Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
I'll sleep easy. Good that proves the point
Clearly troubling your conscience ?, The contrast between nice upper class Stellas Creasy, relation to the aristicracy and Oxbridge Political sciences getting justice and 1400 WWC victims seeing nowt just sums it up.
You have a problem if you think "Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you" is an appropriate comment.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
@faisalislam: And the answer we can now see because the poll data has been released lies with an extraordinary change in voting intentions of ex LibDems..
As a non-Tory, I'm not surprised to see the Conservatives flocking back to the standard even though some of them have been pretty critical about Cameron in the past.
I heard a comprehensive demolition of the ECHR policy on LBC by that well-known rabid socialist Dominic Grieve (also supporting a British Bill of Rights which the LDs have backed for decades) while the tax policy is nowhere near as good as it sounds. There's no commitment on when this will happen and everyone assumes it will be in Osborne's Budget. My suspicion is it's an aim for the next Parliament rather than an immediate giveaway.
For a Party supposedly serious about tackling the deficit, it's curious to see this largesse though the amount involved isn't that significant. So on the one hand the Conservatives are keen to "give us our money back", on the other benefit claimants are going to be told what they can and can't spend their money on in a piece of appalling populist-driven authoritarianism.
The general assumption that benefit claimants are "scroungers" doesn't stand up to any kind of inspection. Many have worked hard and have suffered misfortune either through health, marital or addiction problems so even though they may have contributed through tax and NI for years they will be told how to spend "their" money.
Perhaps if the Tories want to make a real difference, they should tell pensioners not to waste their pensions on cat food, bingo and buying presents for the grandchildren.
Anyway, to far more substantive matters and this afternoon's Arc de Triomphe in Paris. I'm a big fan of the fillies (guffaw) and have backed AVENIR CERTAIN to win with an each-way saver on CHICQUITA at a big price.
Though Ive largely given up betting on the flat, I do like the look of Ivanhowe. Sadly the draw for him stinks.
Good. Hopefully they can grow up now. Have you read the account of what happened to the Top Gear team in Argentina in today's STimes?
Eff-me - really scary stuff. And just makes the Argies in that part of the country look incredibly insecure/willy wavers and thugs.
Mr Clarkson noted that they changed the number plate whilst they were still in Chile, and that it was actually all a trap. He made a typically amusing joke about not changing it from H982FLK to W3WON...
Stodge Obviously not as Osborne does not have a majority to do it at the moment with the LDs and certainly not until the deficit is solved, Cameron was quite clear he was promising the tax cuts on the basis of a Tory majority after the election
Cameron has a history of making promises which turn out less than they seem.
He also has a history of lying about government debt.
His speech was designed to be reported as it was ie more than the substance it contained.
There's no commitment on when this will happen and everyone assumes it will be in Osborne's Budget. .
No.
Its clear:
i) its in the next Parliament with a majority Con government ii) Once the deficit has been eliminated reduced - theres been a bit of fudge over this in the last few days.
Why would it not be the same as the delivered increase in personal tax allowance - implemented over the period of the Parliament?
It may be clear to you but that's not how it's been reported. I suspect if you ask 100 people what they understand by the pledge on the tax rate, 99 will say they expect the threshold to be raised to £50k by Osborne in his next Budget.
The Tory media has jumped on this as a pre-election giveaway and this has, in my view, given the Conservatives a boost in the polls.
I suspect the increases will be laddered year-by-year, in a similar way to how those for the £10.5k tax-free threshold were increased over this parliament.
I really felt we'd got a winner when he was elected as leader and despite having a serious tiff with him over AGW and other stuff like Minimum Pricing and other Nanny State stuff - that hasn't changed.
He's dropped all the flirting with Guardian readers now and I think that's given his personal credo a boost. I always felt that he was trying to please them a little too hard, rather than being himself. He may still think AGW is legit - I can take that on the chin, the market has killed most of that off already.
OGH Populus included pre speech data, this yougov is all post speech and shows the Tory lead has increased since the first yougov poll showing the Tories ahead. Yougov only had one Yes lead, their next poll had No ahead, and of course TNS had it tied just days after that Yes lead, it was devomax and Brown and the leaders' rushed visits which stopped the Yes momentum
A bloody good leader and CoE - despite all the nay-saying. The economy is really making solid and at times impressive progress compared to our near rivals.
Cameron pulled a hutch full of rabbits out of his top hat and clearly convinced a lot of people that he's the man for the job. He delivers in spades when his back is against the wall. He does great set pieces like Bloody Sunday which was a minefield to navigate... that was widely acknowledged as perfectly pitched.
He's not perfect by any means, but then nobody is. I'll take him as PM and Party Leader any day than be saddled with some of his biggest critics within or without.
It's been a very long time since we had a good leader who looked and sounded the part. I really liked John Major and am rather protective about him. He was just too grey for many - though clearly if they actually paid attention to what he did more, they'd see that he was quite a dark horse [and I don't just mean Edwina].
Cameron does well, when his back's to the wall. The problem is he let's things slip when the crisis is over.
Had he delivered that speech 5 years ago, and then followed through, I'm sure I'd still be a member of the party.
I think that's spot on. The trouble is he doesn't follow through.
I think he will deliver on the tax - that's just a question of proper budgeting. The far more difficult subjects of the EU repatriations, immigration and human rights reform are another matter.
The imagery is helped by the 'economy bigger than before the recession' reports and the widespread belief that government debt is falling.
UK statistics authority facts. Public sector net debt. June 2010 - £997.4bn (64.0% of GDP) Sept 2014 - £1,432.3bn (79.1% of GDP) That vast increase in debt must be what Osborne and Cameron mean when they say debt is falling. Obve austerity is having a positive effect on national finances.....
A newsnight focus group on Wednesday evening showed at least 1 voter switching from UKIP to Tory and 1 from Labour to Tory post Cameron's speech, so not just yougov showing movement
When did this new tradition of party conferences taking place in big cities (as opposed to seaside resorts) start ?
For a political class which is increasingly dominated by metropolitan mindsets this "let's have a conference at the same sort of place we spend the rest of our time in" merely cuts them off even further from different experiences and alternative viewpoints.
Miss Plato, hadn't read about the numberplate being changed in Chile. If so, doesn't paint the Argies in a good light (well, not that stoning a car for having a 'bad' numberplate is acceptable anyway).
Mr. Owls, very unlucky. I did consider that (and Red Bull to top score), as well as the other things I highlighted in my pre-race piece.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
Now which editor of Britain's most-read political blog once opined so memorably that a rogue poll is one which you don't like?
Stodge Obviously not as Osborne does not have a majority to do it at the moment with the LDs and certainly not until the deficit is solved, Cameron was quite clear he was promising the tax cuts on the basis of a Tory majority after the election
What does "the deficit is solved" mean - a Budget surplus, balanced Budget or what ? I saw something about a plan for a surplus by 2018-19 but if we remember some of the ludicrous forecasts produced in 2010 about how the deficit would have been eliminated by 2014-15, you can forgive me for being sceptical.
So what is the policy for raising the threshold ?
The bit about the Conservative majority is clear but may not be necessary.
IF we continue to run a deficit by 2019-2020, does that mean the threshold won't be raised ?
If the threshold is raised while a deficit still exists, isn't that a clear case of the Conservatives being irresponsible about tackling the deficit ?
Am I alone in thinking events in the Eurozone might once again scupper Osborne and Cameron's well-laid fiscal and political plans ?
As for the YouGov polling, to simply say if you think something will happen by 2020 is one thing - the question is whether people think it will happen by 2016 ?
Mr. HYUFD, really not a fan of focus groups. Wide open to groupthink, and experimenter effects. Not as bad as the debate 'worm', however. That's a ****ing abomination and should be scrapped.
I really felt we'd got a winner when he was elected as leader and despite having a serious tiff with him over AGW and other stuff like Minimum Pricing and other Nanny State stuff - that hasn't changed.
He's dropped all the flirting with Guardian readers now and I think that's given his personal credo a boost. I always felt that he was trying to please them a little too hard, rather than being himself. He may still think AGW is legit - I can take that on the chin, the market has killed most of that off already.
I really felt we'd got a winner when he was elected as leader and despite having a serious tiff with him over AGW and other stuff like Minimum Pricing and other Nanny State stuff - that hasn't changed.
He's dropped all the flirting with Guardian readers now and I think that's given his personal credo a boost. I always felt that he was trying to please them a little too hard, rather than being himself. He may still think AGW is legit - I can take that on the chin, the market has killed most of that off already.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
Bold claim. But why should the weightings be so wrong?
More broadly I'd like to ask a Lib Dem about his party. Virtually the only criticism the Lib Dems are making of Labour is that they will send the country towards bankruptcy. This in spite of the fact that Labour's fiscal plans are pretty much the same as the Lib Dems. Meanwhile you have the Tories drifting to the right on welfare, tax, human rights, the environment - anything you care to mention, all inspired by Farage.
Time to end equidistance and say what you really think?
Morning all! Are we expecting any other polls today? If not, here's this week's Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - 9 polls with a total weighted sample of 11,610 people (changes in brackets from last week):
There's no commitment on when this will happen and everyone assumes it will be in Osborne's Budget. .
No.
Its clear:
i) its in the next Parliament with a majority Con government ii) Once the deficit has been eliminated reduced - theres been a bit of fudge over this in the last few days.
Why would it not be the same as the delivered increase in personal tax allowance - implemented over the period of the Parliament?
It may be clear to you but that's not how it's been reported. I suspect if you ask 100 people what they understand by the pledge on the tax rate, 99 will say they expect the threshold to be raised to £50k by Osborne in his next Budget.
The Tory media has jumped on this as a pre-election giveaway and this has, in my view, given the Conservatives a boost in the polls.
I suspect the increases will be laddered year-by-year, in a similar way to how those for the £10.5k tax-free threshold were increased over this parliament.
Yes - perhaps because the Tories have 'done this before' people are willing to believe (as we saw in today's YouGov) that they will 'do it again'......
When did this new tradition of party conferences taking place in big cities (as opposed to seaside resorts) start ?
For a political class which is increasingly dominated by metropolitan mindsets this "let's have a conference at the same sort of place we spend the rest of our time in" merely cuts them off even further from different experiences and alternative viewpoints.
Perhaps that's deemed to be an attraction.
It has been the trend to move away from seaside conferences for a number of years now. Apparently big city venues offer better facilities for the actual conference (in all these swanky new conference halls built in the boom years) and higher grade hotels. Ordinary members though moan about high hotel prices compared to the traditional B&B you get at the coast.
Personally, a lot of the romance seems to have gone now they don't meet in Blackpool, Bournemouth and so on.
The Tory conference was a gift to us. Punitive cuts to in work benefits for the grafting poor. £36bn a year of cits which will destroy what's left of public services and civic society. To pay for tax cuts for top earners. Personably I'd do very well off the 40p band move, but to do so off the backs of the poor is unconscionable. Ripping up human rights which even sane Tories like Grieve think is stupid. In short a programme to drive real fear for millions - sure Labour are being too timid. Happily the Tories aren't, and fear sells very well.
Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
I'll sleep easy.
Good that proves the point
Clearly troubling your conscience ?, The contrast between nice upper class Stellas Creasy, relation to the aristicracy and Oxbridge Political sciences getting justice and 1400 WWC victims seeing nowt just sums it up.
Not discussing any further.
Sleep Easy.
Which neatly sums up why there is such a massive issue.
Despite all the good news, the GE betting markets remain unmoved.
The Rochester by-election odds on the other hand have suddenly returned to just about where they started off. UKIP opened at 1/2, drifted out to 5/4, are now back to 1/2 or thereabouts. Presumably this is a consequence of the overnite poll, rather curiously described by one PBers as 'not good for Reckless.'
In fact it wasn't that great. A 9% lead is usual, but not overwhelming at this stage. Maybe punters are starting to factor in a UKIP bounce from Clacton, where the betting is pretty much confined to the size of the vote share.
I'm planning to go there on Tuesday. If any other PBers are in the area and would like to meet up for a drink, or just a chin-wag, drop me a line.
The imagery is helped by the 'economy bigger than before the recession' reports and the widespread belief that government debt is falling.
UK statistics authority facts. Public sector net debt. June 2010 - £997.4bn (64.0% of GDP) Sept 2014 - £1,432.3bn (79.1% of GDP) That vast increase in debt must be what Osborne and Cameron mean when they say debt is falling. Obve austerity is having a positive effect on national finances.....
Your penultimate sentence is a fair criticism. Your ultimate sentence makes no logical sense at all.
The imagery is helped by the 'economy bigger than before the recession' reports and the widespread belief that government debt is falling.
UK statistics authority facts. Public sector net debt. June 2010 - £997.4bn (64.0% of GDP) Sept 2014 - £1,432.3bn (79.1% of GDP) That vast increase in debt must be what Osborne and Cameron mean when they say debt is falling. Obve austerity is having a positive effect on national finances.....
In order to actually cut nominal debt, when one starts with a budget deficit of £160 bn, you'd have to cut public spending by 25% from day one. That would be impossible to deliver.
The Tory conference was a gift to us. Punitive cuts to in work benefits for the grafting poor. £36bn a year of cits which will destroy what's left of public services and civic society. To pay for tax cuts for top earners. Personably I'd do very well off the 40p band move, but to do so off the backs of the poor is unconscionable. Ripping up human rights which even sane Tories like Grieve think is stupid. In short a programme to drive real fear for millions - sure Labour are being too timid. Happily the Tories aren't, and fear sells very well.
Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
I'll sleep easy.
I don't expect Nick Griffin has a sleep problem, either.
Criticises a party that allowed 1400 kids to get raped on its watch while crimes went uninvestigated, crucial evidence was "lost" and councillors pressured the investigator not to make a big deal out of things... must be a BNP-type. That's Labour logic for you.
This is the biggest domestic scandal of the last 40 years. You're damn right you should take crap for it.
Not the city - but the location for prospective attendees. Somewhere more central for the majority of their activist appeared to be a lot more realistic to get vital rare bums on seats.
If my Party were polling in the mid single digits - I'd not bother to drag myself to Glasgow either. It must be very disheartening for their supporters. I feel a bit sorry for them.
Stodge If there is a Tory majority Cameron has now said tax cuts will begin in 2016, my point was if the Coalition continues LDs would block it until a surplus achieved. Osborne is forcecasting spending, which has fallen to 44% from 47% in 2010, will reach 38% by 2018-2019 ie about the same as the 38% of GDP taken in tax revenue, so it is then a surplus is forecast
One of the media pack suggested a while ago that the reason the conferences are now in cities is said places have some pretty good restaurants these days. Maybe Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton can't really compete with their fish and chips.
@faisalislam: And the answer we can now see because the poll data has been released lies with an extraordinary change in voting intentions of ex LibDems..
@faisalislam: Yougov poll shows that, in one day of PMs speech, 2010 ex LibDem voters wanting to vote Conservative > doubled http://t.co/5xrz284oXL
That can't be true. 2010 ex LibDem voters are Labour's firewall.
Hmm. This doesn't sound right. If I've got my maths right then around 40 LibDems out of 430 surveyed were involved in this further switch from LibDem->Tory (although obviously not exactly same ones). Seems very high. Problem with online polls?
I loved his comment - along the lines of "Labour aren't talking about immigration, this is a mistake. I'm an immigrant and we're importing too many of the wrong sort".
If Miliband doesn't act after all that's happened, it's pretty obvious nothing will cause him to change his mind at this point. It's pretty damn clear that unskilled immigration from unstable parts of the world is a huge burden of this country, but they persist in supporting it regardless. The reason is obvious: people that come in poor and stay poor vote Labour in huge numbers.
The imagery is helped by the 'economy bigger than before the recession' reports and the widespread belief that government debt is falling.
UK statistics authority facts. Public sector net debt. June 2010 - £997.4bn (64.0% of GDP) Sept 2014 - £1,432.3bn (79.1% of GDP) That vast increase in debt must be what Osborne and Cameron mean when they say debt is falling. Obve austerity is having a positive effect on national finances.....
In order to actually cut nominal debt, when one starts with a budget deficit of £160 bn, you'd have to cut public spending by 25% from day one. That would be impossible to deliver.
True, but it is what Osborne promised. Politics is a funny world, where the electorate publically demands honesty but has a short memory and doesn't punish loads of broken promises. Of course, you can go too far for them to bear.
Mr. HYUFD, the worm does not merely reflect the views of the small group selected, it affects the perception of the audience watching it to a statistically significant degree. That is why it must be axed. If even a single one of the small number whose views alter the worm is biased for or against an individual or party that can make a critical difference to how thousands of people view the debate. It's unacceptable, and unnecessary. The worm should be axed.
The Tory conference was a gift to us. Punitive cuts to in work benefits for the grafting poor. £36bn a year of cits which will destroy what's left of public services and civic society. To pay for tax cuts for top earners. Personably I'd do very well off the 40p band move, but to do so off the backs of the poor is unconscionable. Ripping up human rights which even sane Tories like Grieve think is stupid. In short a programme to drive real fear for millions - sure Labour are being too timid. Happily the Tories aren't, and fear sells very well.
Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
I'll sleep easy.
Good that proves the point
Clearly troubling your conscience ?, The contrast between nice upper class Stellas Creasy, relation to the aristicracy and Oxbridge Political sciences getting justice and 1400 WWC victims seeing nowt just sums it up.
Stella Creasy: read social and political sciences at Cambridge (similar to PPE) then did a postgrad at LSE. Then started working as a parliamentary researcher, doing a PhD in social psychology as well.
Then worked as a lobbyist and PR consultant, was deputy director of a think tank and researched/wrote speeches for Labour ministers in the last government.
There's no commitment on when this will happen and everyone assumes it will be in Osborne's Budget. .
No.
Its clear:
i) its in the next Parliament with a majority Con government ii) Once the deficit has been eliminated reduced - theres been a bit of fudge over this in the last few days.
Why would it not be the same as the delivered increase in personal tax allowance - implemented over the period of the Parliament?
It may be clear to you but that's not how it's been reported. I suspect if you ask 100 people what they understand by the pledge on the tax rate, 99 will say they expect the threshold to be raised to £50k by Osborne in his next Budget.
The Tory media has jumped on this as a pre-election giveaway and this has, in my view, given the Conservatives a boost in the polls.
And what happens when this doesn't happen.
It simply becomes another "cast iron guarentee" that drives tories to UKIP.
I loved his comment - along the lines of "Labour aren't talking about immigration, this is a mistake. I'm an immigrant and we're importing too many of the wrong sort".
If Miliband doesn't act after all that's happened, it's pretty obvious nothing will cause him to change his mind at this point. It's pretty damn clear that unskilled immigration from unstable parts of the world is a huge burden of this country, but they persist in supporting it regardless. The reason is obvious: people that come in poor and stay poor vote Labour in huge numbers.
Problem is people use stats like 'immigration is a net benefit to the UK', sure it is, if you include bankers from the US, or engineers from Germany..
Thats not what people think of when they think of immigration.
Bold claim. But why should the weightings be so wrong? #FrankBooth
I have a suspicion that some pollsters change the weightings to suit their agendas. I can't prove it but some sudden movements - and they do happen - are problematic.
I loved his comment - along the lines of "Labour aren't talking about immigration, this is a mistake. I'm an immigrant and we're importing too many of the wrong sort".
If Miliband doesn't act after all that's happened, it's pretty obvious nothing will cause him to change his mind at this point. It's pretty damn clear that unskilled immigration from unstable parts of the world is a huge burden of this country, but they persist in supporting it regardless. The reason is obvious: people that come in poor and stay poor vote Labour in huge numbers.
Do Labour support unskilled immigration from unstable parts of the world? Arguably they did early in the Blair era, but what are the specific policies you're thinking of that they have now?
Of course the public support these policies. The ST could have saved themselves some money by using the Tories own polling which they would have done before making the announcement.
On a more interesting subject the problem with Ed seems to be becoming acute. This thing has gone way beyond the borders of PB and seems to be gathering momentum at a horrifying speed. It is rapidly becoming THE story.
It's difficult to know what to do other than hope that Cameron in his quest for UKIP votes makes himself so repulsive to those in the centre that they vote for Ed as a way of stopping the 'New Right'
It's getting late to change horses and it's difficult to see what Ed can try that he hasn't already. I think some of us have been thinking that under the disguise of the wonkish exterior lay a super brain. I'm starting to fear that infact under that wonkish exterior was a wonk
Mark Littlewood (ex Lds media boss) writes in the Mail:
"Do you remember Kodak? Once a respected corporate giant, hugely successful in a competitive marketplace, the company’s fall from grace is now studied in business schools across the globe.
Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.....
In years to come, the Liberal Democrats might be used as a case study by political historians in much the same way. Nick Clegg is in severe danger of leading the Kodak party of British politics. The political and economic environment has changed enormously in the past four years and the Lib Dems have utterly failed to change with it.
From the height of Cleggmania in the election campaign of 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister now finds his personal ratings on the floor and his party a margin of error or two from ceasing to register in the opinion polls at all.....
What went wrong? Well, there has been a range of spectacularly bad tactical and campaigning missteps. But the heart of what went wrong for the Lib Dems is the same as what went wrong for Kodak. A failure to recognise – let alone adapt to – dramatic and deep changes in the world in which they operate."
Iif the 40% band is currently as stated (£41K) and given nominal income growth of 5% per annum* the equation 41 * (1.05 pow 5) equals 52.3275440625 according to Macrosoft's Calc (Vista).** The promise is as contemptible as R'Ed Milliband's miminum-wage promise!
I really think we have wasted billions on educating nothing more then thick people. Shame that only an elite can benefit despite the largesse....
* Real income growth of 2.7% coupled with 2.3% price-inflation. ** Projections are 2020.
The Tory conference was a gift to us. Punitive cuts to in work benefits for the grafting poor. £36bn a year of cits which will destroy what's left of public services and civic society. To pay for tax cuts for top earners. Personably I'd do very well off the 40p band move, but to do so off the backs of the poor is unconscionable. Ripping up human rights which even sane Tories like Grieve think is stupid. In short a programme to drive real fear for millions - sure Labour are being too timid. Happily the Tories aren't, and fear sells very well.
Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
@faisalislam: And the answer we can now see because the poll data has been released lies with an extraordinary change in voting intentions of ex LibDems..
@faisalislam: Yougov poll shows that, in one day of PMs speech, 2010 ex LibDem voters wanting to vote Conservative > doubled http://t.co/5xrz284oXL
That can't be true. 2010 ex LibDem voters are Labour's firewall.
Hmm. This doesn't sound right. If I've got my maths right then around 40 LibDems out of 430 surveyed were involved in this further switch from LibDem->Tory (although obviously not exactly same ones). Seems very high. Problem with online polls?
It's true, you can't draw definitive conclusions from such small sub-samples.
However, Faisal Islam's conclusions are no less true than conclusions others have drawn about 2010 Lib Dems being a "firewall" for Labour, using the data in some of the other polls we've had.
Quite a few 2010 Lib Dems will break in favour of Labour next year. But I think it's a nonsense to believe they'll put Ed Miliband into No.10.
More broadly I'd like to ask a Lib Dem about his party. Virtually the only criticism the Lib Dems are making of Labour is that they will send the country towards bankruptcy. This in spite of the fact that Labour's fiscal plans are pretty much the same as the Lib Dems. Meanwhile you have the Tories drifting to the right on welfare, tax, human rights, the environment - anything you care to mention, all inspired by Farage.
Time to end equidistance and say what you really think?
To be honest, as I can't recall you ever saying anything positive about the LDs, you'll forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical about your motives. You're clearly in or near the Conservative camp but it's Sunday.
If the standard of debate starts from "Labour's fiscal plans are pretty much the same as the Lib Dems", I'm going to have an uphill struggle.
Nick's speech yesterday was absolutely right on the mark and light years in front of Cameron's vacuous promises on Wednesday. Quite clearly, neither the Conservatives nor Labour as majority Governments would be for the benefit of the country. As part of a broadly successful Coalition, the LDs have been able to implement a number of key policies (and certainly far more than we would have achieved sitting in the comfy chair of Opposition nursing a 20% poll rating).
It would be nice if, in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill, the Coalition could continue its good work (and I suspect privately Cameron would like that too) but the more adversarial elements in the Conservative Party clearly want to play the traditional game of political knockabout and that's fair enough as long as no one takes them seriously.
As for Labour, as others have pointed out, Nick has stood four-square in opposition to their tax and spending policies and rightly so. There may be some areas where there is some common ground with Labour but the journey to a post-election deal with Labour is for me looking fraught at best.
If equidistance involves pointing out the inherent flaws in both parties' plans while stressing areas of agreement, that's fine by me as well. My view has long been there won't be a Coalition after the GE - indeed, I'd be surprised if the LDs even offered S&C to either party.
Exactly - I live on the South Coast - a trip to Glasgow and back would cost a bomb and take a whole day in itself. I'd go as far as Birmingham and back. Even maybe Leeds.
Surely a Scottish LD mini-conference to rally the local troops would be much more effective? Locating a conf that's out of the boomerang range of many supporters is counter-productive. Symbolism is meaningless if hardly any attend.
Not the city - but the location for prospective attendees. Somewhere more central for the majority of their activist appeared to be a lot more realistic to get vital rare bums on seats.
If my Party were polling in the mid single digits - I'd not bother to drag myself to Glasgow either. It must be very disheartening for their supporters. I feel a bit sorry for them.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
Not the city - but the location for prospective attendees. Somewhere more central for the majority of their activist appeared to be a lot more realistic to get vital rare bums on seats.
If my Party were polling in the mid single digits - I'd not bother to drag myself to Glasgow either. It must be very disheartening for their supporters. I feel a bit sorry for them.
Iif the 40% band is currently as stated (£41K) and given nominal income growth of 5% per annum* the equation 41 * (1.05 pow 5) equals 52.3275440625 according to Macrosoft's Calc (Vista).** The promise is as contemptible as R'Ed Milliband's miminum-wage promise!
I really think we have wasted billions on educating nothing more then thick people. Shame that only an elite can benefit despite the largesse....
* Real income growth of 2.7% coupled with 2.3% price-inflation. ** Projections are 2020.
It is I think even worse than that. I did some fag packet calculations the other day and by my reckoning the 40% threshold would have been comfortably over 50k by now if successive chancellors had not used the dishonest measure of fiscal drag to bring more and more people within its scope. The number of people paying 40% has risen by about 1 million under Conservative chancellor Osborne.
@faisalislam: And the answer we can now see because the poll data has been released lies with an extraordinary change in voting intentions of ex LibDems..
@faisalislam: Yougov poll shows that, in one day of PMs speech, 2010 ex LibDem voters wanting to vote Conservative > doubled http://t.co/5xrz284oXL
That can't be true. 2010 ex LibDem voters are Labour's firewall.
Hmm. This doesn't sound right. If I've got my maths right then around 40 LibDems out of 430 surveyed were involved in this further switch from LibDem->Tory (although obviously not exactly same ones). Seems very high. Problem with online polls?
It's true, you can't draw definitive conclusions from such small sub-samples.
However, Faisal Islam's conclusions are no less true than conclusions others have drawn about 2010 Lib Dems being a "firewall" for Labour, using the data in some of the other polls we've had.
Quite a few 2010 Lib Dems will break in favour of Labour next year. But I think it's a nonsense to believe they'll put Ed Miliband into No.10.
The firewall argument holds more water when it is based on marginal seat surveys.
Mr. HYUFD, polling's a different matter. The worm has fewer people determine it *and* has a significant impact on how others view things, in the heat of an election. It shapes public opinion rather than reflecting it. It's unnecessary, wide open to bias (deliberate or accidental) and should be scrapped.
TBH, I don't think Clacton really has much too worry him at all either way. Most Tories seem to think that Mr Carswell has made a mistake - but a heartfelt one and that he's a fairly honorable chap, but misguided.
He was always a stone in the shoe. Mr Reckless is a different kettle of fish, as many of us have noted.
It's never good to lose someone to a rival, but nor is it something to panic unduly over. If it'd turned into a Gang Of Four - I'd be concerned. It appears not since the £1m IOU press conference.
The effect of Cameron's speech has at least bought himself a quieter time from Leadership speculation and the ability to absorb the Clacton loss. Ed Milliband's Omnishambles Speech is the gift that keeps on giving. It is clearly having a corrosive effect and eroding enthusiasm within Labour.
Mr Carswell is incredibly bright, and incredibly thoughtful: even those who disagree with him would not doubt his motives, nor his passion.
What deep thoughts has Mr Reckless had? What flashes of wisdom? While no one doubts the sincerity of Mr Carswell's move, with Mr Reckless there is the nagging doubt: is he only doing this because he knows there is no hope of advancement in the Conservative Party?
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
stodge - you can't read many of my posts if you think I'm a Tory! I've been on here over 7 years. I voted Lib Dem in 2010 and I'm disgusted. I believe Labour and Lib Dems are both looking to eliminate borrowing minus capital spending for 2018/19. Clegg has told Marr we need to raise taxes. If you're familiar with Stephen Tall on libdemvoice, he has a running list of all the areas of policy agreement between the two.
The Lib Dems should set out what they believe in and then challenge the other parties to move towards them if they wish to do a deal. They are far more likely than Ukip to be holding the balance of power next time. The policy of maintaining equidistance between red and blue makes them nothing more than a straw in the wind without backbone. A reactive party not a rooted one.
Mark Littlewood (ex Lds media boss) writes in the Mail:
"Do you remember Kodak? Once a respected corporate giant, hugely successful in a competitive marketplace, the company’s fall from grace is now studied in business schools across the globe.
Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.....
In years to come, the Liberal Democrats might be used as a case study by political historians in much the same way. Nick Clegg is in severe danger of leading the Kodak party of British politics. The political and economic environment has changed enormously in the past four years and the Lib Dems have utterly failed to change with it.
From the height of Cleggmania in the election campaign of 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister now finds his personal ratings on the floor and his party a margin of error or two from ceasing to register in the opinion polls at all.....
What went wrong? Well, there has been a range of spectacularly bad tactical and campaigning missteps. But the heart of what went wrong for the Lib Dems is the same as what went wrong for Kodak. A failure to recognise – let alone adapt to – dramatic and deep changes in the world in which they operate."
Nice metaphor, but IMHO complete nonsense. The LibDems have fallen to the floor because a significant chunk of their vote were Social Liberals who do not want to be in bed with a Tory and indeed, under Charlie K were sometimes to the left of Labour. Arguably a whole new category of voter can be found in the German 'Free Democrat" model of an economic liberal, freedom at all costs, right of centre policy area that I mentioned on here yesterday, and maybe thats where Littlewood and Browne want to go, but that's years of work and Vince and Farron aren't going with him.
TBH, I don't think Clacton really has much too worry him at all either way. Most Tories seem to think that Mr Carswell has made a mistake - but a heartfelt one and that he's a fairly honorable chap, but misguided.
He was always a stone in the shoe. Mr Reckless is a different kettle of fish, as many of us have noted.
It's never good to lose someone to a rival, but nor is it something to panic unduly over. If it'd turned into a Gang Of Four - I'd be concerned. It appears not since the £1m IOU press conference.
The effect of Cameron's speech has at least bought himself a quieter time from Leadership speculation and the ability to absorb the Clacton loss. Ed Milliband's Omnishambles Speech is the gift that keeps on giving. It is clearly having a corrosive effect and eroding enthusiasm within Labour.
Mr Carswell is incredibly bright, and incredibly thoughtful: even those who disagree with him would not doubt his motives, nor his passion.
What deep thoughts has Mr Reckless had? What flashes of wisdom? While no one doubts the sincerity of Mr Carswell's move, with Mr Reckless there is the nagging doubt: is he only doing this because he knows there is no hope of advancement in the Conservative Party?
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
I have been tempted to defend Carswell, albeit I've met him and not Reckless. He was always independent minded, even within the Tories. I've seen no indication Reckless was the same.
"Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy....."
That's a silly example. Kodak made their money out of film. I wonder how many highwaymen survived the introduction of the motorway??
Iif the 40% band is currently as stated (£41K) and given nominal income growth of 5% per annum* the equation 41 * (1.05 pow 5) equals 52.3275440625 according to Macrosoft's Calc (Vista).** The promise is as contemptible as R'Ed Milliband's miminum-wage promise!
I really think we have wasted billions on educating nothing more then thick people. Shame that only an elite can benefit despite the largesse....
* Real income growth of 2.7% coupled with 2.3% price-inflation. ** Projections are 2020.
It is I think even worse than that. I did some fag packet calculations the other day and by my reckoning the 40% threshold would have been comfortably over 50k by now if successive chancellors had not used the dishonest measure of fiscal drag to bring more and more people within its scope. The number of people paying 40% has risen by about 1 million under Conservative chancellor Osborne.
Hmm. I see the same facts a little differently.
All parties are tempted to see the threshold as a painless way to pluck the chicken. In spite of that, Osborne has (now) opted to safeguard it for the next five years.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
We'll see.
But isn't weighted data far more accurate in Voting Intention polling compared to the referendum when even the pollsters were admitting they could be really ballsing up?
rcs - I noted that about the wiki page too - where else to go if you have virtually no idea who someone is? I'm suspicious of how people get a high regard in the city but it seemed unlikely that a guy barely above work experience age would be one of the industry's top economists. Where was Keynes at 24?
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
We'll see.
But isn't weighted data far more accurate in Voting Intention polling compared to the referendum when even the pollsters were admitting they could be really ballsing up?
Could be - like I said, we'll see. I suspect there is some uptick from the conference personally. How much is the question.
Not the city - but the location for prospective attendees. Somewhere more central for the majority of their activist appeared to be a lot more realistic to get vital rare bums on seats.
If my Party were polling in the mid single digits - I'd not bother to drag myself to Glasgow either. It must be very disheartening for their supporters. I feel a bit sorry for them.
I would have gone if it were within a couple of hours by train or car, but to Glasgow and then back to work on Monday? Not possible.
Having it in Scotland is understandable because of the Scottish LD seats under threat, but not practicable for many English or Welsh.
I've got a day trip there from London tomorrow - fringe meeting with Norman Baker at 1815. If Stodge or others there are free it'd be nice to say hello
Good. Hopefully they can grow up now. Have you read the account of what happened to the Top Gear team in Argentina in today's STimes?
Eff-me - really scary stuff. And just makes the Argies in that part of the country look incredibly insecure/willy wavers and thugs.
Mr Clarkson noted that they changed the number plate whilst they were still in Chile, and that it was actually all a trap. He made a typically amusing joke about not changing it from H982FLK to W3WON...
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
Now which editor of Britain's most-read political blog once opined so memorably that a rogue poll is one which you don't like?
TBH, I don't think Clacton really has much too worry him at all either way. Most Tories seem to think that Mr Carswell has made a mistake - but a heartfelt one and that he's a fairly honorable chap, but misguided.
He was always a stone in the shoe. Mr Reckless is a different kettle of fish, as many of us have noted.
It's never good to lose someone to a rival, but nor is it something to panic unduly over. If it'd turned into a Gang Of Four - I'd be concerned. It appears not since the £1m IOU press conference.
The effect of Cameron's speech has at least bought himself a quieter time from Leadership speculation and the ability to absorb the Clacton loss. Ed Milliband's Omnishambles Speech is the gift that keeps on giving. It is clearly having a corrosive effect and eroding enthusiasm within Labour.
Mr Carswell is incredibly bright, and incredibly thoughtful: even those who disagree with him would not doubt his motives, nor his passion.
What deep thoughts has Mr Reckless had? What flashes of wisdom? While no one doubts the sincerity of Mr Carswell's move, with Mr Reckless there is the nagging doubt: is he only doing this because he knows there is no hope of advancement in the Conservative Party?
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
I have been tempted to defend Carswell, albeit I've met him and not Reckless. He was always independent minded, even within the Tories. I've seen no indication Reckless was the same.
Carswell seemed ever keen to appear on the box and slag off the government. He was never going to get promtion as a Conservative. He might as a kipper.
That's a super edit. I do love the Wiki-Edit-Wars. Some of them are extremely funny.
I confess to having a play with Derek Draper's back in the day. Oh how I miss him, just great box-office car crash material.
His degree from Berkeley that wasn't. Guido going to the States just to make a video to embarrass him. It was just hilarious warfare between those two.
TBH, I don't think Clacton really has much too worry him at all either way. Most Tories seem to think that Mr Carswell has made a mistake - but a heartfelt one and that he's a fairly honorable chap, but misguided.
He was always a stone in the shoe. Mr Reckless is a different kettle of fish, as many of us have noted.
It's never good to lose someone to a rival, but nor is it something to panic unduly over. If it'd turned into a Gang Of Four - I'd be concerned. It appears not since the £1m IOU press conference.
The effect of Cameron's speech has at least bought himself a quieter time from Leadership speculation and the ability to absorb the Clacton loss. Ed Milliband's Omnishambles Speech is the gift that keeps on giving. It is clearly having a corrosive effect and eroding enthusiasm within Labour.
Mr Carswell is incredibly bright, and incredibly thoughtful: even those who disagree with him would not doubt his motives, nor his passion.
What deep thoughts has Mr Reckless had? What flashes of wisdom? While no one doubts the sincerity of Mr Carswell's move, with Mr Reckless there is the nagging doubt: is he only doing this because he knows there is no hope of advancement in the Conservative Party?
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
That's a silly example. Kodak made their money out of film. I wonder how many highwaymen survived the introduction of the motorway??
So their profession* was unaffected by the introduction of railways! Gosh Wodger you should produce some Al-Beeb history documentaries; your knowledge is unbounded and - sadly - wasted here...!
* Highwaymen; not Kodak's! Performed using "How to use Vanilla Editing for Dummies (101)".
TBH, I don't think Clacton really has much too worry him at all either way. Most Tories seem to think that Mr Carswell has made a mistake - but a heartfelt one and that he's a fairly honorable chap, but misguided.
He was always a stone in the shoe. Mr Reckless is a different kettle of fish, as many of us have noted.
It's never good to lose someone to a rival, but nor is it something to panic unduly over. If it'd turned into a Gang Of Four - I'd be concerned. It appears not since the £1m IOU press conference.
The effect of Cameron's speech has at least bought himself a quieter time from Leadership speculation and the ability to absorb the Clacton loss. Ed Milliband's Omnishambles Speech is the gift that keeps on giving. It is clearly having a corrosive effect and eroding enthusiasm within Labour.
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
The source for that 'top three' claim is an article.....he wrote himself!
Comments
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=HBOP&dataset=pnbp&table-id=B
In 1997 the UK had a balance of payments deficit of £1bn, in 2007 and 2010 it had reached £40bn.
The last four quarters it has totaled over £90bn.
What we have from Osborne is Brownism on steroids - the government borrows money, distributes it for spending and then it flows out of the country.
This is why Balls has so much difficulty in attacking Osborne - Osborne is doing exactly what Balls would have done himself.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment.
Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you is going to talk about the moral high ground.
#rumbled
You should be ashamed of that comment
No you should be ashamed you let it happen for 10 years.
Well that says it all about you.
Go read your original post
If you think that is justified you are beyond contempt.
"The party that gets your kids raped in front of you"
I'll sleep easy.
Good that proves the point
Clearly troubling your conscience ?, The contrast between nice upper class Stellas Creasy, relation to the aristicracy and Oxbridge Political sciences getting justice and 1400 WWC victims seeing nowt just sums it up.
You have a problem if you think "Yeah, the party that gets your kids raped in front of you" is an appropriate comment.
Not discussing any further.
Sleep Easy.
Ah yes you're from south yorks.
Trolled
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/why-george-osbornes-headlinegrabbing-claims-are-wrong-9774889.html
Thought I was on a winner when Vettel pitted but sadly no.
Eff-me - really scary stuff. And just makes the Argies in that part of the country look incredibly insecure/willy wavers and thugs.
Mr Clarkson noted that they changed the number plate whilst they were still in Chile, and that it was actually all a trap. He made a typically amusing joke about not changing it from H982FLK to W3WON...
He also has a history of lying about government debt.
His speech was designed to be reported as it was ie more than the substance it contained.
@BBCNormanS: "We must raise taxes " -Nick Clegg #marrshow
I think he will deliver on the tax - that's just a question of proper budgeting. The far more difficult subjects of the EU repatriations, immigration and human rights reform are another matter.
June 2010 - £997.4bn (64.0% of GDP)
Sept 2014 - £1,432.3bn (79.1% of GDP)
That vast increase in debt must be what Osborne and Cameron mean when they say debt is falling. Obve austerity is having a positive effect on national finances.....
The last week of polls have seen a declining ability of LAB to retain their 2010VI.
This morning this is down to 77% (a low point for 2014). Of the lost 23%, Cons have 7%, UKIP, 6%, Green 4%; SNP/PC 3% and LD 1%.
At the same time, the Cons have retained 78% whilst losing 16% to UKIP and 3% to LAB, 2% to LD and 1% to Green.
The LD's retention is 26%, losing 20% to Cons, 29% to LAB, 9% TO UKIP, 11% to Green.3% to Nats and 1% to BNP. Almost anyone but LD.
Whether these splits will revert to pre-Conf levels remains to be seen, but there is an impression of LAB losing voters.
For a political class which is increasingly dominated by metropolitan mindsets this "let's have a conference at the same sort of place we spend the rest of our time in" merely cuts them off even further from different experiences and alternative viewpoints.
Perhaps that's deemed to be an attraction.
Mr. Owls, very unlucky. I did consider that (and Red Bull to top score), as well as the other things I highlighted in my pre-race piece.
So what is the policy for raising the threshold ?
The bit about the Conservative majority is clear but may not be necessary.
IF we continue to run a deficit by 2019-2020, does that mean the threshold won't be raised ?
If the threshold is raised while a deficit still exists, isn't that a clear case of the Conservatives being irresponsible about tackling the deficit ?
Am I alone in thinking events in the Eurozone might once again scupper Osborne and Cameron's well-laid fiscal and political plans ?
As for the YouGov polling, to simply say if you think something will happen by 2020 is one thing - the question is whether people think it will happen by 2016 ?
Oh, I forgot - yours lost and spat out his dummy. Then rang radio phone-ins and embarrassed himself.
More broadly I'd like to ask a Lib Dem about his party. Virtually the only criticism the Lib Dems are making of Labour is that they will send the country towards bankruptcy. This in spite of the fact that Labour's fiscal plans are pretty much the same as the Lib Dems. Meanwhile you have the Tories drifting to the right on welfare, tax, human rights, the environment - anything you care to mention, all inspired by Farage.
Time to end equidistance and say what you really think?
Lab 35.6% (-0.5)
Con 32.7% (+1.0)
UKIP 14.4% (-0.3)
LD 7.4% (+0.1)
Lab lead 2.9% (-1.5)
Changes from the first ELBOW on 17th August:
Lab -0.6
Con -0.5
UKIP +1.3
LD -1.4
Lab lead -0.1
Personally, a lot of the romance seems to have gone now they don't meet in Blackpool, Bournemouth and so on.
Despite all the good news, the GE betting markets remain unmoved.
The Rochester by-election odds on the other hand have suddenly returned to just about where they started off. UKIP opened at 1/2, drifted out to 5/4, are now back to 1/2 or thereabouts. Presumably this is a consequence of the overnite poll, rather curiously described by one PBers as 'not good for Reckless.'
In fact it wasn't that great. A 9% lead is usual, but not overwhelming at this stage. Maybe punters are starting to factor in a UKIP bounce from Clacton, where the betting is pretty much confined to the size of the vote share.
I'm planning to go there on Tuesday. If any other PBers are in the area and would like to meet up for a drink, or just a chin-wag, drop me a line.
Usual address: arklebar@gmail.com
This is the biggest domestic scandal of the last 40 years. You're damn right you should take crap for it.
Having it in Scotland is understandable because of the Scottish LD seats under threat, but not practicable for many English or Welsh.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/japan-post-race-analysis.html
I'm going to have to start proof-reading more carefully for typos.
It won't be. Alas.
Then worked as a lobbyist and PR consultant, was deputy director of a think tank and researched/wrote speeches for Labour ministers in the last government.
Then she became an MP. Yup, very "real world".
It simply becomes another "cast iron guarentee" that drives tories to UKIP.
Thats not what people think of when they think of immigration.
I'd got into the habit of editing after posting. That will have to stop. My previous post was even more incoherent than usual.
I have a suspicion that some pollsters change the weightings to suit their agendas. I can't prove it but some sudden movements - and they do happen - are problematic.
And thats all I can say on PB.
On a more interesting subject the problem with Ed seems to be becoming acute. This thing has gone way beyond the borders of PB and seems to be gathering momentum at a horrifying speed. It is rapidly becoming THE story.
It's difficult to know what to do other than hope that Cameron in his quest for UKIP votes makes himself so repulsive to those in the centre that they vote for Ed as a way of stopping the 'New Right'
It's getting late to change horses and it's difficult to see what Ed can try that he hasn't already. I think some of us have been thinking that under the disguise of the wonkish exterior lay a super brain. I'm starting to fear that infact under that wonkish exterior was a wonk
"Do you remember Kodak? Once a respected corporate giant, hugely successful in a competitive marketplace, the company’s fall from grace is now studied in business schools across the globe.
Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.....
In years to come, the Liberal Democrats might be used as a case study by political historians in much the same way. Nick Clegg is in severe danger of leading the Kodak party of British politics. The political and economic environment has changed enormously in the past four years and the Lib Dems have utterly failed to change with it.
From the height of Cleggmania in the election campaign of 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister now finds his personal ratings on the floor and his party a margin of error or two from ceasing to register in the opinion polls at all.....
What went wrong? Well, there has been a range of spectacularly bad tactical and campaigning missteps. But the heart of what went wrong for the Lib Dems is the same as what went wrong for Kodak. A failure to recognise – let alone adapt to – dramatic and deep changes in the world in which they operate."
Iif the 40% band is currently as stated (£41K) and given nominal income growth of 5% per annum* the equation 41 * (1.05 pow 5) equals 52.3275440625 according to Macrosoft's Calc (Vista).** The promise is as contemptible as R'Ed Milliband's miminum-wage promise!
I really think we have wasted billions on educating nothing more then thick people. Shame that only an elite can benefit despite the largesse....
* Real income growth of 2.7% coupled with 2.3% price-inflation.
** Projections are 2020.
However, Faisal Islam's conclusions are no less true than conclusions others have drawn about 2010 Lib Dems being a "firewall" for Labour, using the data in some of the other polls we've had.
Quite a few 2010 Lib Dems will break in favour of Labour next year. But I think it's a nonsense to believe they'll put Ed Miliband into No.10.
If the standard of debate starts from "Labour's fiscal plans are pretty much the same as the Lib Dems", I'm going to have an uphill struggle.
Nick's speech yesterday was absolutely right on the mark and light years in front of Cameron's vacuous promises on Wednesday. Quite clearly, neither the Conservatives nor Labour as majority Governments would be for the benefit of the country. As part of a broadly successful Coalition, the LDs have been able to implement a number of key policies (and certainly far more than we would have achieved sitting in the comfy chair of Opposition nursing a 20% poll rating).
It would be nice if, in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill, the Coalition could continue its good work (and I suspect privately Cameron would like that too) but the more adversarial elements in the Conservative Party clearly want to play the traditional game of political knockabout and that's fair enough as long as no one takes them seriously.
As for Labour, as others have pointed out, Nick has stood four-square in opposition to their tax and spending policies and rightly so. There may be some areas where there is some common ground with Labour but the journey to a post-election deal with Labour is for me looking fraught at best.
If equidistance involves pointing out the inherent flaws in both parties' plans while stressing areas of agreement, that's fine by me as well. My view has long been there won't be a Coalition after the GE - indeed, I'd be surprised if the LDs even offered S&C to either party.
Surely a Scottish LD mini-conference to rally the local troops would be much more effective? Locating a conf that's out of the boomerang range of many supporters is counter-productive. Symbolism is meaningless if hardly any attend.
That's ridiculous. It takes me three to find the letter P.
@faisalislam: So @edballsmp tells murnaghan that he gives @Ed_Miliband 10/10 for his speech.. He read it two weeks before..
Edited to Add: Just because the "edit" feature has a time-remaining does not mean you have that time: It appears to be boilerplate and not DHTML/Ajax.
What deep thoughts has Mr Reckless had? What flashes of wisdom? While no one doubts the sincerity of Mr Carswell's move, with Mr Reckless there is the nagging doubt: is he only doing this because he knows there is no hope of advancement in the Conservative Party?
As an aside, his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless) is hilarious. Mark Reckless was not rated as "one of the top three UK economists in the City of London in 1996 and 1997 by Extel & Institutional Investor client surveys". He was the most junior member of a team that was well regarded. And he parted ways with them after a couple of years. I wonder who edited his page? Could it have been a member of his staff?
The Lib Dems should set out what they believe in and then challenge the other parties to move towards them if they wish to do a deal. They are far more likely than Ukip to be holding the balance of power next time. The policy of maintaining equidistance between red and blue makes them nothing more than a straw in the wind without backbone. A reactive party not a rooted one.
"Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy....."
That's a silly example. Kodak made their money out of film. I wonder how many highwaymen survived the introduction of the motorway??
All parties are tempted to see the threshold as a painless way to pluck the chicken. In spite of that, Osborne has (now) opted to safeguard it for the next five years.
I think they refused the opportunity to buy Netflix for six pound fifty (or similar) a few years ago.
All David Cameron has left now is abuse
Cameron has moved on little since his time as a low-rent PR man.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/04/tristram-hunt-all-david-cameron-has-left-is-abuse
Of one.
I confess to having a play with Derek Draper's back in the day. Oh how I miss him, just great box-office car crash material.
His degree from Berkeley that wasn't. Guido going to the States just to make a video to embarrass him. It was just hilarious warfare between those two.
* Highwaymen; not Kodak's! Performed using "How to use Vanilla Editing for Dummies (101)".
http://www.conservativehome.com//platform/2008/11/mark-reckless-g.html