politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The single issues that look most set to determine GE15 vote

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The single issues that look most set to determine GE15 votes: ICM’s new approach to what’s salient

As can be seen in the chart above the sample was asked to state the single most important issue that would influence their vote. For me the big surprise is that immigration is pipped for top place by the NHS and that the key personal financial areas of jobs, prices, and wages come in third.

Read the full story here

Financier

With so much talk about incomes not keeping up with costs, surprised that jobs/prices/wages is third. Other pollsters often use the word economy which is a wider definition and often takes first place. Also jobs are often a different subject. Has the question been asked this way to get a specific answer?

TGOHF

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

dugarbandier

seems unweighted the net LD to Labour switch is 7 voters

TGOHF

Financier said:

With so much talk about incomes not keeping up with costs, surprised that jobs/prices/wages is third. Other pollsters often use the word economy which is a wider definition and often takes first place. Also jobs are often a different subject. Has the question been asked this way to get a specific answer?

ICM Guardian - clue in the question.

Monksfield

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

I don't think most people are even aware of Mid Staffs and of those that are a tiny proportion of political obsessives see it as a party political issue. You feed your population bread and circuses and don't be surprised that's all they're interested in.

OldKingCole

TGOHF said:

Financier said:

With so much talk about incomes not keeping up with costs, surprised that jobs/prices/wages is third. Other pollsters often use the word economy which is a wider definition and often takes first place. Also jobs are often a different subject. Has the question been asked this way to get a specific answer?

ICM Guardian - clue in the question.

I suspect concern about prices alone is unchanged, jobs concerns are a bit easier, but wages are a worry. Agree with Finanacier that the question seems somewhat suspect.

And that’s writing as a Guardianista!

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Itajai

NHS top is not what H&M seemed to indicate.

Labour would be welcome to continue wittering on incessantly about the NHS and how there are only 24 days/hours/minutes/seconds left to "save" it.

logical_song

Kellner agrees with predominant PB view that UKIP threatens Tory future.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/13/do-angry-ukip-voters-threaten-tory-future/

logical_song

Not trying to restart the metric debate that we had on PB a little while back, but if you have 21 minutes to spare this podcast is fascinating and includes the history of the metric system, not just America's near miss:
http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnycs-leonard-lopate-show/e/why-didnt-america-ever-adopt-the-metric-system-35612761?refid=eml&autoplay=true

GeoffM

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

Gadfly

Setting the NHS aside, the things that concern voters most are a combination of Jobs, Prices, Wages and Immigration. Three of these concerns arguably stem from the Government deficit, and the fourth largely stems from our relationship with Europe.

Given that the deficit and Europe concern voters less, does this suggest that they unable to see the bigger picture, or are they simply responding to questions in an entirely selfish manner?

Innocent_Abroad

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

Geoff, how do you know they'd be alive if we had a different health-care system? (Other than the fantasy one in your head of course, in which no one ever dies, I suppose, except Labour activists and their families who presumably all catch Ebola PDQ...)

TheScreamingEagles

Isn't the answer obvious on how to appeal to both Kippers and Lib Dems?

Say a lack of immigration will destroy the NHS.

Oh when the Kippers say they are worried about immigration they aren't worried by a lack of immigration damaging the country.

rottenborough

Morning all

Look how low the deficit comes. This was such an issue in GE 2010. Do voters believe it has all been sorted out? This might help Labour.

Freggles

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

How many of them can you name?

BannedInParis

Gadfly said:

Setting the NHS aside, the things that concern voters most are a combination of Jobs, Prices, Wages and Immigration. Three of these concerns arguably stem from the Government deficit, and the fourth largely stems from our relationship with Europe.

Given that the deficit and Europe concern voters less, does this suggest that they unable to see the bigger picture, or are they simply responding to questions in an entirely selfish manner?

Both?

Millsy

The deficit comes 5th among all voters but 2nd for Tories.

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

Gadfly

BannedInParis said:

Gadfly said:

Setting the NHS aside, the things that concern voters most are a combination of Jobs, Prices, Wages and Immigration. Three of these concerns arguably stem from the Government deficit, and the fourth largely stems from our relationship with Europe.

Given that the deficit and Europe concern voters less, does this suggest that they unable to see the bigger picture, or are they simply responding to questions in an entirely selfish manner?

Both?

Thinking it through further, Europe's malaise is also impacting upon Jobs, Prices and Wages.

OGH is always keen to point out that people don't care about Europe. It appears to me that this is because they have no idea how much it affects the things that matter to them.

Innocent_Abroad

Millsy said:

The deficit comes 5th among all voters but 2nd for Tories.

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

Do you mean that it can't? or that it doesn't want to? Cameron is peddling the line that an EU referendum in 2017 will fix the issue - or at least, that's the unspoken message. I'd say the 2017 referendum will result in a victory that is worse than a defeat for his second-term administration (it will scarcely be a "government" in the sense of being able to actually govern) - just as the Scottish referendum was for Labour.

anotherDave

logical_song said:

Kellner agrees with predominant PB view that UKIP threatens Tory future.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/13/do-angry-ukip-voters-threaten-tory-future/

Think of it as creative destruction. Competition is good!

anotherDave

Millsy said:

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

If they've failed to address it in four years, it seems unlikely they're going to be able to change policy and get convincing results in seven months.

Easterross

Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.

Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.

Financier

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

Financier

anotherDave said:

Millsy said:

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

If they've failed to address it in four years, it seems unlikely they're going to be able to change policy and get convincing results in seven months.

Remember the Cons will be going into the GE as the Cons and not as a coalition where the LDs threw their toys put of the pram at anything they did not like as they were and are pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-ECHR etc.

TheScreamingEagles

Easterross said:

Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.

Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.

They prefer to be called the Yestapo or the Waffen Yes Yes.

So I am told.

So Yes supporters not content with being defeated in Scotland also wish to be defeated in England

anotherDave

Financier said:

With so much talk about incomes not keeping up with costs, surprised that jobs/prices/wages is third.

Other pollsters often use the word economy which is a wider definition and often takes first place. Also jobs are often a different subject. Has the question been asked this way to get a specific answer?

Jobs and wages could well be the driver of the immigration/europe numbers too.

Innocent_Abroad

Financier said:

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

An aberration? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Labour couldn't get its vote out due to lack of canvassing records etc; no because it was a by-election and Labour has never been able to get its vote out in by-elections in safe seats.

Pulpstar

The above is also a problem for Labour and it's WC/metropolitan split.

The Lib Dems don't really have such a problem - to have a problem like this you need to have more than a minibus full of voters in the first place.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

... how do you know they'd be alive if we had a different health-care system? (Other than the fantasy one in your head of course, in which no one ever dies, I suppose, except Labour activists and their families who presumably all catch Ebola PDQ...)

I would assume that would be because the first time you found yourself having to, say, drink out of a flower vase, you would check yourself out and go to another hospital, rather than having to stay at the one the NHS sends you to irrespective of flower vases.

anotherDave

Financier said:

anotherDave said:

Millsy said:

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

If they've failed to address it in four years, it seems unlikely they're going to be able to change policy and get convincing results in seven months.

Remember the Cons will be going into the GE as the Cons and not as a coalition where the LDs threw their toys put of the pram at anything they did not like as they were and are pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-ECHR etc.

Yes, but they are standing on their record in government. Zero credibility.

Perhaps UKIP will be able to dig deeper into current-Conservative support during the election campaign, when the government's record is highlighted?

Financier

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

Indigo

TheScreamingEagles said:

Isn't the answer obvious on how to appeal to both Kippers and Lib Dems?

Say a lack of immigration will destroy the NHS.

Oh when the Kippers say they are worried about immigration they aren't worried by a lack of immigration damaging the country.

Why would it, they are not proposing to stop immigration, just to stop immigration of people who would likely be a burden rather than an asset to the country. If the country needed immigrants to be nurses in the hospitals, I am sure nursing qualifications and experience would award a generous number of points in the application system, thats pretty much how it works in Australia.

felix

Freggles said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

How many of them can you name?

What a sick question - worthy of Burnham.

Financier

anotherDave said:

Financier said:

anotherDave said:

Millsy said:

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

If they've failed to address it in four years, it seems unlikely they're going to be able to change policy and get convincing results in seven months.

Remember the Cons will be going into the GE as the Cons and not as a coalition where the LDs threw their toys put of the pram at anything they did not like as they were and are pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-ECHR etc.

Yes, but they are standing on their record in government. Zero credibility.

Perhaps UKIP will be able to dig deeper into current-Conservative support during the election campaign, when the government's record is highlighted?

The record in government in that of the Coalition - I am sure that a lot more will come out about the LDs chosing reverse gear when the Cons were trying to engage 6th.

Pulpstar

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Sean_F

Financier said:

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

Overall 5-600,000 people who voted Labour in 2010 plan to vote UKIP, if polls are correct.

But, those numbers will vary hugely by constituency. You won't find many Labour-UKIP switchers in Inner London, Central Scotland, South Wales, university seats. But, you'll find plenty in South Yorkshire or the North East.

MarqueeMark

Innocent_Abroad said:

Financier said:

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

An aberration? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Labour couldn't get its vote out due to lack of canvassing records etc; no because it was a by-election and Labour has never been able to get its vote out in by-elections in safe seats.

Labour called the by-election with unseemly haste - before their former MP was even in the ground. If they had waited a little longer, they could have used the time to get better canvassing records.

But then, so could UKIP....

anotherDave

Financier said:

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

If you just look at 2010 voters you have to bear in mind that in 2010 swing voters moved away from Labour, towards the Conservatives, LDs, and others.

All those numbers really say is that 2010 Labour contained a smaller number of swing voters.

If you look at the local election results you see that 2010 Con voters, who had voted Labour in 2012, voted UKIP in 2013.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/47012/how-ukip-is-damaging-labour-reprised/

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014

Financier

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

MarqueeMark

24% voting on the NHS as top concern. Well, there's Ed's floor.....

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

... how do you know they'd be alive if we had a different health-care system? (Other than the fantasy one in your head of course, in which no one ever dies, I suppose, except Labour activists and their families who presumably all catch Ebola PDQ...)

I would assume that would be because the first time you found yourself having to, say, drink out of a flower vase, you would check yourself out and go to another hospital, rather than having to stay at the one the NHS sends you to irrespective of flower vases.

There is no reason to assume that Stafford was due to healthcare being delivered free at the point of use. At least, this Government rightly instituted an inquiry which didn't come to that conclusion. I do not defend Burnham's part in the matter, and I doubt he wants to much, either. It's cost him his chance of leading his Party, after all.

If you can point to a health-care system which does not produce a scandal of this sort every couple of decades or so, I'll reconsider my position.

What is behind your comment and similar ones earlier is an objection to the progressive taxation implicit in the NHS, because people with private health insurance are paying twice for it - more likely it's their employers who are paying the BUPA sub or whatever.

And what is behind the objection to progressive taxation? Greed. Only greed.

DecrepitJohnL

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

anotherDave

Financier said:

anotherDave said:

Financier said:

anotherDave said:

Millsy said:

And immigration is top for Tory voters not just Ukip voters so if the government could actually do something about it they are more likely to keep current voters and get extra kippers.

If they've failed to address it in four years, it seems unlikely they're going to be able to change policy and get convincing results in seven months.

Remember the Cons will be going into the GE as the Cons and not as a coalition where the LDs threw their toys put of the pram at anything they did not like as they were and are pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-ECHR etc.

Yes, but they are standing on their record in government. Zero credibility.

Perhaps UKIP will be able to dig deeper into current-Conservative support during the election campaign, when the government's record is highlighted?

The record in government in that of the Coalition - I am sure that a lot more will come out about the LDs chosing reverse gear when the Cons were trying to engage 6th.

So the LDs bullied us, vote Conservative?

That the Conservatives are pushing 'Miliband The Bogeyman' as an election theme suggests they don't think their record in government is going to impress the voters.

Pulpstar

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Under Article 8, 'everyone' has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

"This cannot be interfered with by a public authority except if done so legally and deemed necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

There are so many get out clauses that I think it might be some of our bed wetting judges rather than the rule itself that is the problem.

Anyway glad this judge has seen sense.

SouthamObserver

Big news from Spain - the Catalan government has cancelled the independence referendum that was scheduled for 9th November, but which was likely to be declared illegal by the Spanish constitutional court. Instead it's likely to call elections. These will be won by ERC, the left-wing independence party. It may well seek to declare independence unilaterally and will not settle for any devomax compromise. However, ERC is unlikely to win an overall majority. If it does things could get very nasty indeed.

DavidBrackenbury

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Actually, he was a failed asylum seeker before his criminal conviction. He would have been very unlikely to have been deported merely because of the asylum application. He was convicted and jailed and when deportation was proposed because of this, he appealed under Article 8 (right to a family life) of the ECHR. The recent tightening of the grounds that the judiciary can apply this article seem to have been successful in this case. However, if he had kept his head down and not committed a serious crime, I am sure he would have stayed indefinitely!

david_herdson

I can't take clearly any poll on voting factors that doesn't include in some way:

- Relative leadership quality of PM candidates
- local factors (e.g. my MP)
- 'The Economy' as an over-arching issue.

I know ICM have a reputation as the Gold Standard but prompting respondents with a list to choose from is a poor way to identify the key issues. Far better to do as Mori do and leave the question open.

Indeed, the fact that ICM still continue to prompt for Con, Lab and LD but not UKIP is indicative of how they're falling behind the game. Going by current polling, UKIP will probably outpoll the Lib Dems in the considerable majority of constituencies next year so why not prompt for them? The fact that they don't is probably the key reason why they're so far out of line with other pollsters and on this occasion, the crowd is probably nearer to being right.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

There is no reason to assume that Stafford was due to healthcare being delivered free at the point of use. At least, this Government rightly instituted an inquiry which didn't come to that conclusion. I do not defend Burnham's part in the matter, and I doubt he wants to much, either. It's cost him his chance of leading his Party, after all.

If you can point to a health-care system which does not produce a scandal of this sort every couple of decades or so, I'll reconsider my position.

What is behind your comment and similar ones earlier is an objection to the progressive taxation implicit in the NHS, because people with private health insurance are paying twice for it - more likely it's their employers who are paying the BUPA sub or whatever.

And what is behind the objection to progressive taxation? Greed. Only greed.

Oh come off it. I said nothing about the merit or otherwise of the service being free at the point of use, the question is about patient choice. Irrespective of how the care was funded, the patient should be free to transfer to a different hospital if they find the quality of care they are getting insufficient. Personally I lean more toward the sort of social insurance system the French have, where people have to be insured, and the well off pay for their own insurance, and the less well off having some or all of their insurance paid by the government.

CarlottaVance

If anyone fancies their chances as a connoisseur of architecture (or at least what motivates the Stirling Prize judges):

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/8670984.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter9

Bookmaker William Hill has revealed that O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects’ student centre at the LSE has been the most heavily backed to win this year’s RIBA Stirling Prize

I'd rate the Shard, London Olympics Aquatics Centre or Birmingham Library (which I've been in) ahead of the front runner....

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Indigo.

F1: BBC's Benson reckons Alonso's trying to decide between a certain McLaren deal or the possibility of a Mercedes seat in 2016 (that would be at the expense of Hamilton, if it happened, probably) after taking a year out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29604437

NickPalmer

anotherDave said:

Financier said:

The YG 2010 VIs since Clacton, show that both the Cons and LDs have lost VI to UKIP. However the loss of Labour VI to UKIP is very hard to see and certainly within MOE.

Thus was H&M an aberration or are the polls not picking it up?

If you just look at 2010 voters you have to bear in mind that in 2010 swing voters moved away from Labour, towards the Conservatives, LDs, and others.

All those numbers really say is that 2010 Labour contained a smaller number of swing voters.

If you look at the local election results you see that 2010 Con voters, who had voted Labour in 2012, voted UKIP in 2013.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/47012/how-ukip-is-damaging-labour-reprised/

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014

I think that's broadly right for H&M, though there's some churn. Labour marginally improved its vote share in H&M - the headline change is simply that anti-Labour voters switched to UKIP as the obvious challenger in a previously safe seat. As Sean F observes, Labour does lose votes to UKIP in significant numbers in Northern areas like H&M, and I think it was balanced there by gains from LibDems.

More generally, swing voters aren't uniform. In places like London (and Broxtowe, for that matter), they're generally ex-LibDems, mostly not at all tempted by UKIP. The problem for anti-Labour voters in the North of England is that it's really not clear who the main challenger is going to be - in many places it was the LibDems last time, and this time it coulds be any of Tories, LibDems or UKIP.

CarlottaVance

TheScreamingEagles said:

Easterross said:

Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.

Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.

So Yes supporters not content with being defeated in Scotland also wish to be defeated in England

Salmond got into a terrible strop on R4 when someone used the 'separation' word......

[Deleted User]

SouthamObserver said:

Big news from Spain - the Catalan government has cancelled the independence referendum that was scheduled for 9th November, but which was likely to be declared illegal by the Spanish constitutional court. Instead it's likely to call elections. These will be won by ERC, the left-wing independence party. It may well seek to declare independence unilaterally and will not settle for any devomax compromise. However, ERC is unlikely to win an overall majority. If it does things could get very nasty indeed.

And Italy also potentially very unstable:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11160081/Italys-UKIP-launches-drive-for-euro-referendum-as-five-year-depression-drags-on.html

Morris_Dancer

Surprised the Catalan vote is off (well, the referendum, there may be an election). Be interesting to see when they call it.

Worth remembering, though, non-political, the attempt to land on the comet will be made on the 12th of November.

SouthamObserver

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

BenM

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

What 1400 people? You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

There is no reason to assume that Stafford was due to healthcare being delivered free at the point of use. At least, this Government rightly instituted an inquiry which didn't come to that conclusion. I do not defend Burnham's part in the matter, and I doubt he wants to much, either. It's cost him his chance of leading his Party, after all.

If you can point to a health-care system which does not produce a scandal of this sort every couple of decades or so, I'll reconsider my position.

What is behind your comment and similar ones earlier is an objection to the progressive taxation implicit in the NHS, because people with private health insurance are paying twice for it - more likely it's their employers who are paying the BUPA sub or whatever.

And what is behind the objection to progressive taxation? Greed. Only greed.

Oh come off it. I said nothing about the merit or otherwise of the service being free at the point of use, the question is about patient choice. Irrespective of how the care was funded, the patient should be free to transfer to a different hospital if they find the quality of care they are getting insufficient. Personally I lean more toward the sort of social insurance system the French have, where people have to be insured, and the well off pay for their own insurance, and the less well off having some or all of their insurance paid by the government.

I have no problem with the French system. I have a huge problem trying to work out how to get there from here! As to being "free" to transfer to a different hospital, it's one thing here in central London where we are spoilt for choice among the teaching hospitals, another thing in a town like Stafford where the next hospital may well be 30 or 40 miles away. These things are rarely as straightforward as they seem:

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/health/2014/01/01/julie-bailey-backlash-over-cbe/

david_herdson

Easterross said:

Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.

Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.

They would be much better forming a formal alliance with regionalist parties where they exist and are broadly compatible with the SNP's aims, and funding deposits if necessary. The SNP, Plaid, SDLP, MK and Yorkshire First could field getting on for 200 candidates in their own areas and there are perhaps other similar regional English parties I don't know of. The non-English ones have a dozen Westminster seats between them, which is a very decent base upon which to claim entry to the debates.

BenM

david_herdson said:

I can't take clearly any poll on voting factors that doesn't include in some way:

- Relative leadership quality of PM candidates
- local factors (e.g. my MP)
- 'The Economy' as an over-arching issue.

.

In other words, factors Dave Herdson thinks voters ought to find important.

Darn those voters eh?

DavidBrackenbury

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

No one, not even the Torys, were against the principles of Human Rights. The UK had pretty good human rights long before the ECHR was given the force of law in the Human Rights Act. The problem has been some very questionable interpretations on Human Rights that have been made by Courts that are completely unaccountable to the UK electorate. It is ridiculous to suggest that if there is a change in the law to have UK oversight, that we will suddenly revert to a Police State. The UK has one of the proudest records on human rights going back centuries, long predating the Human Rights Act.

Financier

OT

Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research.

Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought.

The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere.

The research has been published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29601644

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Herdson, are you trying to make me into a political activist?

The SNP allying with those clowns from Yorkshire First would be ****ing infuriating. England needs a Parliament. One Parliament. Why the hell is one Parliament or Assembly the automatic choice for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, but not England? And why the **** should the SNP have any damned say in England getting a Parliament, let alone try and influence separatist fools from Yorkshire First?

English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction (although not far enough it's better than the status quo), and the efforts to carve England up into shitty little regional assemblies, city-regions and other nonsensical meaningless political fiefdoms is completely unacceptable.

JosiasJessop

In more sombre news, it seems like the ME conflict is spreading. As some of us warned last year:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-fighter-jets-bomb-pkk-positions-for-first-time-since-start-of-peace-bid.aspx?pageID=238&nID=72941&NewsCatID=341

Erdogan needs to decide whose side he is on.

Casino_Royale

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

Who are all these people who constantly obsess about the NHS? I virtually never use the thing. Are people really that ill?

Top issue for me would be Defence.

bigjohnowls

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

What are you ranting about 1400 dead people all killed by drinking water from flower vases were they?

MikeK

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, I'm sure ISIS will be grateful to Erdogan.

MikeSmithson

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.

david_herdson

BenM said:

david_herdson said:

I can't take clearly any poll on voting factors that doesn't include in some way:

- Relative leadership quality of PM candidates
- local factors (e.g. my MP)
- 'The Economy' as an over-arching issue.

.

In other words, factors Dave Herdson thinks voters ought to find important.

Darn those voters eh?

If you prompt for answers, it's unsurprising that the voters respond with the answers prompted. it's poor polling. Still, if you don't think that Ed's an issue for Labour, carry on ...

Like I said, the question would have been much better left open, as Mori do.

In any case, while there's some merit in asking about the 'most important' issue, the reality is that most people will base their decision on a whole range of factors and focusing excessively on the ones voters consider most important runs the risk of producing a distorted view.

TheScreamingEagles

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.

Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.

rcs1000

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

david_herdson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, are you trying to make me into a political activist?

The SNP allying with those clowns from Yorkshire First would be ****ing infuriating. England needs a Parliament. One Parliament. Why the hell is one Parliament or Assembly the automatic choice for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, but not England? And why the **** should the SNP have any damned say in England getting a Parliament, let alone try and influence separatist fools from Yorkshire First?

English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction (although not far enough it's better than the status quo), and the efforts to carve England up into shitty little regional assemblies, city-regions and other nonsensical meaningless political fiefdoms is completely unacceptable.

If the SNP is thinking about putting up candidates in England, then it's clearly a wheeze to try to get into the debates, recognising that their weak link is the small number of constituencies they stand in. However, as you rightly point out, there's not much point the SNP standing in England on a policy basis. There are, however, other parties that do stand in England with whom they can find common cause. I know of none in the mainstream that operates across England as a whole and so in the absence of that (which might be an ideal first preference), they'd be better off linking with regional ones rather than standing in their own right.

We've had the regional / England discussion before and I don't want to get back into it now. I wasn't really commenting on the merits of one proposal or the other (we both know each other's views); my point was more about the practical options open to the SNP.

AlastairMeeks

I agree with David Herdson: a poll that tells voters in advance which subjects they should consider important is of much less value than one which lets voters tell the pollsters the subjects they consider important.

MattW

TheScreamingEagles said:

Easterross said:

Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.

Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.

What an exceIIent idea, especiaIIy since so many CyberNuts are based outside ScotIand.

WiII they be standing in Derby?

Slackbladder

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh · 2 mins2 minutes ago
Labour will NOT be joining Hague's Cabinet cttee on EVEL. Source: "We need proper reform, not a closed shop stitch up in a Cabinet room"

Labour stumble into the bear trap...

bigjohnowls

Todays BJESUS

14.10.14 LAB 328 (325) CON 264(269) LD 33(31) UKIP 1(1) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 205 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer

MikeK

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

rcs1000

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Slackbladder, will there be a vote in the next month or two on a little more fairness for England?

I wonder what the Lib Dems will do, if there is.

MikeK

Endeavour ‏@EndeavourPA 28m28 minutes ago
The #RochesterStrood by election will be held on the 20th of November..

Innocent_Abroad

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

I notice Hannan forgets to mention it was a Conservative government that took us into the EU. Cameron just needs a handbag. And I don't know which coffee bars Boris uses, but the eastern Europeans working in them in this neck of the woods tend to be surly rather than anything else...

Ishmael_X

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

What are you ranting about 1400 dead people all killed by drinking water from flower vases were they?

No, but they were unnecessary deaths: they wouldn't be expected to happen in a competently run hospital. Not something to try to be funny about. Stick to making an arse of yourself baxtering polls.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. K, immediately prior to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, last race of the season and likely title decider. And a day before Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out. An exciting time of the year!

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.

Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.

I see it slightly differently. I care about civil liberties and individual rights. However, I don't want the ECtHR through the ECHR and the EU calling the shots on it.

MikeSmithson

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

The nasty little Englanders want to curb all our freedoms.

Fenman

On topic, I don't find this poll too surprising. 2010 LD voters are, well, Liberals. The Lib Dems need to focus on their message and get some of them back.

I still anticipate that the LDs will poll around 15% in May; much of it concentrated in their currently held seats. Simply because these 2010 LD voters will soon realise that the alternatives are too dire to contemplate. Clegg maybe a weakness for the LDs but he will outperform Miliband I believe.

MonikerDiCanio

Ishmael_X said:

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Are LDs saying NHS as they are voting to keep Labour out to avoid another Mid Staffs ?

The problem of the question is that while it says the issue is prominent, it doesn't tell youwhat the individual thinks on the issue.

Do those rating the NHS highly want more spent on it? Or do they want it privatised?

Do those who score immigration highly want it stopped (or even reversed) or do they want current restrictions loosened?

Yes, completely agree with that. My views on the NHS (privatise the whole thing, no messing) are not mainstream, I concede, but would get an equal say in this poll next to the vote of (say) Andy Burnham.

But not the 1400 dead people from Mid Staffs though. They don't get a vote any more.

What are you ranting about 1400 dead people all killed by drinking water from flower vases were they?

No, but they were unnecessary deaths: they wouldn't be expected to happen in a competently run hospital. Not something to try to be funny about. Stick to making an arse of yourself baxtering polls.

You aren't handling your climacteric terribly well, judging by your recent postings. Calm down, dear.

MikeK

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

Ah! I think that you will find that you'll be able to work and/or hire with complete freedom after we quit the EU; it will need the addition of a passport and additional paper work, thats all. After all you don't need to be in the EU to work in any democracy in the world; just some additional papers.

BenM

Slackbladder said:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh · 2 mins2 minutes ago
Labour will NOT be joining Hague's Cabinet cttee on EVEL. Source: "We need proper reform, not a closed shop stitch up in a Cabinet room"

Labour stumble into the bear trap...

No one cares.

Gaius

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

I don't want you to have those freedoms because we dont live in a libertarian utopia.

As soon as we do have a libertarian utopia please feel free to encourage as many to come here as you like because I wont be picking up the tab due to there no longer being any taxation.

Deal.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.

Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.

Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.

Socrates

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

That is an excellent column from Hannan.

BenM

Prospect of UK deflation edges ever closer.

CPI inflation drops from 1.5% to 1.2%.

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

No it wouldn't. It would simply mean you have to show some responsibility in your business and demonstrate a real need to use workers from elsewhere as opposed to local workers.

I have spent practically my whole life working in other countries around the world and do so because I have a set of skills they need. I certainly don't believe I should have a right to work in another country simply because of some supra-national agreement that is potentially to the disadvantage of that country.

There is also such a thing as corporate responsibility and I would also suggest that if you wish to bring someone into the country to employ them here then, as an employer, you should take responsibility for them completely for as long as they are in the country. So if you decide to get rid of them after a year or two then you, rather than the taxpayer, should be responsible for the costs of their benefits until they either get another job or leave the country. Businesses should not be allowed to simply reap the benefits of free movement of labour but not expect to pay the costs of it as well.

HurstLlama

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

You might be surprised to know that it was possible to live and work abroad and employ people from abroad before we joined the EEC.

dugarbandier

MikeSmithson said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.

This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.

If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.

Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?

No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.

I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.

Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.

Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?

The nasty little Englanders want to curb all our freedoms.

It might be a little bit more complicated than that

"So far the Conservatives have suffered most from the depredations of Ukip, but Farage raises an awkward issue for Labour that it has yet to acknowledge: the EU is a hybrid project. It serves the interests of social justice and global capitalism simultaneously. The EU that forces mobile phone firms to lower their roaming charges and Britain to clean up its beaches is also the EU that is giving multinationals the power to sue governments. The EU that tries to give British workers greater rights is also the EU that makes it easy for employers to play national workforces off against each other. "

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n19/james-meek/in-farageland

Richard_Tyndall

MikeK said:

Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2791708/daniel-hannan-politician-promises-cut-immigration-liar-unless-ready-quit-eu.html

And he is absolutely right.

MonikerDiCanio

BenM said:

Prospect of UK deflation edges ever closer.

CPI inflation drops from 1.5% to 1.2%.

Cost of living crisis crisis.

oxfordsimon

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Financier said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

3 Cheers for Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mrs May.

"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.

MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.

It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.

The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791109/chinese-thief-deported-despite-claims-impact-human-rights-british-children-judge-rules.html

If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?

If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.

Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?

The Tories voted in favour of it.

The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.

Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.

I see it slightly differently. I care about civil liberties and individual rights. However, I don't want the ECtHR through the ECHR and the EU calling the shots on it.

And that is exactly my view of it. The whole area of human rights law has been hijacked by lawyers on the make and activist (unaccountable) judges. We need to return control of this area to UK courts and the UK parliament. This in no way undermines civil liberties or human rights - it just places it back in the proper context. Living up to our national and international obligations within the framework and control of the UK legal system.