Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
And the energy companies won't be allowed to raise bills for the first five years of that. Keep in mind that as you close in on 100%, it gets increasingly expensive to get each extra percent of renewables because all the cheap and moderate options have been fully exploited. You're not only decommissioning all the coal power plants, but all the gas-run ones too. And we can't use the shale gas either.
How on Earth are the electricity companies to pay for to meet this demand and these commitments without more revenue? The blindingly obvious answer is that they won't. The government will have to step in with a massive bailout. This will be a huge explosion of the deficit.
Do Labour people not think about these things? Do they just think "well energy companies are rich, we can just milk them for all our needs"? Is there no second-order thinking at all?
I guess that explains how such a terrible policy managed to get through.
Carry on fighting on the side of the vested interests.
I bet you believed jobs would be lost when LAB introduced the minimum wage too didnt you?
Ensuring that we do not have power shortages is in everyone's interest, vested or not.
Do you have shares in candlemakers or undertakers?
Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
IHT
Merging national insurance with income tax. It affects far more people.
Mr. Divvie, that may be a fair comment. I'll consider refraining from that term in future, but it is worth noting just how arrogant and angry many of the self-proclaimed 45 are (as if being in the minority confers some sort of moral superiority).
They lost, and days passed (if that) before they were complaining about everything not being immediately handed to them.
Anyway, having contemplated your post, I do think it's fair. I'll try to refrain from using that term again.
It'd be a risk to go for the Baltic tigers, though. They're both EU and NATO members.
I don't want to do the Hitler comparison, but all expansionist powers are the same. They test their limits and when they don't see any resistance they push things a bit further. I always assumed countries in Europe wouldn't be allowed to get away with annexing part of their neighbours through military force, but our political leaders are far more useless than I ever believed.
That sounds really grim and quite appalling. There's no excuse for it either. A diet packed with fresh cooked veg/a little meat isn't beyond an organisation's pocket in such environments - what are they doing or not doing here?
Some care home residents are becoming malnourished because not enough thought is going into the food they are given, says Wales' older people's commissioner.....
Ms Rochira ordered her office to carry out unannounced visits to 100 care homes as part of a formal review of the quality of life and care for older people in residential homes.
One of the areas of concern was the meals served in homes, with claims that some residents were being given poor quality meals and no choice over what they ate.
"It is unacceptable that in some parts of Wales older people are malnourished in the place they should be able to call home," she said.
"If we don't get it right we'll have people who are frailer than they need to be, more people admitted to hospital than there needs to be."
"One that did stick with me was about a gentleman who needed a soft diet. Primarily, all he had to eat was mashed potato.
"People who told me that in the afternoons, invariably all they seemed to have available to them were cold, dry sandwiches.
"It is not anything any of us would want - for anybody."
Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
I know this one, he's going to shoot an actual live fox. The Daily Mail have this whole weird thing about foxes.
Having looked at it a bit more closely I think Cameron has got a remarkably big bang for a pretty modest buck on the tax cuts. At the most this is going to make a difference of £1-2bn in the early years of the next Parliament when the heavy lifting of deficit reduction is being done and such a sum can easily be recovered elsewhere.
That said I personally do not like the presentation when combined with the cuts in real terms in benefits. We may yet see more cuts in benefits, in fact we will have to. I would urge the government to make sure these are more aimed at the higher paid recipients. In work benefits for those earning more than £40K a year is a very obvious starting point. In fact every household who receive more than average wages should feel the pain ahead of those that don't.
I also note there is no repeat of the foolish promise for the freebies for the elderly. All of these have to be means tested PDQ.
My fear is that, like the 50p tax cut, the Tories have given Labour a get out of jail free card for irresponsible spending. When this is criticised they will simply say, well we think spending on X is more important than tax cuts.
reactionary (knock people on benefits to give £1500 to people on £50K)
'give'? Whose money is it in the first place? Thank you for exposing classic socialist-think. Forgot did we the increase in basic allowancies policy? How shocking for a socialist that the 40p tax bands should actually be raised for a change as well.
What would be best and very interesting for this site is if the remaining SNP posters could give us their insights into what is likely to happen in Scotland at GE2015. Much better for all concerned if they could add to the sum of knowledge on this website than the diatribes, threats and insults. Come on Malc, Uniondivvie etc etc. Give us your political insights! What are you betting on for Scotalnd at GE2015?
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
For the unconvinced: change Moscow to 'Berlin', and Russians to 'Germans', and then see how that reads again.
Remind you of anything?
Yes, I know I'm danger of invoking Godwin's law, but you see my point. This is quite chilling.
Mr. Divvie, that may be a fair comment. I'll consider refraining from that term in future, but it is worth noting just how arrogant and angry many of the self-proclaimed 45 are (as if being in the minority confers some sort of moral superiority).
They lost, and days passed (if that) before they were complaining about everything not being immediately handed to them.
Anyway, having contemplated your post, I do think it's fair. I'll try to refrain from using that term again.
Fair play. Tbh I found the the imprecision more offensive than the Godwinism.
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/1/6880329/russia-baltic-threats-ukraine-estonia Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
True. But I had the impression that UKIPs policy was to do that? Has UKIP policy changed? Or is this one area where you have a contrary view?
It'd be a risk to go for the Baltic tigers, though. They're both EU and NATO members.
I don't want to do the Hitler comparison, but all expansionist powers are the same. They test their limits and when they don't see any resistance they push things a bit further. I always assumed countries in Europe wouldn't be allowed to get away with annexing part of their neighbours through military force, but our political leaders are far more useless than I ever believed.
They've pushed hard enough that RAF Typhoons are now flying CAP over the Baltic, and we're moving heavy armour east for military exercises with the Poles.
Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
I will be astonished and not a little disappointed if his Autumn statement (which seems to get more like a winter statement every year) does not increase the Minimum Wage by an amount which makes Labour's promise meaningless. Such a step could easily be justified in such a strong employment market and has the added bonus of switching some of the cost of employing marginal labour to those who employ them from the taxpayer.
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
Ah, but the EU and NATO sometimes act in their own interests (shocking, I know), therefore Putin is totally justified in taking as much of Eastern Europe (or putting as much of it under his influence through destabilisation) as he wants. Somehow. Everyone knows that if you step on someone's foot, in diplomatic terms by encroaching on areas they see as theirs, they are totally justified in punching you in the face.
Come on Malc, Uniondivvie etc etc. Give us your political insights! What are you betting on for Scotalnd at GE2015?
Would that be the same Nits who called Sindy so well and spent weeks and weeks calling the rest of us fannnies, jessies, turnips and whatnot for daring to question their unique insight and depth of feeling across the Scottish political landscape?
(How was your humble pie by the way Malc? I hope the pint of best English cider helped wash it down).
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
For the unconvinced: change Moscow to 'Berlin', and Russians to 'Germans', and then see how that reads again.
Remind you of anything?
Yes, I know I'm danger of invoking Godwin's law, but you see my point. This is quite chilling.
An entirely foreseeable going back to the invasion of Georgia in 2008. The willingness of people to keep their heads down in the hope it won't affect them always amazes me. On the individual or the national level, we are nothing if we do not stand up for what is right, and we reap the whirlwind when we do not. Moscow invaded and annexed part of its neighbour and what did they get for it? Some travel bans and sanctions on minor industries.
The more absurd part of it was that Russia knew full well that it could face ramifications, so it always denied it was connected to the militias as a way to leave a retreat path open: they could always save face by ditching their support and allow the militias to negotiate an amnesty as if they were independent groups. They would have surely done this had a strong international response happened, but they shocked how weak the West was and just kept going. Now they have Crimea annexed and a frozen conflict in the East that they can explode every time Ukraine does something they don't want. If Ukraine ever tries to reassert control over its own country, it will be claimed they are the aggressor. Just as they can in Georgia over South Ossetia.
So now that's control over Georgia and Ukraine established, and they're moving on to manufacturing crises in the Baltics. Moldova will be next.
Charlotte Henry @charlotteahenry (Lib Dem) Were I mischievous, I’d point out it’s easier to kick a racist out of the BNP than the @LibDems. http://bit.ly/1mTJEYq But obvs I won’t...
Mr. Owls, some believe the minimum wage is one of the reasons behind a long term and persistently high percentage of youth unemployment.
Really £5.13 an hour (from yesterday) for an 18 to 20 year old is making them too expensive to employ.
Perhaps they should have a chimmney brush attached to their heads and a sweeping brush inserted up their bottoms so they can do two jobs at once. Such Multi tasking would surely bring down youth unemployment
I think a low minimum wage subsidises rubbish employers from taxpayers monies.
As you have a copy of the FT read its leader: Cameron trades economic credibility for votes.
It really is that simple - to deny a change in focus is to deny that night follows day I'm afraid. Yet still you try.
I'm starting to wonder whether you can read.
Is there a change in focus? Yes, there's been a new theme introduced, one of tax cuts.
Does that mean that the deficit is going to be dropped as a key theme? No, because it's the Conservatives' single greatest asset. As last week showed abundantly well. The Labour party conference was ruined by their leader's failure to mention the deficit. You seem to see that as some kind of unfortunate accident, but if the Conservatives had not positioned the deficit as a defining issue, the rug wouldn't have been pulled from under Ed Miliband.
Indeed, as I explained at length earlier, it's precisely because the Conservatives have worked so hard to keep the deficit at the forefront of voters' minds that they feel able to offer tax cuts.
Is it good economics? Almost certainly not, for the reasons that DavidL gives. Are there risks in this strategy? Yes, because the Conservatives risk looking incoherent. But will the general public therefore transfer their trust on the economy to Labour? Almost certainly not.
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/1/6880329/russia-baltic-threats-ukraine-estonia Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
True. But I had the impression that UKIPs policy was to do that? Has UKIP policy changed? Or is this one area where you have a contrary view?
I've been pretty open about my utter disdain for UKIP and Farage on their views on this matter. I have contrary views in plenty of areas, like gay marriage, climate change.
Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
I will be astonished and not a little disappointed if his Autumn statement (which seems to get more like a winter statement every year) does not increase the Minimum Wage by an amount which makes Labour's promise meaningless. Such a step could easily be justified in such a strong employment market and has the added bonus of switching some of the cost of employing marginal labour to those who employ them from the taxpayer.
One very important thing neither Cameron nor Osborne mentioned: defence.
To hammer it again, after the travesty of the 2010 SDSR, would be recklessly irresponsible and extremely dangerous.
I note there was no mention of the 0.7% GDP aid commitment in Cameron's speech, and he's recently signed up to the NATO agreement to ensure all member nations increase defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Therefore, if he has any sense, I expect him to wax lyrical about the great achievements of aid during the Parliament but explain that, as the world has changed and is more dangerous, this commitment will not be renewed for the 2015/2020 parliament. Instead, the current generous budget will be frozen and - as the economy grows - the money that would have been earmarked for further increase to aid will be shovelled into defence instead.
If he doesn't do that, I will be very worried indeed.
Incidentally, there is one fox still remaining to be shot by Osborne. He has it penned in and is no doubt biding his time so as to get the maximum bang when he pulls the trigger. It's a very obvious one.
I will be astonished and not a little disappointed if his Autumn statement (which seems to get more like a winter statement every year) does not increase the Minimum Wage by an amount which makes Labour's promise meaningless. Such a step could easily be justified in such a strong employment market and has the added bonus of switching some of the cost of employing marginal labour to those who employ them from the taxpayer.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
Mr. Royale, shifting aid money to Defence would have the benefits of making sense and being popular. It *should* happen. Whether it will or not is rather more doubtful.
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/1/6880329/russia-baltic-threats-ukraine-estonia Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
True. But I had the impression that UKIPs policy was to do that? Has UKIP policy changed? Or is this one area where you have a contrary view?
I've been pretty open about my utter disdain for UKIP and Farage on their views on this matter. I have contrary views in plenty of areas, like gay marriage, climate change.
The Bank of England has recommended that it takes on new powers to prevent a housing boom and bust, as suggested by the Chancellor, George Osborne.
Under the new powers, the Bank said it would be able to impose limits on how much people could borrow to buy a home. This is known as the loan to income ratio.
The Bank would also have the power to force lenders not to give out mortgages which are a high multiple of the borrower's income.
The Bank's Financial Policy Committee (FPC) can already make recommendations along these lines - and it did so this summer when it restricted high income multiple loans to 15% of mortgages.
In June, George Osborne promised that the powers to "recommend" would be beefed up to powers to "direct", to prevent a dangerous bubble developing.
The stronger powers are expected to be in place before June next year.
What the Conferences have shown, to the small minority that were listening at least, is that the Tories have a major advantage in leadership and policy credibility which has the potential to offset the better brand of Labour and at least some of the advantages that the collapse of the Lib Dems and the old boundaries give the reds.
Looking ahead, it may be that we are heading for an election where the campaign actually makes a difference. This is a potential problem for Labour. At present they have no one even close to Osborne's class as a political operator. Ed seems extremely reluctant to learn anything from anyone (must be all that intellectual self confidence) but if he was going to learn one thing from his old master Gordon Brown it surely has to be that Labour has never had a political operator like Mandelson and the boys around him are absolutely no substitute.
Brown probably denied Cameron a majority by bringing Mandelson back into the fold and he hated him. Will Ed have the sense to do the same? Osborne will be hoping not.
Come on Malc, Uniondivvie etc etc. Give us your political insights! What are you betting on for Scotalnd at GE2015?
Would that be the same Nits who called Sindy so well and spent weeks and weeks calling the rest of us fannnies, jessies, turnips and whatnot for daring to question their unique insight and depth of feeling across the Scottish political landscape?
(How was your humble pie by the way Malc? I hope the pint of best English cider helped wash it down).
You should be magnanimous in victory. This classical Liberal Indy supporter was dissappointed but not surprised by the result.
Those are fascinating - it's a bit like half of Labour voters preferring Cameron over their own bloke to be PM.
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
One very important thing neither Cameron nor Osborne mentioned: defence.
To hammer it again, after the travesty of the 2010 SDSR, would be recklessly irresponsible and extremely dangerous.
I note there was no mention of the 0.7% GDP aid commitment in Cameron's speech, and he's recently signed up to the NATO agreement to ensure all member nations increase defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Therefore, if he has any sense, I expect him to wax lyrical about the great achievements of aid during the Parliament but explain that, as the world has changed and is more dangerous, this commitment will not be renewed for the 2015/2020 parliament. Instead, the current generous budget will be frozen and - as the economy grows - the money that would have been earmarked for further increase to aid will be shovelled into defence instead.
If he doesn't do that, I will be very worried indeed.
Overseas Aid and Defence can be two sides of the same coin. We have an interest in ensuring that ISIL doesn't take root in Iraq and Syria, and it is very much in the interests fo the people there that they should not succeed.
Mr. Owls, having Clegg against them is not necessarily a bad thing for the Conservatives.
QTWAIN. Will Ed Milliband appear on more Labour leaflets than Conservative ones at GE2015?
What is missing from the lefties in the media, so far, is any deep discussion of how Labour avoid choosing the next Leader who is not a prize plonker on top of Miliband and Brown. One inadequate was bad enough but two in a row is an "achievement". Of course Lab may still slip into power due to electoral luck, but EdM will be leading a group of MPs of which only a minority voted for him..... Working for a Leader who is a complete plonker is a very debilitating experience, so far they have had 4 years of it.
That'd be a good way to square a number of circles - even if the money from DfID is small beer - it's a nod to some core Tory feelings about defence and *charity begins at home*
One very important thing neither Cameron nor Osborne mentioned: defence.
To hammer it again, after the travesty of the 2010 SDSR, would be recklessly irresponsible and extremely dangerous.
I note there was no mention of the 0.7% GDP aid commitment in Cameron's speech, and he's recently signed up to the NATO agreement to ensure all member nations increase defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Therefore, if he has any sense, I expect him to wax lyrical about the great achievements of aid during the Parliament but explain that, as the world has changed and is more dangerous, this commitment will not be renewed for the 2015/2020 parliament. Instead, the current generous budget will be frozen and - as the economy grows - the money that would have been earmarked for further increase to aid will be shovelled into defence instead.
If he doesn't do that, I will be very worried indeed.
Without wishing to be mean to bruised Yes egos, I can't help but feel that their personal passion on the doorstep didn't help much. Browbeating someone into agreeing with you, isn't a real Yes.
In the last four quarters the UK has run a balance of payments deficit of over £90bn.
What is especially worrying is that we are now running a huge and steadily increasing deficit on investment income - an area where the UK has traditionally had a surplus.
Those foreign takeovers of British businesses which are so applauded aren't such a good thing if the wealth is then taken out of this country are they.
And this government's big economic idea is to give the magic money tree another shaking.
I guess Osborne has rebalanced the economy into a big import sucking machine. Pretty useless as Chancellor.
" The United Kingdom has created more new jobs over the past four years than the other 27 EU members put together. "
All either zero hours contracts or filled by immigrants or both , equals useless.
A typically snobbish, xenophobic and inaccurate comment from MalcolmG. SNP loser.
That from a deluded fantasist..........LOL
Which of you was right about SINDY?
We had a load of nonsense from Malc about the response on the doorstep being better than the polls. I think Stuart Dickson chipped in with that nonsense too.
The last minute bribes were what won it , we will see what if any of them are kept and what happens as a result of that. There were enough cowardly fools to accept the false promises of jam tomorrow if they just voted NO. Lot of water to flow under the bridge yet.
Mr. Royale, shifting aid money to Defence would have the benefits of making sense and being popular. It *should* happen. Whether it will or not is rather more doubtful.
Yes, it depends whether the Tories have the political nous to do it. If they don't do it, and recommit to the aid target, then heaven knows where they'll find the money and there'll be not a few backbench MPs who will start to get all UKIP-twitchy again.
What would be best and very interesting for this site is if the remaining SNP posters could give us their insights into what is likely to happen in Scotland at GE2015. Much better for all concerned if they could add to the sum of knowledge on this website than the diatribes, threats and insults. Come on Malc, Uniondivvie etc etc. Give us your political insights! What are you betting on for Scotalnd at GE2015?
I'm not sure I've ever contributed that much in the way of diatribes, threats and insults.
Been round the block too many times wondering when the SLAB family heirloom vote would finally be punted for something new, but it does look like something is moving in the (dread cliche) tectonic plates of Scottish politics. It'll depend on how long anger at SLAB will be maintained.
Let's not forget, SLAB could've started the Indy campaign as a distinct entity, and carved out their own Devo Plus offer. As things stand their current offer is the least ambitious from the Westminster parties, and they stood enthusiastically shoulder-to-shoulder with the coalition parties in the Project Fear camp. Their only current manifesto commitment for May 2015 is to absolutely rule out a currency union (tho' I can see that being kicked into the long grass now job's done). People may be persuaded by warnings & threats, but they won't feel warmly towards those issuing them.
As far as the GE goes, it'll be interesting to see if there is some kind of Pro Yes electoral pact. These things are notoriously difficult to construct, but there's plenty of SLAB dross who might be vulnerable to good, enthusiastic candidates with a campaign behind them. It's said repeatedly that SLAB sends its quality to Westminster, but there's been some truly dire Westminster lobby fodder put up by them.
In the last four quarters the UK has run a balance of payments deficit of over £90bn.
What is especially worrying is that we are now running a huge and steadily increasing deficit on investment income - an area where the UK has traditionally had a surplus.
Those foreign takeovers of British businesses which are so applauded aren't such a good thing if the wealth is then taken out of this country are they.
And this government's big economic idea is to give the magic money tree another shaking.
I guess Osborne has rebalanced the economy into a big import sucking machine. Pretty useless as Chancellor.
" The United Kingdom has created more new jobs over the past four years than the other 27 EU members put together. "
Those are fascinating - it's a bit like half of Labour voters preferring Cameron over their own bloke to be PM.
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
Yes but Labour still have a vestigial memory of what first attracted 1/3 of people to them. But these people are aging and getting wiser and eventually will either die or some may come to their senses. What Labour do not have is lots and lots of reasons for people to stay in the relationship. They have lots and lots of reasons to leave.
What the Conferences have shown, to the small minority that were listening at least, is that the Tories have a major advantage in leadership and policy credibility which has the potential to offset the better brand of Labour and at least some of the advantages that the collapse of the Lib Dems and the old boundaries give the reds.
Looking ahead, it may be that we are heading for an election where the campaign actually makes a difference. This is a potential problem for Labour. At present they have no one even close to Osborne's class as a political operator. Ed seems extremely reluctant to learn anything from anyone (must be all that intellectual self confidence) but if he was going to learn one thing from his old master Gordon Brown it surely has to be that Labour has never had a political operator like Mandelson and the boys around him are absolutely no substitute.
Brown probably denied Cameron a majority by bringing Mandelson back into the fold and he hated him. Will Ed have the sense to do the same? Osborne will be hoping not.
I did an analysis of Scottish sub samples prior to the 2010 General Election.
Basically they were as accurate as an American war film
As bad as a Mel Gibson one, or not quite that bad?
For example, the final YouGov which had a Scottish sub-sample of 634 (six hundred and thirty four)
Here's how much they over/(under) stated the parties
Lab -5
Con -2
LD +5
SNP -1
I'll have to dig out the research for the other pollsters, but some were very Mel Gibson.
634 is too small a sample.
Although worth 3 regular ones you need to look at more data than that.
I did look at more data than that. Scottish subsamples remind me of John Nance Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency.
They may well be wrong, because they aren't weighted specifically to Scotland. YouGov may have idiosyncrasies in its panel composition in Scotland.
But the change Pulpstar identified is significant. A grasp of Bayesian methods will tell you that we should be updating - and uprating - our estimate of current SNP G.E. support. That's not to say it will necessarily endure.
It'll piss off the Yestapo by raising the profile of the moon on a stick yet to be delivered to Scotland. It'll piss off the English by making blatant Labour's desire for Scottish income tax to be set by MSPs, but Scots MPs to still have a say on English income tax. It'll even piss off No voters, who probably just want a bit of peace and quiet after years of complaining.
Where's the advantage for nation, or even the Labour Party?
It's all about the ego of Brown.
For once Brown is right, if we are given the merde covered end of just income tax , then they can just cut the pocket money and laugh in Westminster as we go down the plug. No idiot could vary just income tax , where any benefits go to Westminster, and cut their throats.
A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says that Moscow has a responsibility to protect ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, "regardless of where they live," and that "we will do everything possible to defend the rights and interests" of ethnic Russian minorities in the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Those that think just letting Putin getting away with invading and annexing parts of neighbouring countries would avoid be the end of the matter are idiots.
For the unconvinced: change Moscow to 'Berlin', and Russians to 'Germans', and then see how that reads again.
Remind you of anything?
Yes, I know I'm danger of invoking Godwin's law, but you see my point. This is quite chilling.
An entirely foreseeable going back to the invasion of Georgia in 2008. The willingness of people to keep their heads down in the hope it won't affect them always amazes me. On the individual or the national level, we are nothing if we do not stand up for what is right, and we reap the whirlwind when we do not. Moscow invaded and annexed part of its neighbour and what did they get for it? Some travel bans and sanctions on minor industries.
The more absurd part of it was that Russia knew full well that it could face ramifications, so it always denied it was connected to the militias as a way to leave a retreat path open: they could always save face by ditching their support and allow the militias to negotiate an amnesty as if they were independent groups. They would have surely done this had a strong international response happened, but they shocked how weak the West was and just kept going. Now they have Crimea annexed and a frozen conflict in the East that they can explode every time Ukraine does something they don't want. If Ukraine ever tries to reassert control over its own country, it will be claimed they are the aggressor. Just as they can in Georgia over South Ossetia.
So now that's control over Georgia and Ukraine established, and they're moving on to manufacturing crises in the Baltics. Moldova will be next.
Georgia invaded Russia, the US and EU overthrew a democratically elected government.
One very important thing neither Cameron nor Osborne mentioned: defence.
To hammer it again, after the travesty of the 2010 SDSR, would be recklessly irresponsible and extremely dangerous.
I note there was no mention of the 0.7% GDP aid commitment in Cameron's speech, and he's recently signed up to the NATO agreement to ensure all member nations increase defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Therefore, if he has any sense, I expect him to wax lyrical about the great achievements of aid during the Parliament but explain that, as the world has changed and is more dangerous, this commitment will not be renewed for the 2015/2020 parliament. Instead, the current generous budget will be frozen and - as the economy grows - the money that would have been earmarked for further increase to aid will be shovelled into defence instead.
If he doesn't do that, I will be very worried indeed.
Overseas Aid and Defence can be two sides of the same coin. We have an interest in ensuring that ISIL doesn't take root in Iraq and Syria, and it is very much in the interests fo the people there that they should not succeed.
Yes, I'm also thinking about having a sufficient expeditionary force (with the necessary air/sea assets) to be able to place an army division wherever it's needed. About 10,000 troops armed with heavy weapons and highly mobile. Also needs logistical and rotational support to be able to sustain it there for a 2-3 year period, If needed.
I don't think anything else would deter Russia, or be able to defeat medium-sized foes like ISIS. I think the defence budget is several billion pa underfunded now.
I did an analysis of Scottish sub samples prior to the 2010 General Election.
Basically they were as accurate as an American war film
As bad as a Mel Gibson one, or not quite that bad?
For example, the final YouGov which had a Scottish sub-sample of 634 (six hundred and thirty four)
Here's how much they over/(under) stated the parties
Lab -5
Con -2
LD +5
SNP -1
I'll have to dig out the research for the other pollsters, but some were very Mel Gibson.
634 is too small a sample.
Although worth 3 regular ones you need to look at more data than that.
I did look at more data than that. Scottish subsamples remind me of John Nance Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency.
They may well be wrong, because they aren't weighted specifically to Scotland. YouGov may have idiosyncrasies in its panel composition in Scotland.
But the change Pulpstar identified is significant. A grasp of Bayesian methods will tell you that we should be updating - and uprating - our estimate of current SNP G.E. support. That's not to say it will necessarily endure.
No: Pink, (50-55) Red (55-60) and Dark Red(60+) Yes: light green (50-55).....er, and that's it.....
Note Dumfries and Galloway is one of the strongest Nos in the whole country. Stuart Dickson and I have been going on about this being a potential Tory gain in Scotland from Labour for quite a while. A Tory party re-energised by the referendum really should take this seat.
Theuniondivvie, thanks for response. But how about an article or a series of posts about which seats the SNP will gain and which they will lose at GE2015? Is it going to be "gain 20 from SLAB & LDs, lose 2 to Cons"?
What the Conferences have shown, to the small minority that were listening at least, is that the Tories have a major advantage in leadership and policy credibility which has the potential to offset the better brand of Labour and at least some of the advantages that the collapse of the Lib Dems and the old boundaries give the reds.
Looking ahead, it may be that we are heading for an election where the campaign actually makes a difference. This is a potential problem for Labour. At present they have no one even close to Osborne's class as a political operator. Ed seems extremely reluctant to learn anything from anyone (must be all that intellectual self confidence) but if he was going to learn one thing from his old master Gordon Brown it surely has to be that Labour has never had a political operator like Mandelson and the boys around him are absolutely no substitute.
Brown probably denied Cameron a majority by bringing Mandelson back into the fold and he hated him. Will Ed have the sense to do the same? Osborne will be hoping not.
The biggest mistake the Tories could make is to get complacent/arrogant and underestimate Ed Miliband during the campaign.
He will practice and rehearse like a beast, and could pull out a Clegg like performance or two in the debates if he's taken for granted. He should be fought as if he's as tough an opponent as Tony Blair. All the way down to the wire.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
The European people have experience of the consequences of war hence our strong opposition to US military adventurism. It's good to see the European people standing opposed to NATO again.
"Here Cams the Sun," shouts the paper's splash this morning. "David Cameron yesterday adopted an agenda for Sun readers to buy him five more years in No 10," it reports, adding in a glowing leader: "You'd need to be Ed Miliband or a close relative not to recognise now the gulf in vision between the two men capable of being elected Prime Minister next May."
Finally (for me this AM) More on Labour's policies for the self-employed.
"There is no union for the self-employed, and such an organisation would be a struggle to create anyway because of the high degree of churn among this group. After all, many self-employed work part-time jobs, or transition in and out of freelancing between full-time employee positions."
I did an analysis of Scottish sub samples prior to the 2010 General Election.
Basically they were as accurate as an American war film
As bad as a Mel Gibson one, or not quite that bad?
For example, the final YouGov which had a Scottish sub-sample of 634 (six hundred and thirty four)
Here's how much they over/(under) stated the parties
Lab -5
Con -2
LD +5
SNP -1
I'll have to dig out the research for the other pollsters, but some were very Mel Gibson.
634 is too small a sample.
Although worth 3 regular ones you need to look at more data than that.
I did look at more data than that. Scottish subsamples remind me of John Nance Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency.
They may well be wrong, because they aren't weighted specifically to Scotland. YouGov may have idiosyncrasies in its panel composition in Scotland.
But the change Pulpstar identified is significant. A grasp of Bayesian methods will tell you that we should be updating - and uprating - our estimate of current SNP G.E. support. That's not to say it will necessarily endure.
Similar surges happened in the last parliament.
Perhaps, but I'd be surprised to see such a marked difference between the first 10 and second 10 of a group of 20 at any stage last time (except maybe vis-a-vis the Holyrood election?)
But what's really important is that we [or some of us] had a prior expectation of a surge, because of the referendum result. The YouGov figures back that up, which should make us more confident in that hypothesis, even if you wouldn't trust any single subsample in the slightest.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
I'm not a USA junkie. But I do wonder how many people have stopped to think how f*cked we in Europe would be if they withdrew their all forces from the continent.
Finally (for me this AM) More on Labour's policies for the self-employed.
"There is no union for the self-employed, and such an organisation would be a struggle to create anyway because of the high degree of churn among this group. After all, many self-employed work part-time jobs, or transition in and out of freelancing between full-time employee positions."
As you have a copy of the FT read its leader: Cameron trades economic credibility for votes.
It really is that simple - to deny a change in focus is to deny that night follows day I'm afraid. Yet still you try.
I'm starting to wonder whether you can read.
Is there a change in focus? Yes, there's been a new theme introduced, one of tax cuts.
Does that mean that the deficit is going to be dropped as a key theme? No, because it's the Conservatives' single greatest asset. As last week showed abundantly well. The Labour party conference was ruined by their leader's failure to mention the deficit. You seem to see that as some kind of unfortunate accident, but if the Conservatives had not positioned the deficit as a defining issue, the rug wouldn't have been pulled from under Ed Miliband.
Indeed, as I explained at length earlier, it's precisely because the Conservatives have worked so hard to keep the deficit at the forefront of voters' minds that they feel able to offer tax cuts.
Is it good economics? Almost certainly not, for the reasons that DavidL gives. Are there risks in this strategy? Yes, because the Conservatives risk looking incoherent. But will the general public therefore transfer their trust on the economy to Labour? Almost certainly not.
You are going off on a tangent.
My point was that there has been a shift in focus, which you denied.
I did an analysis of Scottish sub samples prior to the 2010 General Election.
Basically they were as accurate as an American war film
As bad as a Mel Gibson one, or not quite that bad?
For example, the final YouGov which had a Scottish sub-sample of 634 (six hundred and thirty four)
Here's how much they over/(under) stated the parties
Lab -5
Con -2
LD +5
SNP -1
I'll have to dig out the research for the other pollsters, but some were very Mel Gibson.
634 is too small a sample.
Although worth 3 regular ones you need to look at more data than that.
I did look at more data than that. Scottish subsamples remind me of John Nance Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency.
They may well be wrong, because they aren't weighted specifically to Scotland. YouGov may have idiosyncrasies in its panel composition in Scotland.
But the change Pulpstar identified is significant. A grasp of Bayesian methods will tell you that we should be updating - and uprating - our estimate of current SNP G.E. support. That's not to say it will necessarily endure.
Similar surges happened in the last parliament.
Perhaps, but I'd be surprised to see such a marked difference between the first 10 and second 10 of a group of 20 at any stage last time (except maybe vis-a-vis the Holyrood election?)
But what's really important is that we [or some of us] had a prior expectation of a surge, because of the referendum result. The YouGov figures back that up, which should make us more confident in that hypothesis, even if you wouldn't trust any single subsample in the slightest.
For example in August 2008, YouGov did a Scottish specific poll.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
The European people have experience of the consequences of war hence our strong opposition to US military adventurism. It's good to see the European people standing opposed to NATO again.
Hmm. Reminds me of some of the old CND lines from the 70's and 80's. It was always rumoured that they'd been infiltrated by Moscow.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
I'm not a USA junkie. But I do wonder how many people have stopped to think how f*cked we in Europe would be if they withdrew their all forces from the continent.
If I were an American, I'd be seriously pissed off at the European attitude that I should afford them military protection, do the bulk of their fighting for them, while still having the luxury of criticising me.
What the Conferences have shown, to the small minority that were listening at least, is that the Tories have a major advantage in leadership and policy credibility which has the potential to offset the better brand of Labour and at least some of the advantages that the collapse of the Lib Dems and the old boundaries give the reds.
Looking ahead, it may be that we are heading for an election where the campaign actually makes a difference. This is a potential problem for Labour. At present they have no one even close to Osborne's class as a political operator. Ed seems extremely reluctant to learn anything from anyone (must be all that intellectual self confidence) but if he was going to learn one thing from his old master Gordon Brown it surely has to be that Labour has never had a political operator like Mandelson and the boys around him are absolutely no substitute.
Brown probably denied Cameron a majority by bringing Mandelson back into the fold and he hated him. Will Ed have the sense to do the same? Osborne will be hoping not.
I haven't read his memoirs but I will look out for them. He has a waspish sense of humour.
Mr. Socrates, you must be mistaken. The EU is a Nobel Prize-winning champion of peace. War is impossible now in Europe thanks to the EU*.
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Peace only happened in Yugoslavia after the USA stepped up to enforce "collective" deterrence against the aggression of Serbia after European nations endlessly equivocated. Militarily, economically, and politically Europe is led by people who are not prepared to do what is needed. That's why we're fools to cast our lot into a European superstate. It will be forever weakly managed.
I'm not a USA junkie. But I do wonder how many people have stopped to think how f*cked we in Europe would be if they withdrew their all forces from the continent.
Totally screwed, as would be the US's business interests in Europe. One of the reasons they're still here.
As you have a copy of the FT read its leader: Cameron trades economic credibility for votes.
It really is that simple - to deny a change in focus is to deny that night follows day I'm afraid. Yet still you try.
I'm starting to wonder whether you can read.
Is there a change in focus? Yes, there's been a new theme introduced, one of tax cuts.
Does that mean that the deficit is going to be dropped as a key theme? No, because it's the Conservatives' single greatest asset. As last week showed abundantly well. The Labour party conference was ruined by their leader's failure to mention the deficit. You seem to see that as some kind of unfortunate accident, but if the Conservatives had not positioned the deficit as a defining issue, the rug wouldn't have been pulled from under Ed Miliband.
Indeed, as I explained at length earlier, it's precisely because the Conservatives have worked so hard to keep the deficit at the forefront of voters' minds that they feel able to offer tax cuts.
Is it good economics? Almost certainly not, for the reasons that DavidL gives. Are there risks in this strategy? Yes, because the Conservatives risk looking incoherent. But will the general public therefore transfer their trust on the economy to Labour? Almost certainly not.
You are going off on a tangent.
My point was that there has been a shift in focus, which you denied.
Now, at last, you accept that simple point.
Oh don't talk rubbish. You have said ad nauseam that the deficit is not going to be a central theme in the general election. It is. Get used to it and stop rewriting history.
Does job success depend on data rather than your CV?
"The bald truth is that most companies are pretty bad at recruitment.
Nearly half of new recruits turn out to be duds within 18 months, according to one study, while two-thirds of hiring managers admit they've often chosen the wrong people.
And the main reason for failure is not because applicants didn't have the requisite skills, but because their personalities clashed with the company's culture.
So these days employers are resorting to big data analytics and other new methods to help make the fraught process of hiring and firing more scientific and effective.
For job hunters, this means success is now as much to do with your online data trail as your finely crafted CV.......
For example, recruitment technology firm Electronic Insight doesn't even bother to look at your skills and experience when analysing CVs on behalf of clients...
"We just look at what people write and how they structure their sentences," says Marc Mapes, the firm's chief innovation officer.
Its algorithm analyses language patterns to reveal a candidate's personality and attitude, and then compares this against the cultural profile of the company.
"About 84% of people who get fired do so because of lack of cultural fit, not because of lack of skills," he maintains.
And companies such as Silicon Valley start-up Knack are even developing games as a way of assessing the suitability of job candidates. "
This box-ticking/imaginary deductions approach to recruitment worries me. Reminds me of the time when I was given a blank sheet of paper and was asked to write about what I 'saw' in it. Or another time when my handwriting was analysed for personality traits.
Personally, a time of internship reveals far more but is time consuming but probably not more costly.
What is going to change your mood? Is Ed likely to get less duff, or is it going to be those around him bailing him out? Or will basic tribalism get you through?
As you have a copy of the FT read its leader: Cameron trades economic credibility for votes.
It really is that simple - to deny a change in focus is to deny that night follows day I'm afraid. Yet still you try.
I'm starting to wonder whether you can read.
Is there a change in focus? Yes, there's been a new theme introduced, one of tax cuts.
Does that mean that the deficit is going to be dropped as a key theme? No, because it's the Conservatives' single greatest asset. As last week showed abundantly well. The Labour party conference was ruined by their leader's failure to mention the deficit. You seem to see that as some kind of unfortunate accident, but if the Conservatives had not positioned the deficit as a defining issue, the rug wouldn't have been pulled from under Ed Miliband.
Indeed, as I explained at length earlier, it's precisely because the Conservatives have worked so hard to keep the deficit at the forefront of voters' minds that they feel able to offer tax cuts.
Is it good economics? Almost certainly not, for the reasons that DavidL gives. Are there risks in this strategy? Yes, because the Conservatives risk looking incoherent. But will the general public therefore transfer their trust on the economy to Labour? Almost certainly not.
You are going off on a tangent.
My point was that there has been a shift in focus, which you denied.
Now, at last, you accept that simple point.
From The Times - '' Another respected think-tank, the Resolution Foundation, said that the implication of Tory plans to clear the deficit by 2018 was that tax cuts would come after that date, paid for by “deep spending restraint [that] will run throughout the entire parliament”. Matt Whittaker, its chief economist, said: “The tax cuts announced today by the prime minister suggest that the path of austerity set by the chancellor will continue right to the end of the next parliament, with any upside that arises later going on tax cuts rather than easing the pressure on spending.” ''
Comments
Do you have shares in candlemakers or undertakers?
Pot calling the kettle black? They don't like it up em!
They lost, and days passed (if that) before they were complaining about everything not being immediately handed to them.
Anyway, having contemplated your post, I do think it's fair. I'll try to refrain from using that term again.
Labour 38.6%
SNP 34.7%
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Where-Next-for-Scotland-Tables.pdf
Forgot did we the increase in basic allowancies policy? How shocking for a socialist that the 40p tax bands should actually be raised for a change as well.
one-eyd is as one-eyed does.
Remind you of anything?
Yes, I know I'm danger of invoking Godwin's law, but you see my point. This is quite chilling.
Fair play.
Tbh I found the the imprecision more offensive than the Godwinism.
What more do you want, to start a Hot War?
'How dare you call me a Hun, you untermensch schweinhund.'
(How was your humble pie by the way Malc? I hope the pint of best English cider helped wash it down).
The more absurd part of it was that Russia knew full well that it could face ramifications, so it always denied it was connected to the militias as a way to leave a retreat path open: they could always save face by ditching their support and allow the militias to negotiate an amnesty as if they were independent groups. They would have surely done this had a strong international response happened, but they shocked how weak the West was and just kept going. Now they have Crimea annexed and a frozen conflict in the East that they can explode every time Ukraine does something they don't want. If Ukraine ever tries to reassert control over its own country, it will be claimed they are the aggressor. Just as they can in Georgia over South Ossetia.
So now that's control over Georgia and Ukraine established, and they're moving on to manufacturing crises in the Baltics. Moldova will be next.
Were I mischievous, I’d point out it’s easier to kick a racist out of the BNP than the @LibDems. http://bit.ly/1mTJEYq But obvs I won’t...
*A pity nobody informed the Russians about this. Or Yugoslavia, for that matter.
Perhaps they should have a chimmney brush attached to their heads and a sweeping brush inserted up their bottoms so they can do two jobs at once. Such Multi tasking would surely bring down youth unemployment
I think a low minimum wage subsidises rubbish employers from taxpayers monies.
Is there a change in focus? Yes, there's been a new theme introduced, one of tax cuts.
Does that mean that the deficit is going to be dropped as a key theme? No, because it's the Conservatives' single greatest asset. As last week showed abundantly well. The Labour party conference was ruined by their leader's failure to mention the deficit. You seem to see that as some kind of unfortunate accident, but if the Conservatives had not positioned the deficit as a defining issue, the rug wouldn't have been pulled from under Ed Miliband.
Indeed, as I explained at length earlier, it's precisely because the Conservatives have worked so hard to keep the deficit at the forefront of voters' minds that they feel able to offer tax cuts.
Is it good economics? Almost certainly not, for the reasons that DavidL gives. Are there risks in this strategy? Yes, because the Conservatives risk looking incoherent. But will the general public therefore transfer their trust on the economy to Labour? Almost certainly not.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/02/tories-out-poll-labour-on-almost-every-issue-except-for-who-are-you-going-to-vote/
To hammer it again, after the travesty of the 2010 SDSR, would be recklessly irresponsible and extremely dangerous.
I note there was no mention of the 0.7% GDP aid commitment in Cameron's speech, and he's recently signed up to the NATO agreement to ensure all member nations increase defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Therefore, if he has any sense, I expect him to wax lyrical about the great achievements of aid during the Parliament but explain that, as the world has changed and is more dangerous, this commitment will not be renewed for the 2015/2020 parliament. Instead, the current generous budget will be frozen and - as the economy grows - the money that would have been earmarked for further increase to aid will be shovelled into defence instead.
If he doesn't do that, I will be very worried indeed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449
Yes: light green (50-55).....er, and that's it.....
The Bank of England has recommended that it takes on new powers to prevent a housing boom and bust, as suggested by the Chancellor, George Osborne.
Under the new powers, the Bank said it would be able to impose limits on how much people could borrow to buy a home. This is known as the loan to income ratio.
The Bank would also have the power to force lenders not to give out mortgages which are a high multiple of the borrower's income.
The Bank's Financial Policy Committee (FPC) can already make recommendations along these lines - and it did so this summer when it restricted high income multiple loans to 15% of mortgages.
In June, George Osborne promised that the powers to "recommend" would be beefed up to powers to "direct", to prevent a dangerous bubble developing.
The stronger powers are expected to be in place before June next year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29457607
Matt Hancock @matthancockmp
There was a young man called Red Ed
Whose deficit ne'er entered his head
He simply forgot
He's losing the plot
So I'm voting Cameron instead
Although worth 3 regular ones you need to look at more data than that.
Looking ahead, it may be that we are heading for an election where the campaign actually makes a difference. This is a potential problem for Labour. At present they have no one even close to Osborne's class as a political operator. Ed seems extremely reluctant to learn anything from anyone (must be all that intellectual self confidence) but if he was going to learn one thing from his old master Gordon Brown it surely has to be that Labour has never had a political operator like Mandelson and the boys around him are absolutely no substitute.
Brown probably denied Cameron a majority by bringing Mandelson back into the fold and he hated him. Will Ed have the sense to do the same? Osborne will be hoping not.
Brent Crude dips below $93.
Ay reports of price reductions at the pumps?
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
Will Ed Milliband appear on more Labour leaflets than Conservative ones at GE2015?
What is missing from the lefties in the media, so far, is any deep discussion of how Labour avoid choosing the next Leader who is not a prize plonker on top of Miliband and Brown. One inadequate was bad enough but two in a row is an "achievement". Of course Lab may still slip into power due to electoral luck, but EdM will be leading a group of MPs of which only a minority voted for him..... Working for a Leader who is a complete plonker is a very debilitating experience, so far they have had 4 years of it.
Been round the block too many times wondering when the SLAB family heirloom vote would finally be punted for something new, but it does look like something is moving in the (dread cliche) tectonic plates of Scottish politics. It'll depend on how long anger at SLAB will be maintained.
Let's not forget, SLAB could've started the Indy campaign as a distinct entity, and carved out their own Devo Plus offer. As things stand their current offer is the least ambitious from the Westminster parties, and they stood enthusiastically shoulder-to-shoulder with the coalition parties in the Project Fear camp. Their only current manifesto commitment for May 2015 is to absolutely rule out a currency union (tho' I can see that being kicked into the long grass now job's done). People may be persuaded by warnings & threats, but they won't feel warmly towards those issuing them.
As far as the GE goes, it'll be interesting to see if there is some kind of Pro Yes electoral pact. These things are notoriously difficult to construct, but there's plenty of SLAB dross who might be vulnerable to good, enthusiastic candidates with a campaign behind them. It's said repeatedly that SLAB sends its quality to Westminster, but there's been some truly dire Westminster lobby fodder put up by them.
Have you read his memoirs? They're great stuff. The Mrs Duffy bit is quite hilarious.
He really pulled Gordon out of the frying pan - I'd say he was mostly responsible for us ending up with a HP.
But the change Pulpstar identified is significant. A grasp of Bayesian methods will tell you that we should be updating - and uprating - our estimate of current SNP G.E. support. That's not to say it will necessarily endure.
Still angry.
#EdisCrap
"We're not going to win but we can completely ruin the other side".
Plus, the other side did help them achieve that.
https://www.conservatives.com/join.aspx
He will practice and rehearse like a beast, and could pull out a Clegg like performance or two in the debates if he's taken for granted. He should be fought as if he's as tough an opponent as Tony Blair. All the way down to the wire.
Yes, the Conservatives shot themselves in the foot, but the media was shockingly incompetent.
"Here Cams the Sun," shouts the paper's splash this morning. "David Cameron yesterday adopted an agenda for Sun readers to buy him five more years in No 10," it reports, adding in a glowing leader: "You'd need to be Ed Miliband or a close relative not to recognise now the gulf in vision between the two men capable of being elected Prime Minister next May."
More on Labour's policies for the self-employed.
"There is no union for the self-employed, and such an organisation would be a struggle to create anyway because of the high degree of churn among this group. After all, many self-employed work part-time jobs, or transition in and out of freelancing between full-time employee positions."
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/to-be-a-party-for-all-workers-we-need-to-protect-the-self-employed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LabourListLatestPosts+(LabourList)
Beyond parody?
But what's really important is that we [or some of us] had a prior expectation of a surge, because of the referendum result. The YouGov figures back that up, which should make us more confident in that hypothesis, even if you wouldn't trust any single subsample in the slightest.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100288488/nick-griffin-time-may-be-over-but-we-know-exactly-where-bnp-voters-have-gone/
"We all know where the BNP voters have gone: Ukip."
I wonder how they got on?
My point was that there has been a shift in focus, which you denied.
Now, at last, you accept that simple point.
That had the SNP on 36, Lab on 29
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-scotnat-vi-080812.pdf
Does job success depend on data rather than your CV?
"The bald truth is that most companies are pretty bad at recruitment.
Nearly half of new recruits turn out to be duds within 18 months, according to one study, while two-thirds of hiring managers admit they've often chosen the wrong people.
And the main reason for failure is not because applicants didn't have the requisite skills, but because their personalities clashed with the company's culture.
So these days employers are resorting to big data analytics and other new methods to help make the fraught process of hiring and firing more scientific and effective.
For job hunters, this means success is now as much to do with your online data trail as your finely crafted CV.......
For example, recruitment technology firm Electronic Insight doesn't even bother to look at your skills and experience when analysing CVs on behalf of clients...
"We just look at what people write and how they structure their sentences," says Marc Mapes, the firm's chief innovation officer.
Its algorithm analyses language patterns to reveal a candidate's personality and attitude, and then compares this against the cultural profile of the company.
"About 84% of people who get fired do so because of lack of cultural fit, not because of lack of skills," he maintains.
And companies such as Silicon Valley start-up Knack are even developing games as a way of assessing the suitability of job candidates. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29343425
This box-ticking/imaginary deductions approach to recruitment worries me. Reminds me of the time when I was given a blank sheet of paper and was asked to write about what I 'saw' in it. Or another time when my handwriting was analysed for personality traits.
Personally, a time of internship reveals far more but is time consuming but probably not more costly.
What is going to change your mood? Is Ed likely to get less duff, or is it going to be those around him bailing him out? Or will basic tribalism get you through?
Matt Whittaker, its chief economist, said: “The tax cuts announced today by the prime minister suggest that the path of austerity set by the chancellor will continue right to the end of the next parliament, with any upside that arises later going on tax cuts rather than easing the pressure on spending.” ''