It sounds much like the London I remember from 30 years ago, though probably a higher percentage of passengers were white then. Londoners have had a reputation for rudeness that is only exceeded by Parisiens, New Yorkers and Hong Kong Chinese.
I see a fair number of Somalis in Leicester and have found them to have the rather formal manners that one encounters with most Africans. African cultures have an etiquette of their own, and generally are very polite, though often in a slightly rigid way.
But while the words are different, and Chinese people speak with a rather fast cadence that can appear rude, I find that on the whole this is cultural misunderstanding rather than rudeness.
The rudeness and boorishness that I encounter is mostly of the traditional British variety. We have a culture that can be very affected in its manners and also riotously abusive in other contexts. Context is everything with manners and the rules can be arcane.
Fisher basically takes the current polls and assumes gradual swingback, so when it doesn't happen the prediction gradually moves towards the current polls.
What do we think tonight's polls will have? A bump for hero Dave, a dip for for defeated Dave, or nothing very much? A small bump that reverts next week is my guess.
Crowded, multicultural London is a rude, selfish place. People need to learn some bloody manners.
Not my experience, in general, and I live in a busy, multicultural area and catch the bus along the Holloway Road every day. People often stand up for each other and the general culture is to rub along, a bit self-preoccupied but civil enough. Nottingham is much the same. Think you were just unlucky and perhaps projected it onto your expectations.
I take the tube every workday, and it's about 50-50 whether an elderly person gets offered their seat. Given that there are about 20 people in eyeshot of them, that means only one in forty people has decent manners. It's certainly very, very different to where I grew up. You'd be socially ostracised if you didn't give it up.
I also find that the Somalis are by far the rudest group in terms of pushing past people. (I have a friend who lives near a lot of them so I often get a bus with a lot on.) It's like they don't even have the concept of manners in their culture.
I support the basic principle, but I do believe without change it's unaffordable. I'm sure some backroom changes could save something, but we may also end up looking at taxing 'unhealthy' activities, having charges for self-inflicted or partially self-inflicted conditions (ie, drunk who falls over and hurts himself) and the removal of certain procedures altogether (nobody will miss tattoo removal being axed but other areas, IVF, say, would be more contentious).
I doubt much of that, perhaps excepting increased taxation, will occur. Politicians will try and muddle through, the service will worsen, and eventually it'll just collapse. Well, that's my forecast.
I've been told that the NHS is choosing inappropriate long-term usage of cheap drugs and ignoring the fact that there will be nádty side effects as a result. Additionally they are moving to surgery in some cases vs expensive drugs thát could avoid procedures with a double digit mortality rate
On topic, Prof Fisher has in the past been quite bullish on the Tory chances, so the fact it is getting tighter is interesting.
Stephen Fisher uses as his base UKPR's averages of the recent polls (theirs and others'), adjusting these for a number of factors in his model, including clawback by the incumbent part of Government, a "Shy Tory" factor, etc.
The reduction of around 10-12 in his forecast of Tory seats and a largely corresponding increase in Labour seats simply reflects an approximate 2%-3% shift in the polls over recent weeks.
I support the basic principle, but I do believe without change it's unaffordable. I'm sure some backroom changes could save something, but we may also end up looking at taxing 'unhealthy' activities, having charges for self-inflicted or partially self-inflicted conditions (ie, drunk who falls over and hurts himself) and the removal of certain procedures altogether (nobody will miss tattoo removal being axed but other areas, IVF, say, would be more contentious).
I doubt much of that, perhaps excepting increased taxation, will occur. Politicians will try and muddle through, the service will worsen, and eventually it'll just collapse. Well, that's my forecast.
The problem is, an extra £15 bn isn't available. Taxes are as high as they can go, and there are endless claims on the public purse.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
There's also the obesity time bomb. From the other day.
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
Mr. F, indeed, our deficit remains enormous and our debt is already huge.
But if Miliband wins, you will be proved wrong about taxes being as high as they can go, I suspect.
Mr. Charles, sounds a little like potholes. (Bear with me). They can be repaired quickly and cheaply, or more expensively. The expensive way lasts much longer. But because local councils don't have the cash now and didn't mend the roads when the economy was better they're trapped in a vicious circle of just affording the quick, cheap repairs which need doing again in a few years.
Mr. Smarmeron, do I detect a small hint of sarcasm?
Backroom efficiencies can help, but will not be enough, I suspect.
viewcode - I have Stephen Fisher's weekly numbers covering the past 3 months (from 25 March) If you care to email me at peterfromputney@gmail.com I'll send these to you.
I've emailed you, Peter. Please do not disclose my name nor address.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
There's also the obesity time bomb. From the other day.
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
The consequences are not cost. The consequences are serious healthy issues because patîeñts are bring prescribed inappropriate medication in ways that is explicitly recommended against.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
There's also the obesity time bomb. From the other day.
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
There's also the obesity time bomb. From the other day.
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
There's also the obesity time bomb. From the other day.
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
You are of course correct that the use of "overdue" is wrong, but it is used widely by the people tasked with assessing the likely-hood of such an event.
Mr. F, indeed, our deficit remains enormous and our debt is already huge.
But if Miliband wins, you will be proved wrong about taxes being as high as they can go, I suspect.
Mr. Charles, sounds a little like potholes. (Bear with me). They can be repaired quickly and cheaply, or more expensively. The expensive way lasts much longer. But because local councils don't have the cash now and didn't mend the roads when the economy was better they're trapped in a vicious circle of just affording the quick, cheap repairs which need doing again in a few years.
Mr. Smarmeron, do I detect a small hint of sarcasm?
Backroom efficiencies can help, but will not be enough, I suspect.
I've got a bet (That should be voided) on Falcao to get the golden boot. On the strength of Columbia's performance it might have had a chance if he'd have played in the tourney.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
LOL Labours GP negotiation kicks in to fook the NHS
I wonder if Prof. Fisher’s predictions will magically gradually change towards the election as it becomes clear his model was nonsense?
Just like i think the ARSE will have to move as swingback is lower than both models assume
The Fisher predictions are basically a measure of if swingback is meeting, exceeding, or below expectations. Not unhelpful even if you disagree with his expectations.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
A non-political rpely - my understanding (Fox or others may know more) is that greater longevity hasn't in fact been accompanied by a longer period of being very ill. Most of us get by OK with the odd aches and pains and mishaps until the last few years, when we go downhill sharply (and loads of money is spent on us). It's quite common to see people in their 60s and 70s who are very active - I'm 64 myself and don't feel less healthy than when I was 34. I've been lucky, but it's not a very rare luck.
Although he can’t lose – he can make headline grabbing nonsense forecasts further out then his model magically adjusts to predict the actual result by the time of the election)as someone pointed out on UKPR
It is true that the vast majority of health costs are in the last two years of life, so longer lives are not inevitably more medically expensive. The nature of diseases change though, and certain diseases of age are quite expensive such as dementia.
Obesity does shorten lives, but the consequent shortening of working lives due to ill health largely offsets this. The economic costs of such illnesses are often the cost of disability rather than the cost of medical theraputics. In other words: lost productive years e.g. due to diabetes are often more costly to the state and individual than the cost of healthy years of retirement.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if demographics now make the NHS as is simply unaffordable.
With an ageing population we aren't getting an extra decade or two of healthy life and paying taxes, but a decade or two of ill health and costing money.
Of course, Labour's botched GP 'negotiation' of a decade ago really didn't help, but even without that the demographic changes are only costing us more.
A non-political rpely - my understanding (Fox or others may know more) is that greater longevity hasn't in fact been accompanied by a longer period of being very ill. Most of us get by OK with the odd aches and pains and mishaps until the last few years, when we go downhill sharply (and loads of money is spent on us). It's quite common to see people in their 60s and 70s who are very active - I'm 64 myself and don't feel less healthy than when I was 34. I've been lucky, but it's not a very rare luck.
I wonder if Prof. Fisher’s predictions will magically gradually change towards the election as it becomes clear his model was nonsense?
I don't expect you are interested in the answer, because it seems your only motivation is to rubbish an analysis which you don't like (and probably don't understand), but here goes:
Yes, as the election gets closer the output from Prof Fisher's model (but not the model itself, of course) will change, in two ways. Firstly the central forecast of the vote shares of the various parties will get closer to what the opinion polls are saying at the time. Secondly, the error bars on that central forecast will narrow.
This is commonsense: polls a long way out from an election are a less good guide to the final result than polls very close to the election. What Prof. Fisher has done is quantify that effect by analysing how close polls in the past have been to the final result at various intervals before the election, and in which direction they have tended to shift.
It's a superb piece of work and extremely useful for political punters.
It is NOT a forecast, but an analysis of the predictive power of opinion polls.
ED MILIBAND’S policy chief has launched a coded attack on the Labour leader for creating “cynical” policies designed only to “chime with focus groups”.
Jon Cruddas accused Miliband’s inner circle of wielding a “profound dead hand at the centre” to stop the party adopting bold policies.
He attacked Labour’s plans to cut jobseeker’s allowance from those aged 18 to 21 unless they undergo training as “punitive” and suggested welfare cuts had been adopted only to placate the media and floating voters.
ED MILIBAND’S policy chief has launched a coded attack on the Labour leader for creating “cynical” policies designed only to “chime with focus groups”.
Jon Cruddas accused Miliband’s inner circle of wielding a “profound dead hand at the centre” to stop the party adopting bold policies.
He attacked Labour’s plans to cut jobseeker’s allowance from those aged 18 to 21 unless they undergo training as “punitive” and suggested welfare cuts had been adopted only to placate the media and floating voters.
Nah, nothing to see here. After all, it's one of the usual suspects. OK, he happens to be Ed's policy chief. Admittedly it's a bit unusual to have your own policy chief rubbish your policies, but Ed has always said he wants a new approach.
THERESA MAY has revealed that police investigations into life-threatening crimes and sexual attacks are being dropped at the rate of one a week in London alone as a result of the failure to give police stronger internet surveillance powers.
The home secretary said Scotland Yard had been forced to abandon 12 serious criminal investigations in just three months because detectives could not obtain communications data on the suspects. The cases included sexual offences, at least one kidnapping and other cases where there was a threat to life.
In an article for The Sunday Times’s website, the home secretary pressed other ministers to act, declaring that fresh powers were “needed desperately” to combat “real and deadly threats”.
ED MILIBAND’S policy chief has launched a coded attack on the Labour leader for creating “cynical” policies designed only to “chime with focus groups”.
Jon Cruddas accused Miliband’s inner circle of wielding a “profound dead hand at the centre” to stop the party adopting bold policies.
He attacked Labour’s plans to cut jobseeker’s allowance from those aged 18 to 21 unless they undergo training as “punitive” and suggested welfare cuts had been adopted only to placate the media and floating voters.
Nah, nothing to see here. After all, it's one of the usual suspects. OK, he happens to be Ed's policy chief. Admittedly it's a bit unusual to have your own policy chief rubbish your policies, but Ed has always said he wants a new approach.
There's quite a few quotes from Cruddas that I'm sure Dave and the Tories will be quoting at Ed.
ED MILIBAND’S policy chief has launched a coded attack on the Labour leader for creating “cynical” policies designed only to “chime with focus groups”.
Jon Cruddas accused Miliband’s inner circle of wielding a “profound dead hand at the centre” to stop the party adopting bold policies.
He attacked Labour’s plans to cut jobseeker’s allowance from those aged 18 to 21 unless they undergo training as “punitive” and suggested welfare cuts had been adopted only to placate the media and floating voters.
Nah, nothing to see here. After all, it's one of the usual suspects. OK, he happens to be Ed's policy chief. Admittedly it's a bit unusual to have your own policy chief rubbish your policies, but Ed has always said he wants a new approach.
Wheras Camerons advisors are either going to jail or being arrested
The Survation poll for the Mail On Sunday found that 47% of people now want to leave the EU, compared to 39% who want to stay in.
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
The Survation poll for the Mail On Sunday found that 47% of people now want to leave the EU, compared to 39% who want to stay in.
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
The Survation poll for the Mail On Sunday found that 47% of people now want to leave the EU, compared to 39% who want to stay in.
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
The Survation poll for the Mail On Sunday found that 47% of people now want to leave the EU, compared to 39% who want to stay in.
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore regretfully recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
Dave will go down the European model, and continue to hold a referendum until he gets the right result
The Survation poll for the Mail On Sunday found that 47% of people now want to leave the EU, compared to 39% who want to stay in.
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
THERESA MAY has revealed that police investigations into life-threatening crimes and sexual attacks are being dropped at the rate of one a week in London alone as a result of the failure to give police stronger internet surveillance powers.
The home secretary said Scotland Yard had been forced to abandon 12 serious criminal investigations in just three months because detectives could not obtain communications data on the suspects. The cases included sexual offences, at least one kidnapping and other cases where there was a threat to life.
In an article for The Sunday Times’s website, the home secretary pressed other ministers to act, declaring that fresh powers were “needed desperately” to combat “real and deadly threats”.
I do worry about how many serious crimes are going unsolved because the police have not been able to bar code and fit tracking devices to everyone in the country.
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore regretfully recommends that we leave the EU.
Would we have a referendum on leaving? Surely we'd just leave?
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore regretfully recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
THERESA MAY has revealed that police investigations into life-threatening crimes and sexual attacks are being dropped at the rate of one a week in London alone as a result of the failure to give police stronger internet surveillance powers.
The home secretary said Scotland Yard had been forced to abandon 12 serious criminal investigations in just three months because detectives could not obtain communications data on the suspects. The cases included sexual offences, at least one kidnapping and other cases where there was a threat to life.
In an article for The Sunday Times’s website, the home secretary pressed other ministers to act, declaring that fresh powers were “needed desperately” to combat “real and deadly threats”.
I do worry about how many serious crimes are going unsolved because the police have not been able to bar code and fit tracking devices to everyone in the country.
Personally I hope we go down the Minority Report route.
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore regretfully recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
'[T]he Crown of England, which has been so free at all times, that it has had no earthly lord, but is immediately subject to God in all matters touching the regality of the same crown, and to none other' would forever be subject to Brussels. A virulent prospect.
Hmm If we'd have gone through I suspect Colombia would have thrashed us by at least 2-0. What is more we would have probably hilariously been favourites for the match.
I wonder if Prof. Fisher’s predictions will magically gradually change towards the election as it becomes clear his model was nonsense?
I don't expect you are interested in the answer, because it seems your only motivation is to rubbish an analysis which you don't like (and probably don't understand), but here goes:
Yes, as the election gets closer the output from Prof Fisher's model (but not the model itself, of course) will change, in two ways. Firstly the central forecast of the vote shares of the various parties will get closer to what the opinion polls are saying at the time. Secondly, the error bars on that central forecast will narrow.
This is commonsense: polls a long way out from an election are a less good guide to the final result than polls very close to the election. What Prof. Fisher has done is quantify that effect by analysing how close polls in the past have been to the final result at various intervals before the election, and in which direction they have tended to shift.
It's a superb piece of work and extremely useful for political punters.
It is NOT a forecast, but an analysis of the predictive power of opinion polls.
So Betfair price on Tories overall majority on 9/5/14 represented excellent value then as it was twice as likely compared with a Lab one. Good luck following the model the Betfair price is still more or less the same now yet the model says its now only 31% more likely. My instinct is that Lab most seats is a good bet at 10/11. On 9/5/14 the model would have said it was a very bad bet, now not quite so bad.
If you want to follow the model thats fine but i dont go along with this genius bit
Incidentally, an interesting scenario occurred to me. Suppose Dave gets his majority, tries to renegotiate, doesn't get much traction, and therefore regretfully recommends that we leave the EU.
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
The EU will grant the denied concessions in gratitude for the loyalty of the British people.
(BTW pressed the off topic button by mistake - Vanilla was acting up and I got my quote and o/t buttons mixed up. Idiotic finger trouble I know but my apologies. )
Sky's Political Correspondent Sophy Ridge said: "This story is significant because of who is giving the comments.
"Jon Cruddas is the head of Labour's policy review. That's a senior position - it means he's effectively in charge of the way Labour formulates its proposals ahead of the next election.
"What he is specifically saying is that he is concerned the way Labour is making policies is not really working for the party."
Richards scenario is essentially a duplicate of a No outcome in the Indyref.
It would settle the issue, make the first ministers position untenable and lead to negotions on a new settlement.
Like the Indyref we would see Project Fib vs Project Fear. It would also take some years to work out the consequences of departure (stay in the EEA? Stay in EFTA?, stay in ECJ? etc) so as to frame the debate. No doubt many have made up their minds already.
So Betfair price on Tories overall majority on 9/5/14 represented excellent value then as it was twice as likely compared with a Lab one. Good luck following the model the Betfair price is still more or less the same now yet the model says its now only 31% more likely. My instinct is that Lab most seats is a good bet at 10/11. On 9/5/14 the model would have said it was a very bad bet, now not quite so bad.
If you want to follow the model thats fine but i dont go along with this genius bit
You still don't seem to understand. It is NOT a forecast. It is an analysis of the predictive power of the polls.
By all means bet on the basis of what you think will happen. You might be right, just as those (such as Jack W, and, it appears, many senior Labour politicians) who think the public will recoil from ever putting Ed Miliband into No 10 might be right. We shall see; political betting is a judgement call overlaid on looking at opinion polls.
However, what Professor Fisher's analysis shows is that you shouldn't (yet) be relying too much on the opinion polls to form that judgement.
Sky's Political Correspondent Sophy Ridge said: "This story is significant because of who is giving the comments.
"Jon Cruddas is the head of Labour's policy review. That's a senior position - it means he's effectively in charge of the way Labour formulates its proposals ahead of the next election.
"What he is specifically saying is that he is concerned the way Labour is making policies is not really working for the party."
Sky's Political Correspondent Sophy Ridge said: "This story is significant because of who is giving the comments.
"Jon Cruddas is the head of Labour's policy review. That's a senior position - it means he's effectively in charge of the way Labour formulates its proposals ahead of the next election.
"What he is specifically saying is that he is concerned the way Labour is making policies is not really working for the party."
Swingback is a nice theory in which voters magically and for no reason at all switch into supporting the governing party of the day (which is false since people change their vote for a reason).
Lets look at the data and see if it always exists and to find why. There have been 11 elections since regular polling began, I will count 10 since 1974 had 2 in a few months. Swingback occurred in 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2010, so in 5 out of 10 elections Out of those 5, 1983 was a war victory, 1992 a leadership change, and 3 remaining from the improving economy. From those 3 only one (1987) gave victory to the government.
So if we discount a war victory or a leadership change, the chances of a swingback are less than 1 in 3 and even if there is swingback again 1 in 3 swingbacks offered victory. It could happen, all non event swingbacks occurred thanks to an improving economy and could still lead to victory like 1987, but time is running out, no swingback has ever occurred after the conferences.
The interesting thing is that by 2017 it is perfectly possible there will have been big gains by the Swedish Democrats and Danish Peoples' Party in their elections, perhaps even Marine Le Pen topping the first round of the French Presidential poll, as a result the UK's position will look less extreme, particularly as our FPTP system will give UKIP only 1 or 2 seats at best. In the end I think Merkel will do whatever she can to keep the UK in, Germany does not want to be the only large economy of strength in the union, which with a UK exit she would be. She does not want to have only Italy, Spain and France, all economies in decline, as her only counterparts amongst the big nations, posing a bigger burden on Germany with likely resentment from the southern EU nations too
Sky's Political Correspondent Sophy Ridge said: "This story is significant because of who is giving the comments.
"Jon Cruddas is the head of Labour's policy review. That's a senior position - it means he's effectively in charge of the way Labour formulates its proposals ahead of the next election.
"What he is specifically saying is that he is concerned the way Labour is making policies is not really working for the party."
"cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies"
Bravo. Couldn't have put it better myself.
But to be fair to Miliband it is probably the right tactics for an opposition at this stage of the electoral cycle.
What is damning is Cruddas predicting that the "interesting ideas and remedies" being developed in the party's formal policy review process will not make it to the GE manifesto.
Playing to the cameras is fine provided real policy development is going on out of sight.
But to be fair to Miliband it is probably the right tactics for an opposition at this stage of the electoral cycle.
It's getting a bit late to still be using such tactics especially given that Labour's biggest problem of all is lack of credibility. This is especially so because the Labour conference is, by a piece of bad luck for them, likely to be drowned out by the fallout from IndyRef - even if the result is No.
The interesting thing is that by 2017 it is perfectly possible there will have been big gains by the Swedish Democrats and Danish Peoples' Party in their elections, perhaps even Marine Le Pen topping the first round of the French Presidential poll, as a result the UK's position will look less extreme, particularly as our FPTP system will give UKIP only 1 or 2 seats at best. In the end I think Merkel will do whatever she can to keep the UK in, Germany does not want to be the only large economy of strength in the union, which with a UK exit she would be. She does not want to have only Italy, Spain and France, all economies in decline, as her only counterparts amongst the big nations, posing a bigger burden on Germany with likely resentment from the southern EU nations too
The electoral cycles of europe do point to a major policy crisis by the end of the decade. If Le Pen wins in France it will result in the biggest cat fight with Merkel since Dynasty and Dallas, little will be left of europe to withdraw by the time PM Miliband loses the 2020 election.
Swingback can also be negative. Callaghan looked like winning in autumn 1978.
But Fisher is mostly saying what NPXMP says: as well as black swans there are only the indyref and conferences that can really change things before the campaign.
Possibly some thing like Cruddas's comments or Junckers election could represent a black swan, but most people do not notice these things. They are too busy getting on with watching football and Glastonbury and that emergency diet so that they look good on the beach.
Swingback is a nice theory in which voters magically and for no reason at all switch into supporting the governing party of the day (which is false since people change their vote for a reason).
Lets look at the data and see if it always exists and to find why. There have been 11 elections since regular polling began, I will count 10 since 1974 had 2 in a few months. Swingback occurred in 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2010, so in 5 out of 10 elections Out of those 5, 1983 was a war victory, 1992 a leadership change, and 3 remaining from the improving economy. From those 3 only one (1987) gave victory to the government.
So if we discount a war victory or a leadership change, the chances of a swingback are less than 1 in 3 and even if there is swingback again 1 in 3 swingbacks offered victory. It could happen, all non event swingbacks occurred thanks to an improving economy and could still lead to victory like 1987, but time is running out, no swingback has ever occurred after the conferences.
Twitter Survation @Survation 4m Good evening. We have the first "post Juncker appointment" (and post Old Bailey *developments*) poll coming in tomorrow's Mail On Sunday
Comments
"I thought it was 100 days? "
We are overdue a "flu" epidemic, if there is a betting market, this winter would be a hot favorite.
I see a fair number of Somalis in Leicester and have found them to have the rather formal manners that one encounters with most Africans. African cultures have an etiquette of their own, and generally are very polite, though often in a slightly rigid way.
I am told that there is no equivalent word for please in Cantonese and having eaten many times at the legendary Wong Kei, I believe it: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/feb/24/rudest-restaurant-london-wong-kei
But while the words are different, and Chinese people speak with a rather fast cadence that can appear rude, I find that on the whole this is cultural misunderstanding rather than rudeness.
The rudeness and boorishness that I encounter is mostly of the traditional British variety. We have a culture that can be very affected in its manners and also riotously abusive in other contexts. Context is everything with manners and the rules can be arcane.
Do they have anyone like that ?
More backroom efficiency savings might be the way forward, though I thought they had all been achieved with the reorganisation?
Three in four over-65s overweight
Doctors warn of knock-on health problems as figures show 5.8m people aged 65 and over in England are overweight
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/26/three-quarters-over-65s-overweight
But if Miliband wins, you will be proved wrong about taxes being as high as they can go, I suspect.
Mr. Charles, sounds a little like potholes. (Bear with me). They can be repaired quickly and cheaply, or more expensively. The expensive way lasts much longer. But because local councils don't have the cash now and didn't mend the roads when the economy was better they're trapped in a vicious circle of just affording the quick, cheap repairs which need doing again in a few years.
Mr. Smarmeron, do I detect a small hint of sarcasm?
Backroom efficiencies can help, but will not be enough, I suspect.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/100657/the_sunday_telegraph_sunday_29th_june_2014.html
Whilst not a pie-muncher or cake enthusiast myself, I dislike the notion of a broad brush tax on such things. It may be necessary, alas.
Last winter had a particularly mild "flu season" according to what I had read. If this is incorrect, then I am happy to be informed.
The consequences are not cost. The consequences are serious healthy issues because patîeñts are bring prescribed inappropriate medication in ways that is explicitly recommended against.
Ah, I stand corrected.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I'm off for the night.
'Dead-hand' Miliband blasted by top adviser
twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/482985733675044865
statistically you are more likely to be bitten by Luis Suarez than a shark
You are of course correct that the use of "overdue" is wrong, but it is used widely by the people tasked with assessing the likely-hood of such an event.
Uruguay = England?
The NHS is toxic for the Tories for a good reason
Just like i think the ARSE will have to move as swingback is lower than both models assume
Obesity does shorten lives, but the consequent shortening of working lives due to ill health largely offsets this. The economic costs of such illnesses are often the cost of disability rather than the cost of medical theraputics. In other words: lost productive years e.g. due to diabetes are often more costly to the state and individual than the cost of healthy years of retirement.
Yes, as the election gets closer the output from Prof Fisher's model (but not the model itself, of course) will change, in two ways. Firstly the central forecast of the vote shares of the various parties will get closer to what the opinion polls are saying at the time. Secondly, the error bars on that central forecast will narrow.
This is commonsense: polls a long way out from an election are a less good guide to the final result than polls very close to the election. What Prof. Fisher has done is quantify that effect by analysing how close polls in the past have been to the final result at various intervals before the election, and in which direction they have tended to shift.
It's a superb piece of work and extremely useful for political punters.
It is NOT a forecast, but an analysis of the predictive power of opinion polls.
Jon Cruddas accused Miliband’s inner circle of wielding a “profound dead hand at the centre” to stop the party adopting bold policies.
He attacked Labour’s plans to cut jobseeker’s allowance from those aged 18 to 21 unless they undergo training as “punitive” and suggested welfare cuts had been adopted only to placate the media and floating voters.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1428253.ece
The home secretary said Scotland Yard had been forced to abandon 12 serious criminal investigations in just three months because detectives could not obtain communications data on the suspects. The cases included sexual offences, at least one kidnapping and other cases where there was a threat to life.
In an article for The Sunday Times’s website, the home secretary pressed other ministers to act, declaring that fresh powers were “needed desperately” to combat “real and deadly threats”.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1428205.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_06_28
27/6/14 29% to 22%
crossover by August at that rate!!!
The poll for the paper also found the more people now believe that David Cameron will be unable to repatriate the powers he wants from the EU before holding a referendum - 44% compared to 15% who believe he will be able to.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/euro-leaders-cowards-over-juncker-vote-112003696.html#tZZihui
Kenny Farquharson @KennyFarq 44s
This weekend's Scotland on Sunday front page
pic.twitter.com/ZQNT3qLhRE
Didn't another poll find we want to stay in ?
Does anyone outside of pb.com/guido/the westminster village pay any attention whatsoever ?
If, in the referendum, the Stay In side then win: what happens next?
I suppose he'll be able to ask his friend Jean-Claude Juncker for some tips on how to handle it.
If you want to follow the model thats fine but i dont go along with this genius bit
And we shall all live happily forever after.
twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/483010035581476864/photo/1
Will have to see what they say.
(BTW pressed the off topic button by mistake - Vanilla was acting up and I got my quote and o/t buttons mixed up. Idiotic finger trouble I know but my apologies. )
Sky's Political Correspondent Sophy Ridge said: "This story is significant because of who is giving the comments.
"Jon Cruddas is the head of Labour's policy review. That's a senior position - it means he's effectively in charge of the way Labour formulates its proposals ahead of the next election.
"What he is specifically saying is that he is concerned the way Labour is making policies is not really working for the party."
http://news.sky.com/story/1291420/policy-chief-questions-milibands-leadership
It would settle the issue, make the first ministers position untenable and lead to negotions on a new settlement.
Like the Indyref we would see Project Fib vs Project Fear. It would also take some years to work out the consequences of departure (stay in the EEA? Stay in EFTA?, stay in ECJ? etc) so as to frame the debate. No doubt many have made up their minds already.
By all means bet on the basis of what you think will happen. You might be right, just as those (such as Jack W, and, it appears, many senior Labour politicians) who think the public will recoil from ever putting Ed Miliband into No 10 might be right. We shall see; political betting is a judgement call overlaid on looking at opinion polls.
However, what Professor Fisher's analysis shows is that you shouldn't (yet) be relying too much on the opinion polls to form that judgement.
Bravo. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Lets look at the data and see if it always exists and to find why.
There have been 11 elections since regular polling began, I will count 10 since 1974 had 2 in a few months.
Swingback occurred in 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2010, so in 5 out of 10 elections
Out of those 5, 1983 was a war victory, 1992 a leadership change, and 3 remaining from the improving economy.
From those 3 only one (1987) gave victory to the government.
So if we discount a war victory or a leadership change, the chances of a swingback are less than 1 in 3 and even if there is swingback again 1 in 3 swingbacks offered victory.
It could happen, all non event swingbacks occurred thanks to an improving economy and could still lead to victory like 1987, but time is running out, no swingback has ever occurred after the conferences.
What is damning is Cruddas predicting that the "interesting ideas and remedies" being developed in the party's formal policy review process will not make it to the GE manifesto.
Playing to the cameras is fine provided real policy development is going on out of sight.
The Sunday Times are reporting that the Lord Ashcroft Lib/Lab marginals poll will show.
" the poll to be released on Tuesday, will show that Labour will gain about another seven seats"
If Le Pen wins in France it will result in the biggest cat fight with Merkel since Dynasty and Dallas, little will be left of europe to withdraw by the time PM Miliband loses the 2020 election.
But Fisher is mostly saying what NPXMP says: as well as black swans there are only the indyref and conferences that can really change things before the campaign.
Possibly some thing like Cruddas's comments or Junckers election could represent a black swan, but most people do not notice these things. They are too busy getting on with watching football and Glastonbury and that emergency diet so that they look good on the beach.
Survation @Survation 4m
Good evening. We have the first "post Juncker appointment" (and post Old Bailey *developments*) poll coming in tomorrow's Mail On Sunday