Unfortunately for those wetting themselves at the prospect of UKIP defeating EdM in Doncaster North the chances are zero . In May the 7 council wards making up the constituency went Lab 5 Conservative 1 and Ind 1
I'd be more concerned with the vote shares. Ukip weren't too far behind were they? Who's supporters were more likely to stay at home or come out for a local election. Was it just a mid-term protest? I very much doubt Miliband could lose his seat. I think it would only happen if Labour voters were convinced he was a duffer, that Cameron was nailed on for a majority and Doncaster wanted to make a point that Mili had Labour headed in the wrong direction.
In 2008 the Lib dems won Edenthorpe ward with a majority of of 1,200 plus with Conservatives 2nd and Labour 100 votes further behind in 3rd . I do not recall an article suggesting Lib Dems would challenge Ed M in 2010 . UKIP's majority was just 100 and the Labour vote 20% higher than in 2008 .
Now comes the bigger challenge, raising GDP per capita. We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger. That is why wages are rising more slowly than inflation, basically. The per capita output has decreased and productivity has decreased, until this is reversed it is tough to see the longer term trend being reversed. Per capita income will catch up to peak levels around election time if the current trend is maintained. That may be too late for the Cons as people will not feel wealthier until slightly later.
Really though we are still running a deficit of around 6.5% of GDP, double our nominal growth rate, until the public sector shrinks to a sustainable level our nation is still at risk. The government is essentially still putting in a fiscal stimulus, sadly though it is being spent on welfare, pensions and healthcare rather than capital investment. If another crisis hits before we have sufficiently fixed the roof the country is going to have to have a rethink of welfare state as it will become unaffordable in the longer term. Paying people to be unproductive is becoming more and more difficult. Whether or not people agree with what IDS has done, he has managed to raise labour force participation levels to a record and managed to oversee record employment levels. With the trend participation rate under Labour the current rate of unemployment would be around 5%.
Until the government get serious about cutting spending and cutting the deficit we will not be financially safe as a nation. There needs to be all new focus on cutting the deficit. I'm not an alarmist by nature, but the latest deficit figures are worrying and Osborne needs to get a grip, elections come and go, undoing all of the good work by allowing the public sector to grow spending by 2.1% YoY for the first quarter while also increasing spending on investment. The deal was that the government would reduce spending on the current budget to increase capital expenditures, the nation can't afford to do both at the same time.
@Richard_Nabavi GDP figures are a "catch all" statistic. What they mean is buried inside.... If you are a statistician or politician. The rest of us check our bank balances or check through our pockets depending on wealth. How is the economic re-balancing coming on?
Now comes the bigger challenge, raising GDP per capita. We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger. That is why wages are rising more slowly than inflation, basically. The per capita output has decreased and productivity has decreased, until this is reversed it is tough to see the longer term trend being reversed. Per capita income will catch up to peak levels around election time if the current trend is maintained. That may be too late for the Cons as people will not feel wealthier until slightly later.
Really though we are still running a deficit of around 6.5% of GDP, double our nominal growth rate, until the public sector shrinks to a sustainable level our nation is still at risk. The government is essentially still putting in a fiscal stimulus, sadly though it is being spent on welfare, pensions and healthcare rather than capital investment. If another crisis hits before we have sufficiently fixed the roof the country is going to have to have a rethink of welfare state as it will become unaffordable in the longer term. Paying people to be unproductive is becoming more and more difficult. Whether or not people agree with what IDS has done, he has managed to raise labour force participation levels to a record and managed to oversee record employment levels. With the trend participation rate under Labour the current rate of unemployment would be around 5%.
Until the government get serious about cutting spending and cutting the deficit we will not be financially safe as a nation. There needs to be all new focus on cutting the deficit. I'm not an alarmist by nature, but the latest deficit figures are worrying and Osborne needs to get a grip, elections come and go, undoing all of the good work by allowing the public sector to grow spending by 2.1% YoY for the first quarter while also increasing spending on investment. The deal was that the government would reduce spending on the current budget to increase capital expenditures, the nation can't afford to do both at the same time.
"We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger."
Yep, there's a remarkable consistency in the polls at present, with the Tories 3% - 4% behind Labour. The one real positive for them is that they are at or close to the mid thirties level, with the LibDems failing to make any progress and UKIP seemingly edging lower.
The big economic question is why did all that BRICS money suddenly flood into the country. Your answer to that would probably tell you what's likely to happen (although not if it will happen before the election.)
If Miliband was to lose his seat would we see a repeat of 1964?
In that election the shadow foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat. But he still was made foreign secretary even though he was outside parliament. There was a subsequent byelection in which he stood, but he lost again and then resigned as foreign secretary.
Could Miliband be made Prime Minister , as the leader of the party with a majority in parliament, and then go for a safer seat in a byelection?
Does that red patch represent enough people to swing the seat ?
If one looks at the US presidentials by area then the republicans win Ohio and Florida handily, and come quite close in California possibly winning it by "area" but of course the Democrat areas have much higher population density.
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Good GDP numbers! Well done to the Coalition - There was a time around 2012 and 2013 when I wobbled and didn't think George was going to be able to pull it off, but The Boy's done good.
I wonder whether the hot summer will give us our first 1%+ GDP quarter for Q3?
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
@isam remind me again why you aren't standing in Thurrock?
There is already a good candidate in Thurrock, Tim Aker.
I wanted to stand in Hornchurch and Upminster, or maybe Romford, but missed the deadline to be assessed, and now both have been taken.
To be fair, both taken by MEPs so I was a million to one to get the gig.
I wouldn't feel right standing somewhere I didn't know well. Dagenham & Rainham, I actually like the standing MP Jon Cruddas, so would feel hypocritical running against him...and obv wouldn't win!
Come on UKIP and northern Tories, how about a double tap strategy? Tories give UKIP free run vs. Red and UKIP let the Tories go for Balls alone.
You know it makes sense & would make for a load of fun during the election.
Yes - a UKIP/Tory alliance in the North will certainly work to UKIP's advantage and reinforce the message that it is the true party of the Old Labour working class.
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
Where can I find the past vote history of the ward ?
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
I didn't make any facts up, or talk about Edenthorpe.
That aside well done, good point
Good prediction last night too. Could you have got it more wrong?
Senior Liberal Democrats are plotting a second coalition with the Conservatives even if Labour wins more Commons seats in next year’s general election.
Several senior figures insist the party should negotiate a second power-sharing deal with the Tories, predicting they are likely to win more votes even if Labour gains more Westminster constituencies.
They argue voters would take a dim view of the Lib Dems if they jump straight from five years of coalition with the Conservatives into a deal with Ed Miliband’s party.
One Lib Dem minister said that the move would be seen as ‘utterly cynical’ by many voters and mean probable ‘annihilation’ for the party in the 2020 general election.
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
Where can I find the past vote history of the ward ?
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
There has always been a substantial element of the WWC that voted Tory. That's how the Tories managed to win elections based on universal suffrage when there were so many millions more members of the working class than there are now. My Dad's family was an example. They did not like my Mum to start off with because she was from a Labour family. It also helps to explain Butskellism.
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
I didn't make any facts up, or talk about Edenthorpe.
That aside well done, good point
Good prediction last night too. Could you have got it more wrong?
I did not make any prediction last night , a few days ago , I quoted an on the ground comment from a local Conservative .
Does that red patch represent enough people to swing the seat ?
If one looks at the US presidentials by area then the republicans win Ohio and Florida handily, and come quite close in California possibly winning it by "area" but of course the Democrat areas have much higher population density.
No it doesn't. The numbers aren't there for UKIP or the Conservatives. It's a pure numbers game. UKIP can peel away voters from the Cons and Labour in the seat but not in the numbers required. However elsewhere......
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
There has always been a substantial element of the WWC that voted Tory. That's how the Tories managed to win elections based on universal suffrage when there were so many millions more members of the working class than there are now. My Dad's family was an example. They did not like my Mum to start off with because she was from a Labour family. It also helps to explain Butskellism.
Ah right, well the ukip votes in Doncaster seem to be coming from Labour.
Will google the last bit as no idea what you're talking about
Now comes the bigger challenge, raising GDP per capita. We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger. That is why wages are rising more slowly than inflation, basically. The per capita output has decreased and productivity has decreased, until this is reversed it is tough to see the longer term trend being reversed. Per capita income will catch up to peak levels around election time if the current trend is maintained. That may be too late for the Cons as people will not feel wealthier until slightly later.
Really though we are still running a deficit of around 6.5% of GDP, double our nominal growth rate, until the public sector shrinks to a sustainable level our nation is still at risk. The government is essentially still putting in a fiscal stimulus, sadly though it is being spent on welfare, pensions and healthcare rather than capital investment. If another crisis hits before we have sufficiently fixed the roof the country is going to have to have a rethink of welfare state as it will become unaffordable in the longer term. Paying people to be unproductive is becoming more and more difficult. Whether or not people agree with what IDS has done, he has managed to raise labour force participation levels to a record and managed to oversee record employment levels. With the trend participation rate under Labour the current rate of unemployment would be around 5%.
Until the government get serious about cutting spending and cutting the deficit we will not be financially safe as a nation. There needs to be all new focus on cutting the deficit. I'm not an alarmist by nature, but the latest deficit figures are worrying and Osborne needs to get a grip, elections come and go, undoing all of the good work by allowing the public sector to grow spending by 2.1% YoY for the first quarter while also increasing spending on investment. The deal was that the government would reduce spending on the current budget to increase capital expenditures, the nation can't afford to do both at the same time.
"We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger."
We're going backwards.
The fixation on raw GDP is hiding it.
Furthermore, prices are rising faster than wages, particularly at the bottom of the scale, and, as was pointed out here recently an unintended consequence of the Minimum Wage legislation is that that is what employers are often paying for “new jobs”, especially trainees.
If Miliband was to lose his seat would we see a repeat of 1964?
In that election the shadow foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat. But he still was made foreign secretary even though he was outside parliament. There was a subsequent byelection in which he stood, but he lost again and then resigned as foreign secretary.
Could Miliband be made Prime Minister , as the leader of the party with a majority in parliament, and then go for a safer seat in a byelection?
Nice image - but the downside would be having Harriet Harman as deputy PM & acting PM (would Ed have the balls to block her?) while the farce plays out. Would anyone risk that (vote Ed get Harpic)
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
Edenthorpe is not a WWC ward look at the past voting history of the ward . Labour are not losing votes in the ward , their vote is going up , face facts instead of making them up .
I didn't make any facts up, or talk about Edenthorpe.
That aside well done, good point
Good prediction last night too. Could you have got it more wrong?
I did not make any prediction last night , a few days ago , I quoted an on the ground comment from a local Conservative .
Does that red patch represent enough people to swing the seat ?
If one looks at the US presidentials by area then the republicans win Ohio and Florida handily, and come quite close in California possibly winning it by "area" but of course the Democrat areas have much higher population density.
No it doesn't. The numbers aren't there for UKIP or the Conservatives. It's a pure numbers game. UKIP can peel away voters from the Cons and Labour in the seat but not in the numbers required. However elsewhere......
Thank God for that, it's quite important for me that the Mili holds his seat at GE2015.
"How a party like Labour could allow this situation to materialise is quite beyond me. I'm a geek who spends half his time in my bat cave punching numbers, and I knew about UKIP a year or more ago. Academics like Rob Ford and Matt Goodwin have been ploughing this ground for even longer. The response to UKIP from Labour has been laughable. I fear that in 2015 the joke will be on them."
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
There has always been a substantial element of the WWC that voted Tory. That's how the Tories managed to win elections based on universal suffrage when there were so many millions more members of the working class than there are now. My Dad's family was an example. They did not like my Mum to start off with because she was from a Labour family. It also helps to explain Butskellism.
Ah right, well the ukip votes in Doncaster seem to be coming from Labour.
Will google the last bit as no idea what you're talking about
The UKIP votes in Doncaster are not coming from Labour . They are coming from those who voted Lib Dem , Eng Dem and Independent ( and to a much lower extent Conservative ) in 2006 to 2008 . Some of these did switch to Labour in 2011 and 2012 and then to UKIP in 2014 .
UKIP are 16/1 to win Doncaster North with Ladbrokes
Shadsy, if you are offering 16/1 it ain't gonna happen!
I am however continually perplexed by the UKIP seats market on Betfair. You can lay None at about 7/4. Seems to me very likely that Farage will win wherever he stands, so that's a pretty safe safe bet.
It seems to me very likely that Farage will lose wherever he stands, as he has the last five times. He couldn't even beat Bercow after everyone else stood aside for him. Why would any other seat be any different? UKIP's best-ever individual result, in Eastleigh, was less than the lowest vote share that secured a seat in 2010.
There are a few obvious candidates who could win under scenario b). Personally I think both a) and b) will happen and UKIP will finish with about half a dozen seats, but I will be amazed if they do not win at least one, and have placed my bets accordingly.
Which half dozen do you reckon they'll win? Looking at 2010, their best result was 3rd and their best poll share was 6%, but they lost by 15,000 and 23,000 votes respectively. For the life of me I can't see which seats look like a good bet and any Farage stands in will, on previous form, see a mishandled campaign and a hardening of the anti-fruitcake vote.
Tim Montgomerie (@TimMontgomerie) 25/07/2014 09:36 GDP per person is not above pre-recession levels. Immigration and wider population growth mean GDP per head is still lower.
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Yeah but like most working class folk I only buy Asda savers bread, preferably the reduced out of date stuff. That or I just eat coal that I've scavenged out of a skip.
Leaves me a little spare for the odd luxury charity donation.
Exceptionally well, although I see that journalists are as usual micro-analysing these preliminary, estimated GDP figures by sector, which is barmy. The error bars are too large to be able to form any conclusion at all on whether construction is doing better than manufacturing or vice versa.
Senior Liberal Democrats are plotting a second coalition with the Conservatives even if Labour wins more Commons seats in next year’s general election.
Several senior figures insist the party should negotiate a second power-sharing deal with the Tories, predicting they are likely to win more votes even if Labour gains more Westminster constituencies.
They argue voters would take a dim view of the Lib Dems if they jump straight from five years of coalition with the Conservatives into a deal with Ed Miliband’s party.
One Lib Dem minister said that the move would be seen as ‘utterly cynical’ by many voters and mean probable ‘annihilation’ for the party in the 2020 general election.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not growing it is also unsustainable. Only a bigger economy will ever make inroads into Labour's debt.
It's a bit like in Civilisation 2 where once you've discovered Democracy, you have to dash for growth by raising Luxuries to 40% and lowering tax. "We love the President" day breaks out in all your cities, so that although you initially have run a deficit, the population boom turns it all around pretty rapidly.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
The birth rate is falling so it may not get to that:
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Why are you persisting with your latest misunderstanding? I only posted the farmers market link to show the stereotype people have of North London, not because it was my belief or because I have anything against them.
Senior Liberal Democrats are plotting a second coalition with the Conservatives even if Labour wins more Commons seats in next year’s general election.
Several senior figures insist the party should negotiate a second power-sharing deal with the Tories, predicting they are likely to win more votes even if Labour gains more Westminster constituencies.
They argue voters would take a dim view of the Lib Dems if they jump straight from five years of coalition with the Conservatives into a deal with Ed Miliband’s party.
One Lib Dem minister said that the move would be seen as ‘utterly cynical’ by many voters and mean probable ‘annihilation’ for the party in the 2020 general election.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Why are you persisting with your latest misunderstanding? I only posted the farmers market link to show the stereotype people have of North London, not because it was my belief or because I have anything against them.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
OK, so the Tories don’t have a majority after the next election, but are the largest party. Cameron wants to continue the coalition, LD’s are willing, but then there’s a 51:49 (percentage points) vote among Tory MP’s against. Where will we go from there?
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Yeah but like most working class folk I only buy Asda savers bread, preferably the reduced out of date stuff. That or I just eat coal that I've scavenged out of a skip.
Leaves me a little spare for the odd luxury charity donation.
They send all the stale focaccia to the working class markets. It's dirt cheap and keeps longer than Asda own brand. Give it a try.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
I suspect we'll have a shorter agreement/break clause.
Say coalition until 2017, then an opportunity to walk away or renew.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
It could be 5%, mine was a back of the fag packet calculation, I'm not at work today.
UKIP are 16/1 to win Doncaster North with Ladbrokes
Shadsy, if you are offering 16/1 it ain't gonna happen!
I am however continually perplexed by the UKIP seats market on Betfair. You can lay None at about 7/4. Seems to me very likely that Farage will win wherever he stands, so that's a pretty safe safe bet.
It seems to me very likely that Farage will lose wherever he stands, as he has the last five times. He couldn't even beat Bercow after everyone else stood aside for him. Why would any other seat be any different? UKIP's best-ever individual result, in Eastleigh, was less than the lowest vote share that secured a seat in 2010.
There are a few obvious candidates who could win under scenario b). Personally I think both a) and b) will happen and UKIP will finish with about half a dozen seats, but I will be amazed if they do not win at least one, and have placed my bets accordingly.
Which half dozen do you reckon they'll win? Looking at 2010, their best result was 3rd and their best poll share was 6%, but they lost by 15,000 and 23,000 votes respectively. For the life of me I can't see which seats look like a good bet and any Farage stands in will, on previous form, see a mishandled campaign and a hardening of the anti-fruitcake vote.
My guess would be that Buckingham has poor demographics for UKIP - UKIP are also alot stronger now than they were then.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
I am not sure that Vince Cable is that keen on a continuation of the Coalition. David Laws, for sure - especially now that Gove has gone from education.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
OK, so the Tories don’t have a majority after the next election, but are the largest party. Cameron wants to continue the coalition, LD’s are willing, but then there’s a 51:49 (percentage points) vote among Tory MP’s against. Where will we go from there?
The starting point is what are the number of LD MPs? Sub 30 is what the polls are showing. Circa 35 in the betting markets.
But IF the LD number is as low/lower than 25, their chance of having a say is much reduced. Up to now the LDs leadership seem to be treating the post GE2015 situation as " a mere flesh wound" set of losses and they can still call the shots in a coalition. Polling under 10% does not equate to 35 seats.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not likely but so what if it does?
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
Ed Milliband will likely get a leader's boost in his seat. I'd expect to see UKIP coming second, on c.20% of the vote, but still a long way behind Milliband, on 55% or so.
However, there are several seats like this, which were once monolithic for Labour, and which still have big Labour majorities, but where the Labour vote has fallen away sharply since 1997. If UKIP can unite the non-Labour vote behind them, then such seats suddenly become vulnerable.
Surely the serious point from the Doncaster by-election last night is one some of us are daring to repeat week in and week out. If Labour is heading for a majority next year according to the pollsters, why is the party not winning by-elections hand over fist week in and week out? It should not be losing safe wards in ultra safe seats, especially not that of the PM in waiting.
Incidentally what did Jack's Arse pronounce yesterday? Lost my broadband signal around 8.30am yesterday morning.
Edenthorpe was never a safe Labour ward . When fought for the first time in 2004 it was won by a combination of Lib Dems and Independents and as previously mentioned it is not in EdM's constituency . Still do not let facts get in the way of wishful thinking
Mark my dear chap, it is you and OGH who are engaging in wishful thinking. Unless there is a dramatic change of events, your sitting MPs are going to be thrashed like a dockside hooker next May, mostly at the hands of Tory rivals.
Yes , of course they are Easterross , now where are those 6/7 Scottish Conservative MPs you were predicting would get elected in 2010 ?
Mark, you are hardly in a position to crow about others failed predictions.
My personal favourite where you are concerned was the rather optimistic claim that we would avoid a recession.
Perhaps you agreed with Labour that we were "best placed"?
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Yeah but like most working class folk I only buy Asda savers bread, preferably the reduced out of date stuff. That or I just eat coal that I've scavenged out of a skip.
Leaves me a little spare for the odd luxury charity donation.
They send all the stale focaccia to the working class markets. It's dirt cheap and keeps longer than Asda own brand. Give it a try.
Heh.
Don't like it personally, nor the posh seeded types you get at farmers markets.
Plain crusty white for me. And a bacon butty should ONLY be made with cheap white sliced.
@TCPoliticalBetting "Agreed, the construction figure is under what is happening on the ground" That would be why David and his chums don't have a worry about next years housing statistics.
Your link to this piece didn't work, but frankly I don't believe it - apart from maybe a handful, the overwhelming majority of LibDems would far rather jump into bed with Labour. I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I have the impression that the senior LibDems, i.e. the current cabinet ministers and their immediate colleagues, would like to continue the coalition if the arithmetic works out. However, as you rightly say, that might not be the view of the party as a whole.
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
OK, so the Tories don’t have a majority after the next election, but are the largest party. Cameron wants to continue the coalition, LD’s are willing, but then there’s a 51:49 (percentage points) vote among Tory MP’s against. Where will we go from there?
The starting point is what are the number of LD MPs? Sub 30 is what the polls are showing. Circa 35 in the betting markets.
But IF the LD number is as low/lower than 25, their chance of having a say is much reduced. Up to now the LDs leadership seem to be treating the post GE2015 situation as " a mere flesh wound" set of losses and they can still call the shots in a coalition. Polling under 10% does not equate to 35 seats.
The real fun comes if Lib Dem + Con & Lib Dem + Lab < 323 seats or so.
If the Scots vote "Yes" I can very well see Dave not moving if Labour are only getting more seats due to their Glasgow fiefdom.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
UKIP are 16/1 to win Doncaster North with Ladbrokes
Shadsy, if you are offering 16/1 it ain't gonna happen!
I am however continually perplexed by the UKIP seats market on Betfair. You can lay None at about 7/4. Seems to me very likely that Farage will win wherever he stands, so that's a pretty safe safe bet.
It seems to me very likely that Farage will lose wherever he stands, as he has the last five times. He couldn't even beat Bercow after everyone else stood aside for him. Why would any other seat be any different? UKIP's best-ever individual result, in Eastleigh, was less than the lowest vote share that secured a seat in 2010.
There are a few obvious candidates who could win under scenario b). Personally I think both a) and b) will happen and UKIP will finish with about half a dozen seats, but I will be amazed if they do not win at least one, and have placed my bets accordingly.
Which half dozen do you reckon they'll win? Looking at 2010, their best result was 3rd and their best poll share was 6%, but they lost by 15,000 and 23,000 votes respectively. For the life of me I can't see which seats look like a good bet and any Farage stands in will, on previous form, see a mishandled campaign and a hardening of the anti-fruitcake vote.
My guess would be that Buckingham has poor demographics for UKIP - UKIP are also alot stronger now than they were then.
It's pretty pointless comparing UKIP's results from when they won 3%, to UKIP's prospects when they're on 13% or so. UKIP are in with a shout in 20 or so seats, which is not to say they'll win all, or most, of them.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
Oh come one. I'm allowed to make my sheep jokes at the expense of the Welsh, as an England rugby fan, is the only joy I've had at the expense of the Welsh in recent years.
Have you made a donation to the site for the bet you lost to me "Hugh"?
I didn't have a bet with you about the debates if that's what you're thinking "Isam".
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Oh right fair enough, I thought you said we had a bet
We have, but since neither of us can remember what it is there's little point trying to settle it.
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
You can get a lot of Focaccia in Borough market for £20.
Why are you persisting with your latest misunderstanding? I only posted the farmers market link to show the stereotype people have of North London, not because it was my belief or because I have anything against them.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not likely but so what if it does?
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Or we raise the pension age, and look to boost productivity.
Welsh Athletics has confirmed 400m hurdler Rhys Williams has been provisionally suspended after being charged with an anti-doping violation
He needed doping to be that mediocre? Oh dear.
What's your PB over 400m hurdles? Or if that isnt your event what have you ever been European champion of?
Cutting. Very few athletes able to cut it at the top level bother with the Europeans. Rhys Williams was never competitive at a world level, but it now seems he used lottery funding and cheating to not make it. Well done him.
Comments
My blog post: "Lessons from Doncaster; winning here Mr Miliband": http://bit.ly/1keKYnE @MSmithsonPB @TSEofPB
Now comes the bigger challenge, raising GDP per capita. We have an economy that is 0.2% larger than before the crisis but a population around 3% larger. That is why wages are rising more slowly than inflation, basically. The per capita output has decreased and productivity has decreased, until this is reversed it is tough to see the longer term trend being reversed. Per capita income will catch up to peak levels around election time if the current trend is maintained. That may be too late for the Cons as people will not feel wealthier until slightly later.
Really though we are still running a deficit of around 6.5% of GDP, double our nominal growth rate, until the public sector shrinks to a sustainable level our nation is still at risk. The government is essentially still putting in a fiscal stimulus, sadly though it is being spent on welfare, pensions and healthcare rather than capital investment. If another crisis hits before we have sufficiently fixed the roof the country is going to have to have a rethink of welfare state as it will become unaffordable in the longer term. Paying people to be unproductive is becoming more and more difficult. Whether or not people agree with what IDS has done, he has managed to raise labour force participation levels to a record and managed to oversee record employment levels. With the trend participation rate under Labour the current rate of unemployment would be around 5%.
Until the government get serious about cutting spending and cutting the deficit we will not be financially safe as a nation. There needs to be all new focus on cutting the deficit. I'm not an alarmist by nature, but the latest deficit figures are worrying and Osborne needs to get a grip, elections come and go, undoing all of the good work by allowing the public sector to grow spending by 2.1% YoY for the first quarter while also increasing spending on investment. The deal was that the government would reduce spending on the current budget to increase capital expenditures, the nation can't afford to do both at the same time.
GDP figures are a "catch all" statistic. What they mean is buried inside.... If you are a statistician or politician.
The rest of us check our bank balances or check through our pockets depending on wealth.
How is the economic re-balancing coming on?
We're going backwards.
The fixation on raw GDP is hiding it.
In that election the shadow foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat. But he still was made foreign secretary even though he was outside parliament. There was a subsequent byelection in which he stood, but he lost again and then resigned as foreign secretary.
Could Miliband be made Prime Minister , as the leader of the party with a majority in parliament, and then go for a safer seat in a byelection?
remind me again why you aren't standing in Thurrock?
If one looks at the US presidentials by area then the republicans win Ohio and Florida handily, and come quite close in California possibly winning it by "area" but of course the Democrat areas have much higher population density.
The Clegg / Farage one was over which leader will be first out, and I think it was with antifrank.
Well we have seen how people like @hugh or tim or whoever he is, treat 2010 labour voters who say they're going to vote ukip. Accuse them of lying about being working class, insult them, and make up life stories for them that make them out to be a posh business owner.
Pathetic
They should wake up and realise: WWC don't automatically vote Labour anymore, face facts
I wonder whether the hot summer will give us our first 1%+ GDP quarter for Q3?
I wanted to stand in Hornchurch and Upminster, or maybe Romford, but missed the deadline to be assessed, and now both have been taken.
To be fair, both taken by MEPs so I was a million to one to get the gig.
I wouldn't feel right standing somewhere I didn't know well. Dagenham & Rainham, I actually like the standing MP Jon Cruddas, so would feel hypocritical running against him...and obv wouldn't win!
That aside well done, good point
Good prediction last night too. Could you have got it more wrong?
Several senior figures insist the party should negotiate a second power-sharing deal with the Tories, predicting they are likely to win more votes even if Labour gains more Westminster constituencies.
They argue voters would take a dim view of the Lib Dems if they jump straight from five years of coalition with the Conservatives into a deal with Ed Miliband’s party.
One Lib Dem minister said that the move would be seen as ‘utterly cynical’ by many voters and mean probable ‘annihilation’ for the party in the 2020 general election.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704974/Now-Lib-Dems-eye-second-Tory-pact-Senior-party-figures-considering-coalition-Labour-win-seats-election.html
ALLEN
Chris
The Conservative Party Candidate
681
BEAUMONT
Greg Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 102
GEE
Fred
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
1304 (Elected)
HEWITT
Keith English Democrats
198
NEVETT
David Labour and Co-operative Party Candidate
1267
Majority
Votes Cast
Turnout
37
3572
33.23%
Why is this being called a UKIP GAIN btw when they had the seat already?
Will google the last bit as no idea what you're talking about
I had to look up "Butskellism", and found a real gem, "Blatcherism"
Doncaster Central UKIP's best target here ?
How's about I make a donation to the charity of your choice and you do likewise (Oxfam for me) and we call it quits.
It would only have been 20 quid, unlike some I don't have much spare cash for things like gambling or Farmers Market focaccia.
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/ukip-victory-in-doncaster-by-election-1-6749238
I was thinking of those dresses worn by the men carrying the medals. I simply have to have one.
25/07/2014 09:36
GDP per person is not above pre-recession levels. Immigration and wider population growth mean GDP per head is still lower.
Leaves me a little spare for the odd luxury charity donation.
Both ladies and gents versions? or just the one?
I feel sure the Tories would also attempt to avoid another coalition with the Yellows like the plague, following their treachery over introducing boundary changes.
I always have cash for gambling, as its my trade, but not farmers market focaccia
What's your real name hugh? Do you want to meet or look each other up on social media to put an end to your make believe fantasys of who I am?
It's a bit like in Civilisation 2 where once you've discovered Democracy, you have to dash for growth by raising Luxuries to 40% and lowering tax. "We love the President" day breaks out in all your cities, so that although you initially have run a deficit, the population boom turns it all around pretty rapidly.
Naughty journalists ? You do have a point though, at 20% of GDP they are hardly worth bothering with?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/07/britains-birth-rate
To an extent the same may be true of the Conservatives. In contrast to last time, Tory MPs would have a vote on entering any coalition in 2015. I suspect that, when it came to it, a majority of Tory MPs would reluctantly vote in favour, but there would certainly be a significant number against any such deal and agreement couldn't be guaranteed.
Is it really that funny?
A girl can never have too many frocks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704974/Now-Lib-Dems-eye-second-Tory-pact-Senior-party-figures-considering-coalition-Labour-win-seats-election.html
I agree with you.
Or diamonds?
*grins*
Where will we go from there?
"A lady can never have too many handbags or shoes."
Say coalition until 2017, then an opportunity to walk away or renew.
I yield to both your superior knowledge.
But IF the LD number is as low/lower than 25, their chance of having a say is much reduced. Up to now the LDs leadership seem to be treating the post GE2015 situation as " a mere flesh wound" set of losses and they can still call the shots in a coalition. Polling under 10% does not equate to 35 seats.
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
"Ladies can never have to much attention"?
However, there are several seats like this, which were once monolithic for Labour, and which still have big Labour majorities, but where the Labour vote has fallen away sharply since 1997. If UKIP can unite the non-Labour vote behind them, then such seats suddenly become vulnerable.
My personal favourite where you are concerned was the rather optimistic claim that we would avoid a recession.
Perhaps you agreed with Labour that we were "best placed"?
Don't like it personally, nor the posh seeded types you get at farmers markets.
Plain crusty white for me. And a bacon butty should ONLY be made with cheap white sliced.
"Agreed, the construction figure is under what is happening on the ground"
That would be why David and his chums don't have a worry about next years housing statistics.
If the Scots vote "Yes" I can very well see Dave not moving if Labour are only getting more seats due to their Glasgow fiefdom.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 3m
Welsh Athletics has confirmed 400m hurdler Rhys Williams has been provisionally suspended after being charged with an anti-doping violation
Maybe it helps if UKIP don;t field a 20-something PPE graduate who has never done a days work, or a third generation politico.
I'm wondering if these things are starting to count and whether UKIP will mount highly personalised campaigns in seats like Aberavon.
Calm down pal...
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
Shall we chalk this up to the "wrong type of growth"?
Still, at least the tories do not claim to have saved the world and abolished boom and bust.
Marvellous.
Surrey fast bowler Jade Dernbach has signed a new two year contract with Surrey
http://www1.skysports.com/cricket/news/12040/9394164/county-cricket-matthew-dunn-jade-dernbach-and-chris-tremlett
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation
Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them.
Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Another epic misread
YouGov finds that UKIP & CON voters more likely to break motorway speed limits. Party of Chris Huhne least likely
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtYgXPpIAAEBOnj.png