Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-Mori becomes the third pollster in less than a week t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-Mori becomes the third pollster in less than a week to show a record high for UKIP

Labour will be relieved to be back in the lead, but as with other pollsters, we’re seeing some historically low shares for the Con and Lab combined.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    First?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    second unlike Labour in Clacton.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    isam said:

    "ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation into the death of a Rochdale teenager who alleged she was sexually exploited by a gang of older men.

    Victoria Agoglia Byrne, 15, died of a suspected drugs overdose in 2003. She was living in a care home for young people at the time.

    In an account written as much as two years before her death, Victoria described her sexual abuse by a gang of older men.

    As part of our investigation into failings by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to investigate sexual exploitation, ITV News can reveal that Victoria's account was handed to police in 2004 but was never acted upon.

    'I am only 13. I got the rest of my life ahead of me. I have slept with people older than me. Half of them I don't even know there [sic] names'.– victoria "

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-15/itv-news-reveals-how-police-ignored-teenage-victims-written-account-of-sexual-abuse/

    So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    Grandmother wrongly jailed for legal high. Said granny is 38, and was visiting an ex-lover doing porridge.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-29628784
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    What would you have them do? Politicians must abide by due process.

    What would UKIP do?

    Halt the exploitation of white girls in the north by making it more difficult for French executives and Polish builders to enter Britain??

    Like that would work...
  • Socrates said:

    So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    Err, the piece you quoted starts with the sentence "ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation".

    You seem to be a bit mad on this. There is action, and, quite properly, in the first instance action by the police, not by politicians. So what on earth are you going on about?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Guess what? Freudgate is bad news for Ed Miliband...
    a new dividing line will have been drawn. Between Labour, the party that stands for severely disabled jobseekers. And the Tories, who stand for everyone else. Between Miliband, who thinks tax cuts are practised by nasty parties and nasty politicians. And Cameron, who thinks tax cuts are what the hard-working people of Britain deserve. Between Labour, who are the party of the oppressed minority. And the Tories – the new party of the Squeezed Middle.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100289448/what-happened-to-the-squeezed-middle-ed-miliband/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    What would you have them do? Politicians must abide by due process.

    What would UKIP do?

    Halt the exploitation of white girls in the north by making it more difficult for French executives and Polish builders to enter Britain??

    Like that would work...

    It's not a good technique to ask a question, answer it yourself, then criticise your own conclusion as if it were someone elses

    I suppose UKIP would say they wouldn't have let fears of looking politically incorrect stop them investigating in the first place.

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    A bit mad? Classic British understatement and the mark of a true patriot.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MrHarryCole: Union funded hate:
    @PSbook: In a corner, Cameron can't help invoking the memory of his disabled son "

    @charlotteahenry: Imagine if a right wing blog had just done what @PSbook have.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2014
    I suppose UKIP would say they wouldn't have let fears of looking politically incorrect stop them investigating in the first place.

    Hindsight is always 20-20.

    What would you do now?

    How would a UKIP MP in, say, Rotherham or Rochdale differ from Labour MP?

    IF UKIP want to win, that question will need an answer
  • Scott_P said:

    Guess what? Freudgate is bad news for Ed Miliband...

    a new dividing line will have been drawn. Between Labour, the party that stands for severely disabled jobseekers. And the Tories, who stand for everyone else. Between Miliband, who thinks tax cuts are practised by nasty parties and nasty politicians. And Cameron, who thinks tax cuts are what the hard-working people of Britain deserve. Between Labour, who are the party of the oppressed minority. And the Tories – the new party of the Squeezed Middle.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100289448/what-happened-to-the-squeezed-middle-ed-miliband/

    Haha brilliant. Dan Hodges even thought the energy prices autumn was 'bad news for Ed Miliband'.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited October 2014

    Socrates said:

    So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    Err, the piece you quoted starts with the sentence "ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation".

    You seem to be a bit mad on this. There is action, and, quite properly, in the first instance action by the police, not by politicians. So what on earth are you going on about?
    Because this is one individual case, yet we have evidence this sort of thing has happened on a mass scale in town after town. Why is nothing co-ordinated at a national level? After years of failure by the police, are we really trusting local police forces to do the decent thing and reinvestigate their own failures? What about the thousands of rapes where cases aren't being re-opened? We need an Operation Yewtree on this, and that requires a push from central government.
  • I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Re Freud gate

    One of the most annoying things in politics is when people deliberately misread what other people say and then extrapolate that misreading to affect areas that weren't being talked about

    For Gods sake, it is so obvious, in fact I think he said so at the time, that Lord Freud was talking about finding a way of giving a bit of work to someone who was incapable of doing any job that would pay the minimum wage.. what are we meant to do? Pretend such people don't exist?!

    He is on their side. It is a glorified form of charity. A person with severe mental deficiencies cutting the grass or tending to the plants for £25 a day once a week to get them out of the house.. is that so bad?

    That doesn't mean that he thinks everyone who is registered disabled should be paid less than the minimum wage. That is obvious to anyone who is interested in the truth rather than political propaganda
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    taffys said:

    They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    What would you have them do?

    Have a national police investigation charged with looking at this in every town where there have been allegations of this sort of abuse happening. And have a very publicly advertised phone number for people to report further instances.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    Olympic-standard snark! Well done, that man.
  • Just catching the back-end of this disability / minimum wage hoohah.

    Ed Miliband - what a complete douchebag! I hope this comes back in spades and bites him.
  • Just catching up with Jezza Browne.

    Bitchy.

    @georgeeaton: Lib Dem source on why Jeremy Browne stood down: "He might lose his seat, would never be a minister and had no support to be leader."
  • I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    It could be the end of Civilized Politics as we know it. Whatever happened to the Marquess of Queensberry rules Cameron and Osborne have been upholding so stoutly ever since they came to office ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    taffys said:

    I suppose UKIP would say they wouldn't have let fears of looking politically incorrect stop them investigating in the first place.

    Hindsight is always 20-20.

    What would you do now?

    How would a UKIP MP in, say, Rotherham or Rochdale differ from Labour MP?

    IF UKIP want to win, that question will need an answer

    Yes Hindsight is 20-20, but I am pretty confident a UKIP run council wouldn't send someone accusing Asians of sexual abuse on a diversity training scheme.. but we will never know

    I suspect the government are doing something about it now to be honest. Danczuk is a Labour MP for Rochdale, and he is banging the drum so fair play to him
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Anorak said:

    I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    Olympic-standard snark! Well done, that man.
    It's a fair point though. If you don't want your words to be taken out of context, don't say things that can be taken out of context.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    Socrates said:

    taffys said:

    They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    What would you have them do?

    Have a national police investigation charged with looking at this in every town where there have been allegations of this sort of abuse happening. And have a very publicly advertised phone number for people to report further instances.

    The same police who have turned a blind eye to the cases already reported?

    As for publicised numbers, how about Childline or 999.

    (Assuming that you don't want to post yours here, of course)
  • I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    Ok. What have I missed?

    For most of the last three hours I've been busy.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,986
    Afternoon all :)

    Dreadful poll for the Conservatives and another placing them at the core level of 30%. Some on here may be "chipper" about the Party's prospects next May and others may wish to waste their time talking down Labour, UKIP and the LDs but it's the Tories who are staring down the barrel of an election defeat.

    What happens then if Rochester falls and UKIP holds the seat ? Will the backbenchers think that Cameron can't win and turn on him or will some decide to abandon the sinking ship and jump aboard HMS Farage ?

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    taffys said:

    They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.

    What would you have them do?

    Have a national police investigation charged with looking at this in every town where there have been allegations of this sort of abuse happening. And have a very publicly advertised phone number for people to report further instances.

    The same police who have turned a blind eye to the cases already reported?

    As for publicised numbers, how about Childline or 999.

    (Assuming that you don't want to post yours here, of course)
    No, different police from other forces. It is Richard Nabavi who seems to be arguing that responsibility should be lying with the local police forces that have turned a blind eye so far.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Dreadful poll for the Conservatives and another placing them at the core level of 30%. Some on here may be "chipper" about the Party's prospects next May and others may wish to waste their time talking down Labour, UKIP and the LDs but it's the Tories who are staring down the barrel of an election defeat.

    What happens then if Rochester falls and UKIP holds the seat ? Will the backbenchers think that Cameron can't win and turn on him or will some decide to abandon the sinking ship and jump aboard HMS Farage ?

    A little from column A, a little from column B. Amusingly, those who select column B will be undermining the efforts of those who select column A.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    Anorak said:

    I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    Olympic-standard snark! Well done, that man.
    It's a fair point though. If you don't want your words to be taken out of context, don't say things that can be taken out of context.
    Oh, absolutely. It is irritating, though, when people in possession of the full context choose to completely disregard it.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    "ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation into the death of a Rochdale teenager who alleged she was sexually exploited by a gang of older men.

    Victoria Agoglia Byrne, 15, died of a suspected drugs overdose in 2003. She was living in a care home for young people at the time.

    In an account written as much as two years before her death, Victoria described her sexual abuse by a gang of older men.

    As part of our investigation into failings by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to investigate sexual exploitation, ITV News can reveal that Victoria's account was handed to police in 2004 but was never acted upon.

    'I am only 13. I got the rest of my life ahead of me. I have slept with people older than me. Half of them I don't even know there [sic] names'.– victoria "

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-15/itv-news-reveals-how-police-ignored-teenage-victims-written-account-of-sexual-abuse/

    So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.
    No, they are so beholden to PC-dom that they dare not pursue the matter. Labour will not bother for obvious reasons. They invented the great secular religion of our times.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought i'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various methodologies.

    Byelection swingback: -1.1% up
    Fisher: 3.5% up
    2009-2010 repeat: 4.8% up
    Prosser: 5.0% n/c
    L&N: 10.2% up
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Jesus !!!
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Anorak said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought i'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
    BJO hooting, and waving his nightly Baxtered Labour majority in your face.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014
    .



  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    This "prediction" has to be stored somewhere for reference !
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29628813

    More on how heavy industry in Britain is being eviscerated.

  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014



    It is completely pointless and ludicrous taking the Euro results and extrapolating them to a GE . Just look at the 2009 Euro results and compare to the 2010 GE . Look at the turnout figures for a start . 39% compared to nearer 70% at a GE .

    Sorry Mark, the facts in South Somerset support me not you on this one.

    In the 2009 Euros in South Somerset Council area, which broadly aligns with Yeovil Parly const, the Libdems came a close second, just over 2,000 votes behind the Tories and 5,000 ahead of UKIP. More than reasonable that an incumbent could overcome that in the subsequent GE.

    In 2014 Libs trailed a poor third 5,000 behind both UKIP and Tories, and got less than two thirds of the votes they got in the 2009 euros. That's much harder to turn round in a GE vote.

    Other parties reflect the polls now and then. Tories are a little down on 2009, Labour and Green a little up, UKIP up 70%, BNP collapsed.

    Laws also did not face a Green candidate in the 2010 general election and suspect he will this time. He has a big fight on to keep his seat, and as I said the last thing the Libdems need is to have to use activist resource in safe seats. This is beginning to me to look like a perfect storm for the Libdems.

    2009 Euro Results in South Somerset

    Tories 17,332
    Libdems 15,093
    UKIP 10,844
    Green 3,653
    BNP 2,189
    Labour 1,728
    Others 4,091


    2014 Euro Results in South Somerset:

    UKIP 16,786
    Tories 14,526
    Libdems 9,736
    Green 4,156
    Labour 3,321
    An Independence From Europe 741
    English Democrats 460
    BNP 294

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    UKIP looking strong at the moment but things can change..

    Any value in 3-4 seats at 7/1 with the Hill Billy boys?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-ukip-banded
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @bbcnickrobinson: Labour : "If Cameron continues to keep Lord Freud in govt we'll have yet more proof of how he stands for just a privileged few at the top”
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Also Labour & UKIP Coalition???? 66/1

    Is this nonsense?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    Also Labour & UKIP Coalition???? 66/1

    Is this nonsense?

    I don't see a coalition. But in the unlikely event that UKIP truly hold the balance of power, they will prefer to prop up Labour (in confidence and supply) than assist the Conservatives.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Anorak said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought I'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
    Well with more than 6 months to go, a Tory majority seems the value bet.

    Or just lay Labour, to be on the safe side. I think they're going to be slaughtered, one way or another...
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    isam said:

    Re Freud gate

    One of the most annoying things in politics is when people deliberately misread what other people say and then extrapolate that misreading to affect areas that weren't being talked about

    For Gods sake, it is so obvious, in fact I think he said so at the time, that Lord Freud was talking about finding a way of giving a bit of work to someone who was incapable of doing any job that would pay the minimum wage.. what are we meant to do? Pretend such people don't exist?!

    He is on their side. It is a glorified form of charity. A person with severe mental deficiencies cutting the grass or tending to the plants for £25 a day once a week to get them out of the house.. is that so bad?

    That doesn't mean that he thinks everyone who is registered disabled should be paid less than the minimum wage. That is obvious to anyone who is interested in the truth rather than political propaganda

    Spot on, I suppose the real world means nothing, no grown up debate, just ludicrous point scoring.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Also Labour & UKIP Coalition???? 66/1

    Is this nonsense?

    I don't see a coalition. But in the unlikely event that UKIP truly hold the balance of power, they will prefer to prop up Labour (in confidence and supply) than assist the Conservatives.
    I hope its a loser but given Ladbrokes under 4.5 price of 11/10, I think the 7/1 about 3-4 seats is a good bet
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Spot on, I suppose the real world means nothing, no grown up debate, just ludicrous point scoring.

    Still, interesting to see what Cameron does here. Will he dance to Labour's tune?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    This "prediction" has to be stored somewhere for reference !
    Not really. The L&N model has skill when applied to the Ipsos-Mori poll three months ahead of the election. So we have four months until the data point to test against. These forecasts are simply Rod having a bit of fun.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Just out of interest:

    Biography
    Lord Freud was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Welfare Reform) in May 2010. He is a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

    Education
    He studied philosophy, politics and economics at Merton College, Oxford.

    Political career
    Lord Freud was appointed the shadow Minister for Welfare Reform in February 2009.

    He previously advised the government on how to reform the welfare system, publishing an independent report in March 2007 entitled ‘Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work’.

    Now my 2p worth

    As someone who is involved in working with people with Mental Health illness through a charity, may I suggest the essence of his words, if I understand them correctly, is that not all people with disabilities are capable of producing the economic output that justifies the minimum wage, when compared to able bodied people. As such they are at a disadvantage in finding employment that is valuable for self esteem, self worth and in the case of mental disability often essential as a step towards an improvement of the condition. Under these circumstances is there not a good argument that they could be paid less than the minimum wage, and society can make up the shortfall?

    The only problem is, this phraseology is a bit long winded. The sentiment is hardly evil. His wording was short, to the point and has been taken in to have more than one meaning. I doubt his meaning was evil.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    This "prediction" has to be stored somewhere for reference !
    Not really. The L&N model has skill when applied to the Ipsos-Mori poll three months ahead of the election. So we have four months until the data point to test against. These forecasts are simply Rod having a bit of fun.
    Unless there's an election in three months time...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Also Labour & UKIP Coalition???? 66/1

    Is this nonsense?

    I don't see a coalition. But in the unlikely event that UKIP truly hold the balance of power, they will prefer to prop up Labour (in confidence and supply) than assist the Conservatives.
    Nobody expected the LibDems to go into coalition with the Tories, it would be 'interesting' if UKIP were to go into coalition with Labour.
    They probably won't be put into that position, they won't have enough MPs to make coalition an option. Also it depends on the electoral arithmetic, it's unlikely that anyone holding the balance of power would have a choice of partner.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Itajai said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    "ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation into the death of a Rochdale teenager who alleged she was sexually exploited by a gang of older men.

    Victoria Agoglia Byrne, 15, died of a suspected drugs overdose in 2003. She was living in a care home for young people at the time.

    In an account written as much as two years before her death, Victoria described her sexual abuse by a gang of older men.

    As part of our investigation into failings by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to investigate sexual exploitation, ITV News can reveal that Victoria's account was handed to police in 2004 but was never acted upon.

    'I am only 13. I got the rest of my life ahead of me. I have slept with people older than me. Half of them I don't even know there [sic] names'.– victoria "

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-15/itv-news-reveals-how-police-ignored-teenage-victims-written-account-of-sexual-abuse/

    So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.
    No, they are so beholden to PC-dom that they dare not pursue the matter. Labour will not bother for obvious reasons. They invented the great secular religion of our times.
    What's amazing is that I'm accused of being mad for being alarmed that there's no political action beyond leaving this to the same police forces to re-open the cases, if they feel like it.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    Right wing vote split = Comfortable Labour majority even though Miliband is dreadfully unpopular.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    RodCrosby said:

    Anorak said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought I'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
    Well with more than 6 months to go, a Tory majority seems the value bet.

    Or just lay Labour, to be on the safe side. I think they're going to be slaughtered, one way or another...
    "I think they're going to be slaughtered"

    Evidence? Or typical Tory bias that dominates this blog!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    UKIP 1-2 Seats is 10/3
    UKIP 3-4 seats is 7/1

    Given that 5+ is odds on, shouldn't 3-4 be shorter than 1-2?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    GIN1138 said:

    Right wing vote split = Comfortable Labour majority even though Miliband is dreadfully unpopular.

    The Tories should probably appoint a leader who is capable of reuniting the right.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    GIN1138 said:

    Right wing vote split = Comfortable Labour majority even though Miliband is dreadfully unpopular.

    Too simplistic. The more I look at the polls, the more I think Labour will go sub 30%.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Now my 2p worth

    I don't think that is Lord Freud's point.

    His point is that the employment market will not pay the minimum wage for the work output of certain disabled people, and so they face a life on welfare.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014
    Well I always thought that a vote for UKIP was the least wasted vote in the political pantheon.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited October 2014
    philiph said:

    Just out of interest:

    Biography
    Lord Freud was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Welfare Reform) in May 2010. He is a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

    Education
    He studied philosophy, politics and economics at Merton College, Oxford.

    Political career
    Lord Freud was appointed the shadow Minister for Welfare Reform in February 2009.

    He previously advised the government on how to reform the welfare system, publishing an independent report in March 2007 entitled ‘Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work’.

    Now my 2p worth

    As someone who is involved in working with people with Mental Health illness through a charity, may I suggest the essence of his words, if I understand them correctly, is that not all people with disabilities are capable of producing the economic output that justifies the minimum wage, when compared to able bodied people. As such they are at a disadvantage in finding employment that is valuable for self esteem, self worth and in the case of mental disability often essential as a step towards an improvement of the condition. Under these circumstances is there not a good argument that they could be paid less than the minimum wage, and society can make up the shortfall?

    The only problem is, this phraseology is a bit long winded. The sentiment is hardly evil. His wording was short, to the point and has been taken in to have more than one meaning. I doubt his meaning was evil.

    There you go with your fancy logic and sensible comment and whatnot.

    As many others have pointed out and perhaps depressingly, Lab has seized upon an opportunity to reinforce the Nasty Party narrative. It is a bit like the "no money left" note which the Cons used.

    The difficulty in this instance is that two parties are damaged collaterally. First, Freud. He will get over it I'm sure as comments on this blog indicate there is a level of understanding about what he "really" meant. The second party, or parties that will be damaged, much more unfortunately, will be the disabled.

    In the back and forth between Lab & Cons and anyone else on this subject, disabled people will find themselves reduced to ammunition to throw at the opposing party and their rights and needs will be forgotten.

    That is the real shame of the whole episode.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited October 2014
    There are already lower minimum wages for certain classes of employee.

    https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

    Both apprentices and younger workers are paid less.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    Spot on, I suppose the real world means nothing, no grown up debate, just ludicrous point scoring.

    Still, interesting to see what Cameron does here. Will he dance to Labour's tune?

    Cameron would win more votes if he told Labour to grow up I reckon

    More than anything I think people who are voting UKIP are fed up with this environment when everything you say, even when it is obviously well meaning, is pounced upon to find some hidden evil intent

    I half expect it of Labour, but if Cameron dances to Ed's tune here they really are all the same
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited October 2014
    philiph said:

    Just out of interest:

    Biography

    "The architect of the government's controversial welfare reforms, David Freud, has defected to the Tories in an embarrassing blow for Gordon Brown.

    Conservative sources said David Cameron intended to put Freud forward for a peerage, then give him a frontbench post as a shadow welfare minister. The move is a coup for the Tories, harnessing not only Freud's expertise on the welfare system, but also his knowledge of the City - as a former investment banker - to beef up policy-making on the recession.

    Freud formally handed his resignation to James Purnell, the welfare secretary to whom he works as an unpaid adviser, yesterday and his departure will be regarded as a vote of no confidence in Labour's execution of the planned reforms, which would see private firms employed to help find claimants work."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/15/david-freud-welfare-defects

    Appointed by Blair to look at Welfare, advised Purnell until 2009.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2014
    ''Evidence? Or typical Tory bias that dominates this blog'! ''

    The evidence is that, since last May, the people who turn out to vote for labour is fewer than could be expected, given the labour score in the opinion polls.

    R&S will be another illustration of this. A four point lead for labour should mean they win a seat they held to 2010.

    They will probably come a poor third.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    UKIP looking strong at the moment but things can change..

    Any value in 3-4 seats at 7/1 with the Hill Billy boys?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-ukip-banded

    I'm not ignoring this comment. I'll comment after 7pm.
  • @Taffys

    "They will probably come a poor third."

    They will probably not try to do any better than that.

    Personally I think it's a questionable strategy, but that's what I think they will do.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    MikeK said:

    Well I always thought that a vote for UKIP was the least wasted vote in the political pantheon.

    Unless you want to get an MP elected (with a few exceptions).
  • TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    Just out of interest:


    The difficulty in this instance is that two parties are damaged collaterally. First, Freud. He will get over it I'm sure as comments on this blog indicate there is a level of understanding about what he "really" meant. The second party, or parties that will be damaged, much more unfortunately, will be the disabled.

    In the back and forth between Lab & Cons and anyone else on this subject, disabled people will find themselves reduced to ammunition to throw at the opposing party and their rights and needs will be forgotten.

    That is the real shame of the whole episode.

    Except that the Tories have explicitly targeted disabled benefits since 2010, as part of a stated policy agenda, backed up with regular briefings and leaks to the press, to a far greater extent than Labour ever did. This means the idea that the Tories are 'innocent bystanders' in a political "tug-of-war" and "point-scoring "over disability benefits, is absurdly, majestically preposterous rubbish.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    edited October 2014
    A very quick OT. An excellent British film at last. '71 is a story about one day during the 'troubles' but don't be put off. This is seriously good cinema.

    As for Ed's popularity I'm beginning to think it wont matter. The Tories have managed to alienate the police the NHS Scotland (BIG TIME!) school teachers nearly all public service workers.... In fact apart from hedge fund managers it's hard to see where their support is likely to come from.


  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    Just out of interest:

    Biography
    Lord Freud was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Welfare Reform) in May 2010. He is a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

    Education
    He studied philosophy, politics and economics at Merton College, Oxford.

    Political career
    Lord Freud was appointed the shadow Minister for Welfare Reform in February 2009.

    He previously advised the government on how to reform the welfare system, publishing an independent report in March 2007 entitled ‘Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work’.

    Now my 2p worth

    As someone who is involved in working with people with Mental Health illness through a charity, may I suggest the essence of his words, if I understand them correctly, is that not all people with disabilities are capable of producing the economic output that justifies the minimum wage, when compared to able bodied people. As such they are at a disadvantage in finding employment that is valuable for self esteem, self worth and in the case of mental disability often essential as a step towards an improvement of the condition. Under these circumstances is there not a good argument that they could be paid less than the minimum wage, and society can make up the shortfall?

    The only problem is, this phraseology is a bit long winded. The sentiment is hardly evil. His wording was short, to the point and has been taken in to have more than one meaning. I doubt his meaning was evil.

    There you go with your fancy logic and sensible comment and whatnot.

    As many others have pointed out and perhaps depressingly, Lab has seized upon an opportunity to reinforce the Nasty Party narrative. It is a bit like the "no money left" note which the Cons used.

    The difficulty in this instance is that two parties are damaged collaterally. First, Freud. He will get over it I'm sure as comments on this blog indicate there is a level of understanding about what he "really" meant. The second party, or parties that will be damaged, much more unfortunately, will be the disabled.

    In the back and forth between Lab & Cons and anyone else on this subject, disabled people will find themselves reduced to ammunition to throw at the opposing party and their rights and needs will be forgotten.

    That is the real shame of the whole episode.
    I wish I could disagree with you Mr Topping – unfortunately you are probably correct.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    edited October 2014
    Is this the same Lord Freud whose seminal report on the cost of state subsidy for employing disabled people was commissioned by the last Labour government and used by them to justify closing Remploy factories and putting the disabled out of work..... Why, yes it is......

    Edit: see others have made the point already
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited October 2014

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    Just out of interest:


    The difficulty in this instance is that two parties are damaged collaterally. First, Freud. He will get over it I'm sure as comments on this blog indicate there is a level of understanding about what he "really" meant. The second party, or parties that will be damaged, much more unfortunately, will be the disabled.

    In the back and forth between Lab & Cons and anyone else on this subject, disabled people will find themselves reduced to ammunition to throw at the opposing party and their rights and needs will be forgotten.

    That is the real shame of the whole episode.

    Except that the Tories have explicitly targeted disabled benefits since 2010, as part of a stated policy agenda, backed up with regular briefings and leaks to the press, to a far greater extent than Labour ever did. This means the idea that the Tories are 'innocent bystanders' in a political "tug-of-war" and "point-scoring "over disability benefits, is absurdly, majestically preposterous rubbish.

    /

    Some of the changes have been very hard for many people. Personal Independence Payments and DLA changes in particular have caused worry, confusion, concern and in some cases more hardship. However there are other instances where they have allowed better results, better use of funds and improvements. As with all changes from Bedroom Tax onwards, they are not black and white as our political masters of all colours would like us to believe.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Disability campaigner on BBC live - claims that Freud has form from 2008 re words on disabilities.

    So why did he not get sacked by Labour?
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    So disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage, eh.

    What an illuminating insight into the mentality of David Cameron's Tories.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited October 2014
    Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 3m

    #LibDems' GB by-election %-ages since GE 2010 - 10 lost deposits from 18. Only 3 polls higher than 20% #Clacton

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522402890598858752
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited October 2014
    "Education secretary in row with MPs over academy schools inspections"
    The article is quite informative, and at the end there is a note on the Tower Hamlets schools that some were worried about. But the "real fun " is in the picture of the poor lady, they chose to use.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/15/education-secretary-row-mps-academy-schools-inspections
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Roger said:

    A very quick OT. An excellent British film at last. '71 is a story about one day during the 'troubles' but don't be put off. This is seriously good cinema.

    As for Ed's popularity I'm beginning to think it wont matter. The Tories have managed to alienate the police the NHS Scotland (BIG TIME!) school teachers nearly all public service workers.... In fact apart from hedge fund managers it's hard to see where their support is likely to come from.


    Advertising directors in their fifties.
  • Smarmeron said:

    "Education secretary in row with MPs over academy schools inspections"
    The article is quite informative, and at the end there is a note on the Tower Hamlets schools that some were worried about. But the "real fun " is in the picture of the poor lady, they chose to use.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/15/education-secretary-row-mps-academy-schools-inspections

    “Ofsted have been into Tower Hamlets … they inspected them in September and they found that there were no matters that required further measures,” Morgan said.

    This will obviously disappoint some folk, but never mind.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    UKIP looking strong at the moment but things can change..

    Any value in 3-4 seats at 7/1 with the Hill Billy boys?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-ukip-banded

    Are you @isam, up and down in your support for UKIP, in effect saying that perhaps UKIP won't progress from here, or perhaps not gain Rochester and Strood as hoped?

    I believe that even if UKIP came second there, it would not turn the tide on the party.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    Alanbrooke

    "Advertising directors in their fifties."

    Bastard!!
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @dr_spyn
    The "transfer fee" looks quite good though?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited October 2014
    murali_s said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Anorak said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought I'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
    Well with more than 6 months to go, a Tory majority seems the value bet.

    Or just lay Labour, to be on the safe side. I think they're going to be slaughtered, one way or another...
    "I think they're going to be slaughtered"

    Evidence? Or typical Tory bias that dominates this blog!
    The L&N model has pretty good skill when applied to past elections. One of the key polling variables it uses is the satisfaction rating of the Prime Minister. The values for comparison to Cameron's present 38%, for three months before previous general elections are:

    Blair [2001] = 47%
    Blair [2005] = 35%
    Brown [2010] = 36%

    There is also a cyclic component which uses these past ratings to try and force the back-and-forth character of British politics. Thus [I think!] that the high rating for Blair in 2001 actually now counts against Labour in the model. This cyclic component also helps to explain why a 35% rating for Blair in 2005 was enough to see Labour home, but a 36% rating for Brown [in 2010] was not enough to defy the pendulum of British politics**.

    Basically, then, there are two reasons why the L&N model currently predicts a Tory majority. Firstly, people are still pissed off by the mistakes of the previous Labour government [and importantly, they might be more pissed off by them now after five years of Osborne harping on about how terrible it was]. Secondly, enough people are satisfied with Cameron as PM that they aren't going to chuck him out of office when they are still pissed off with Labour.

    ** It also implies that Blair would not have done any better than Brown if he'd still been PM in 2010.
  • just had a bet on the SNP for Ochil and s Perthshire -11/8 with ladbrokes
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Roger said:

    Alanbrooke

    "Advertising directors in their fifties."

    Bastard!!

    My parentage is of little consequence Roger, we're very relaxed in Ludlow. Who knows we could be related :-)
  • HughHugh Posts: 955

    murali_s said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Anorak said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-

    (Central forecast)

    Con vote lead 10.2%
    Con seat lead 103 seats

    (10000 Monte Carlo simulations)

    Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
    Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%

    Chance of a Hung Parliament: 11.7%
    Chance of a Tory majority: 88.3%
    Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought I'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]
    Well with more than 6 months to go, a Tory majority seems the value bet.

    Or just lay Labour, to be on the safe side. I think they're going to be slaughtered, one way or another...
    "I think they're going to be slaughtered"

    Evidence? Or typical Tory bias that dominates this blog!
    The L&N model has pretty good skill when applied to past elections. One of the key polling variables it uses is the satisfaction rating of the Prime Minister. The values for comparison to Cameron's present 38%, for three months before previous general elections are:

    Blair [2001] = 47%
    Blair [2005] = 35%
    Brown [2010] = 36%

    There is also a cyclic component which uses these past ratings to try and force the back-and-forth character of British politics. Thus [I think!] that the high rating for Blair in 2001 actually now counts against Labour in the model. This cyclic component also helps to explain why a 35% rating for Blair in 2005 was enough to see Labour home, but a 36% rating for Brown [in 2010] was not enough to defy the pendulum of British politics.

    Basically, then, there are two reasons why the L&N model currently predicts a Tory majority. Firstly, people are still pissed off by the mistakes of the previous Labour government [and importantly, they might be more pissed off by them now after five years of Osborne harping on about how terrible it was]. Secondly, enough people are satisfied with Cameron as PM that they aren't going to chuck him out of office when they are still pissed off with Labour.
    Bertha, lovely Bertha, you are a lovely machine
    Any anyone who works with you will know just what I mean.
    Bertha, lovely Bertha, sometimes I thing you're a dream,
    When we work out what you have to do,
    You can always turn the goods out, always turn the goods out,

    We can depend upon you.
    Clicking in the day and flashing in the night,
    Your computer is shining brightly,
    Some people say you've a mind of your own,
    And I think that's very likely, likely.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @AndrewCooper__: 11 leaders of the Opposition since 1979. Only 3 had positive ratings at this stage of leadership. Same 3 became PM http://t.co/dbMYdv21hQ

    @AndrewCooper__: Since 1979 only Opposition leaders who went on to be PM all had positive ratings at this stage. Miliband rating -34% http://t.co/dbMYdv21hQ
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Hugh said:

    So disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage, eh.

    What an illuminating insight into the mentality of David Cameron's Tories.

    get in the real world!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Hugh said:

    So disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage, eh.

    What an illuminating insight into the mentality of David Cameron's Tories.

    I think as a politician you can say that you think that is the situation from the perspective of potential employers.

    Employers can select an able bodied person who for the same wage has the ability to produce a higher output or be a more reliable attendee or will not need so much monitoring and supervision or has less time off sick and for medical appointments. There are a multitude of hurdles a disabled person needs to cross in order to get a job. As employers are not either social services or charities, then we need to recognise these impediments and find remedies for them to improve chances of the disabled having better outcomes.

    In your world maybe you get solutions without identifying the problems. Very clever. The statement is perfectly valid, in context.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I have genuine issues with how out of touch Cameron's set is, but those accusing of Lord Freud of having an evil mentality with regards the disabled are either being deliberately obfuscative or are just really thick. Clearly he meant "from the perspective of the market" and felt that they were worth the minimum wage, which is why he wanted to use government benefits (not traditionally something supported by Tories) in order for them to get it.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    Have been in a meeting for most of the day, so not seen PMQs and not seen how the Freud brouhaha developed, or read earlier PB comments.

    But surely this is Ed scoring cheap political points, trying to ensnare Cameron by publicising the comments minutes before PMQs leaving the PM in no position to deal with it one way or another, and taking wholly out of context something seemingly well intentioned if crudely and slightly brutally answered?

    Cameron needs to grow a pair and turn this back on Ed.

    I'm sure to an extent Dave doesn't want to skewer his opponent for fear of someone half competent coming in. But I think Dave's standing would surge upwards if he finished off Ed and forced Labour to replace him.

    Who have they got anyway?!
  • I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    I know you are being sarcastic but you yourself have often moaned about picking on individual politicians , a point I respected you for
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Time for a snippet of news to cheer us all up.

    The French, French please note, Health Minister has declared, "It will be made illegal to sell products that make alcohol appear pleasant.”

    I can't help feeling that either Madam Touraine is off her head or something has been lost in the translation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11164372/France-to-stamp-out-le-binge-drinking-with-fines-and-jail-terms.html
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    philiph said:

    Hugh said:

    So disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage, eh.

    What an illuminating insight into the mentality of David Cameron's Tories.

    I think as a politician you can say that you think that is the situation from the perspective of potential employers.

    Employers can select an able bodied person who for the same wage has the ability to produce a higher output or be a more reliable attendee or will not need so much monitoring and supervision or has less time off sick and for medical appointments. There are a multitude of hurdles a disabled person needs to cross in order to get a job. As employers are not either social services or charities, then we need to recognise these impediments and find remedies for them to improve chances of the disabled having better outcomes.

    In your world maybe you get solutions without identifying the problems. Very clever. The statement is perfectly valid, in context.
    No it's not valid. It's sick.

    Any work that a disabled person does is worth the minimum wage. Not £2 hr, not £3hr, the minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
  • I am sitting here stunned and disbelieving that a political party has stooped so low as to take out of context something one of its opponents has said in order to score a cheap point and drive a news agenda. This must be a new low, it has never, ever happened before, ever, and the outrage from so many of PB's fair-minded, entirely non-partisan commentators is entirely justified. We are below the gutter now and deep down in the sewers. I never thought I would live to see the day.

    I know you are being sarcastic but you yourself have often moaned about picking on individual politicians , a point I respected you for

    Absolutely. What I found rather bizarre about many of today's contributions was the implication that labour was doing something that had never been done before. As we all know, all sides do it all of the time. That does not make it right, but there is no moral high ground to inhabit here.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    UKIP 1-2 Seats is 10/3
    UKIP 3-4 seats is 7/1

    Given that 5+ is odds on, shouldn't 3-4 be shorter than 1-2?

    I don't think so, given 1-2 seats is almost a given with Clacton and maybe R&S - thereafter there is likely to be a tipping point whereupon UKIP start to pick up seats fairly quickly.

    For all that, 7/1 does look a bit juicy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    Alanbrooke

    When I see 'Ludlow Lesbians Gays and Transvestites for Cameron' I know you've got your village organized.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782

    isam said:

    UKIP 1-2 Seats is 10/3
    UKIP 3-4 seats is 7/1

    Given that 5+ is odds on, shouldn't 3-4 be shorter than 1-2?

    I don't think so, given 1-2 seats is almost a given with Clacton and maybe R&S - thereafter there is likely to be a tipping point whereupon UKIP start to pick up seats fairly quickly.

    For all that, 7/1 does look a bit juicy.
    One of those infamous 'value losers'?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Hugh said:

    murali_s said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Anorak said:

    Would you bet, at this point in time, on a Tory majority priced at evens or better, on the basis of those model results? [thought I'd get in with a genuine question before BJO, Hugh, Smarmeron et al descended on you cackling and pointing]

    Well with more than 6 months to go, a Tory majority seems the value bet.

    Or just lay Labour, to be on the safe side. I think they're going to be slaughtered, one way or another...
    "I think they're going to be slaughtered"

    Evidence? Or typical Tory bias that dominates this blog!
    The L&N model has pretty good skill when applied to past elections. One of the key polling variables it uses is the satisfaction rating of the Prime Minister. The values for comparison to Cameron's present 38%, for three months before previous general elections are:

    Blair [2001] = 47%
    Blair [2005] = 35%
    Brown [2010] = 36%

    There is also a cyclic component which uses these past ratings to try and force the back-and-forth character of British politics. Thus [I think!] that the high rating for Blair in 2001 actually now counts against Labour in the model. This cyclic component also helps to explain why a 35% rating for Blair in 2005 was enough to see Labour home, but a 36% rating for Brown [in 2010] was not enough to defy the pendulum of British politics.

    Basically, then, there are two reasons why the L&N model currently predicts a Tory majority. Firstly, people are still pissed off by the mistakes of the previous Labour government [and importantly, they might be more pissed off by them now after five years of Osborne harping on about how terrible it was]. Secondly, enough people are satisfied with Cameron as PM that they aren't going to chuck him out of office when they are still pissed off with Labour.
    Bertha, lovely Bertha, you are a lovely machine
    Any anyone who works with you will know just what I mean.
    Bertha, lovely Bertha, sometimes I thing you're a dream,
    When we work out what you have to do,
    You can always turn the goods out, always turn the goods out,

    We can depend upon you.
    Clicking in the day and flashing in the night,
    Your computer is shining brightly,
    Some people say you've a mind of your own,
    And I think that's very likely, likely.
    When I have criticised Rod's use of the L&N model in the past I have always had a reason for doing so, which I have naively thought of as being more useful than insults or bizarre quotations.
  • isam said:

    UKIP 1-2 Seats is 10/3
    UKIP 3-4 seats is 7/1

    Given that 5+ is odds on, shouldn't 3-4 be shorter than 1-2?

    I don't think so, given 1-2 seats is almost a given with Clacton and maybe R&S - thereafter there is likely to be a tipping point whereupon UKIP start to pick up seats fairly quickly.

    For all that, 7/1 does look a bit juicy.
    Given Farage should win a seat ,along with Clacton and most probably Rochester , the tipping point may be 3 rather than 2 -get on the 7/1!!
This discussion has been closed.