dates doesn't stack up with Lord O's story.... that said Twickers came first?
He said 4 more. Huppert is in the Cable stable.
I read it that Twickers was done first, he wanted to see if Clegg's removal would help so then did 4 others - Camb, Wells, Redcar, Sheff H and then added on late Inverness. The above dates don't tally with that.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
All the money that's been wasted on the global warming scam should have gone into fusion imo.
"One nation acting cohesively" is the antithesis of modern capitalism. It requires people to think in term of consumer wealth without regard to abstract concepts like "value"
Not really.
But then I'm a believe in stakeholder value. Shareholders come way down the list in our business (customers, regulators, family, society and shareholders is the rule of thumb)
Part of the difficulty is that 'modern capitalism' isn't really capitalism - it's corporatism. Companies run for the benefit of top management and which target short-term (ie quarterly or yearly) share price performance.
I agree.
So to some extent do I, although it is imo rather less narrow than that.
It is certainly true that most large corporations are run for the benefit of top management and that they scratch each others' backs by providing work for each other and setting their own pay by sitting on each others' remuneration boards.
This mutual cooperation extends however to a number of professions, notably legal and accountancy but others too, which benefit from the lucrative work provided by mergers and acquisitions that are of little benefit to anybody but these groups.
The recent failed Pfizer bid is a very good example. The professional fees involved in such a bid are colossal, and are of course payable whether it succeeds or not.
A couple of my mates were advising Pfizer (which I have been winding them up about). The bulk of their fees are payable on success only - although they will have potentially had some element of a commitment fee on the financing. On the AstraZeneca side they will have got a few million each for the advisory work but, again, the big payout would have been only if there was a deal.
The issue with large corporations is not the principal-agent issue (which is a problem) but more that they have interests which are not necessarily the same as the national interest. Thus, for example, the big banks are continually arguing for more and more regulation of the sector - and in particular making it more difficult for new entrants - in order to "protect customers". In reality, what they want to do is to increase the barriers to entry and to increase the economies of scale so that they can milk their comfortable oligopoly for a few more years yet.
The national interest would be best served by light touch operating regulation, requirements for substantial capital to back deposit taking activity, making it as easy as possible for customers to switch between banks (I quite like the concept of people being able to retain their bank account number if they switch banks) and encouraging innovative new entrants into the market.
Cameron - be the statesman. tell the Lib Dems they have 48 hours to sort themselves out or you will take action to protect the country from their incessant squabbling. Do it! Twist that knife!
Cameron should dissolve the coalition and call a snap election? You are Ed Miliband AICMFP.
Cammo was too cute in 2010, he has hamstrung himself and his party by the 5 year rule for parliaments.
Meh, that rule can got around if the will was there.
I wouldn't bet on that. Labour are in no position to support an early dissolution of parliament. Nor the L/Dems and many Tories would also be against. No Cammo is caught in a trap of his own making.
Given how much energy prices have risen, it is clear that the main reason is the increase in gas prices, due to increased global demand and reduced North Sea supply.
Of course, I completely agree that it would be better to fund investment in renewables from general taxation.
From the guardian link SSE's own figures, analysed by Reg Platt at the IPPR think tank, show the rise equates to £93 a year. Of that, £23 is due to rising wholesale energy costs and £28 for investment in the grid and meters. VAT adds £5 and another £23 is unaccounted for, but will include SSE's own costs, profit and projected rises for the next year, during which SSE has pledged to freeze its tarfiffs. That all means that just one sixth of SSE's rise - £15 - is due to the rise in government "green taxes".
So: wholesale costs £23, investment in grid and meters £28, costs/profits £23 and green taxes/VAT £20. IIRC, the meters are centrally government mandated and should be inclduded in the government bucket. Additionally, an element of the wholesale costs are pass through of government actions in the supply chain.
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
"IIRC, the meters are centrally government mandated and should be inclduded in the government bucket. "
Or included in the green bucket if the aim of metering was to allow later rationing for green reasons.
O/T on the why did Labour do so well in London. Surely is just an example of Labours open door immigration policy working a treat in shoring up their vote, which is why the policy existed
I'm sure this is the case, but why don't we have any polls by ethnic group? They clearly have huge explanatory power and they're not so hand-wringing about doing it in the US.
It is probably because of the difference between this and this.
The demography in the big cities in the UK is similar to the US as a whole.
Yes, I am of course aware than some fees are success-related and even where this is not the case, the extra amounts arising upon success will be substantial.
The general point stands though, as I think you both recognize.
Thanks for your respective interesting comments, with which I concur.
o/t - a really, really poor day for HMT given the criticism in the FT of their "analysis" of the cost of setting up an independent Government in Scotland. Their involvement in the Scottish Independence campaign has been a new low for the UK civil service.
Even the BBC have been kicking lumps out of them, you would have thought they could have made up some believable lies rather than the stupid whoppers they have come out with and attributed to experts who are complaining bitterly that they have lied and misled based on any measurement you like.
Comments
Dont get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the Lib Dems are going to hold onto Redcar (Labour are clearly favourites here). I just think a 10% rating is outlandish enough to cast serious doubts on this poll (and perhaps the others).
Cambridge 4th-8th April
Twickenham 11th-16th april
Wells 11th-18th April
Redcard 17th-19th April
Sheffield Hallam 29th April-4th May
Inverness 23rd-26th May
I'd have thought cam is viewing this with dread....he needs the libs to divide the left vote.
BBC report
On Tuesday Mr Cable described Lord Oakeshott's actions as "totally inexcusable and unacceptable". "Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament, as in the case of Sheffield Hallam, is utterly reprehensible," he said on Tuesday.
Well, I'm not Mark Senior so I'll have to do as someone who supports and is a member of the Liberal Democrats and of course those not well disposed toward the Party are having a field day as might be expected though of course this kind of thing happens to all parties at some point.
I'm not really that bothered about Matthew Oakeshott. He was playing the same game as befell Margaret Thatcher in 1990 when a number of polls showed the Conservatives would do much better with Michael Heseltine as leader and they were perhaps one of the factors which led to her extraordinary removal from office.
His comment about the Party having lost its "roots, principles and values" is of more interest. In truth, the Party has struggled ever since the election of David Cameron as Conservative leader. With Hague, IDS and Howard, Charles Kennedy was able to position himself as "Mr Nice Guy" in contrast to the perception of the various Tory leaders.
In many ways, Kennedy was only doing then what Farage is now with opposition to the Iraq War in place of withdrawing from the EU. Cameron's election changed the dynamic and for those who remember 2005-06 it was soon evident Kennedy and his leadership had no response to the "lovebombing" from Cameron.
The Party's response in electing Sir Menzies Campbell was to replace levitas with gravitas but the problem was Sir Menzies, who was more in the style of his countryman Jo Grimond than a Paddy Ashdown, was just the wrong man for the job. Nick Clegg fitted the mould of the kind of leader we could put up against Cameron and out-telegenic the Tory leader.
The problem was Nick Clegg was far too inexperienced and found himself in May 2010 in a situation which wiser heads could and probably would have managed better. That said, I believe the Coalition has been broadly positive for the country though, as I said on Monday, tuition fees destroyed Nick's personal credibility.
I made my position on Nick's leadership clear on Monday and still think he needs to lead us over the cliff next year. Those who survive the fall will be able to regroup and rebuild.
The other point I would make, in response to Marquee's posting this morning, is that we don't really know the policies of any of the parties at this time.
In a sample of 500 voters they only found 50 Lib Dems. Weight that up, down or sideways, add in the maximum MOE for any degree of confidence you like and it is pretty clear to me that Wee Danny is losing his seat.
It is certainly true that most large corporations are run for the benefit of top management and that they scratch each others' backs by providing work for each other and setting their own pay by sitting on each others' remuneration boards.
This mutual cooperation extends however to a number of professions, notably legal and accountancy but others too, which benefit from the lucrative work provided by mergers and acquisitions that are of little benefit to anybody but these groups.
The recent failed Pfizer bid is a very good example. The professional fees involved in such a bid are colossal, and are of course payable whether it succeeds or not.
LAB have drifted to 61/1 at Betfair. Ouch!
The issue with large corporations is not the principal-agent issue (which is a problem) but more that they have interests which are not necessarily the same as the national interest. Thus, for example, the big banks are continually arguing for more and more regulation of the sector - and in particular making it more difficult for new entrants - in order to "protect customers". In reality, what they want to do is to increase the barriers to entry and to increase the economies of scale so that they can milk their comfortable oligopoly for a few more years yet.
The national interest would be best served by light touch operating regulation, requirements for substantial capital to back deposit taking activity, making it as easy as possible for customers to switch between banks (I quite like the concept of people being able to retain their bank account number if they switch banks) and encouraging innovative new entrants into the market.
" No Cammo is caught in a trap of his own making. "
It would be an interesting "sell", Five year fixed terms are necessary for stability, unless I decide otherwise.
Or included in the green bucket if the aim of metering was to allow later rationing for green reasons.
Yes, I am of course aware than some fees are success-related and even where this is not the case, the extra amounts arising upon success will be substantial.
The general point stands though, as I think you both recognize.
Thanks for your respective interesting comments, with which I concur.