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:
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.
I am reminded of some advertising guru or other who said, when talking about campaigns: if you have nothing to say, sing it.
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.
Now which is worse - scoring self-interested party political points, through leaks and briefings, to win greater public acceptance for cuts to the income of disabled people, or scoring points to move their public profile, with yours, in the opposite direction ?
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:
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.
How sweet. The long departed tim loved to post his favourite children's songs for our amusement.
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.
I get what you mean about the tipping point, but I still think they are wrong... I think its the wrong way round almost
( I don't mean I think it should be two on if that's what you thought I meant by shorter than 1-2!!)
Here are the prices
0 is 7/1 1-2 10/3 3-4 7/1 5+ 8/11
If it was an EVEN money bet with all other seat totals VOID, I would be happy to take 3-4 against 1-2
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.
...
Any work that a disabled person does is worth the minimum wage. Not £2 hr, not £3hr, the minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
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.
In context it is valid.
If your potential output as a disabled person is 50% of that of an able bodied person, you are at a disadvantage in getting a job as the cost is double to the employer. The value of the job to the disabled person is often far greater than the monetary reward in psychological terms. The business is not a charity or social service, so I don't see the harm in having a lower payment which is subsided by the community. Alternatively you could make it impossible for the disabled to get jobs, miss out on the opportunity of self esteem and worth boosts and in some instances see improvements in their conditions.
It is about giving better and more opportunities to the disabled. Just because the initial observations grates, it doesn't make it sick as it is a step to enabling better outcomes.
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:
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.
The values L&N used for Brown were 33% approval (late January 2010 MORI) and 72% two-party vote.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
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%.
You can see from the Mori tables [#4] how that might happen.
Labour gain a net 24 voters from the Lib Dems, but they lose 23 voters to UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. So only the barest advance on 2010.
And then they lose a net 3 voters to the Conservatives, putting them down on 2010. I think they only score 33% in this poll because a smaller proportion of their 2010 voters are "uncertain" than 2010 Conservatives and Lib Dems.
@HurstLlama Well, if you can get the same work out of them but pay a fraction of the already low wages, there is a fair chance someone will exploit the system for their own ends? Think of all the modern day slavery cases?
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.
Arent there people that are so mentally damaged that they are incapable of doing any job to the standard required for them to earn £6.31 an hour? For instance it may take them all day to do some gardening that would taken a non mentally handicapped person an hour or two, but it beneficial for them to get some fresh air and feel needed, and at the same time they get a bit of pocket money on top of their benefit
eg if it would usually take two hours and cost you £12.62, you pay the person in question £20 but it takes them 8 hours.. £2.50 an hour but you're not having them over, in fact you could get it done cheaper
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
a quick look on oddschecker (I may be wrong it was quick) shows UKIP only favs in 3-4 seats (includes Rochester)
Well, if you can get the same work out of them but pay a fraction of the already low wages, there is a fair chance someone will exploit the system for their own ends? Think of all the modern day slavery cases?
Over the years in a small business I have employed people with mental, physical and neurological disabilities.
I suppose your concerns are legitimate but the fact remains there are some people with severe disabilities to whom employers will not offer work at the minimum wage.
What should be done with them? How should they spend their lives? The answer will be different in every case, of course, but what you are arguing rules out paid work in ANY case for these people.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
I've gone 5 or more so getting 7/1 as a cover bet is great news.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
@taffys No, I am arguing for them to be paid the minimum wage, otherwise it is no longer a "minimum" but something to be negotiated between the parties, with the employer holding the cards.
I suppose your concerns are legitimate but the fact remains there are some people with severe disabilities to whom employers will not offer work at the minimum wage.
What should be done with them? How should they spend their lives? The answer will be different in every case, of course, but what you are arguing rules out paid work in ANY case for these people.
I have a 17 year old niece with learning disablities. She can do simple tasks. She needs a job; she’s well aware that others in her family have jobs, go to work and so on and wants to do the same. She will also never be able to live a fully independent life. How do we, as a society, cope?
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
Arent there people that are so mentally damaged that they are incapable of doing any job to the standard required for them to earn £6.31 an hour?
No. Because that is the legal minimum wage. It's the minimum that any labour, of any kind, is worth.
The law says it is worth that so it must be? It's only worth that if someone will pay it. Now, perhaps that should be the state in some instances, for moral reasons. Which is precisely the conundrum that Lord Freud was trying [very clumsily] to discuss.
Arent there people that are so mentally damaged that they are incapable of doing any job to the standard required for them to earn £6.31 an hour?
No. Because that is the legal minimum wage. It's the minimum that any labour, of any kind, is worth.
So do you think if your kid takes two hours to clean your car and it you give them a tenner that is exploitation? Even though you can go down the road and get it done for a fiver and it will take 15 minutes?
The point is that the example Lord Freud was given was of someone who is incapable of doing a job that pays £6.31 an hour... so all that will happen if we adhere to your inflexible rule is these people will sit indoors all day watching telly or staring out of the window because no one will bung them a tenner to spend an afternoon clearing the leaves from the garden etc even though they want to do it
People aren't employing these poor people because they want the job done to a professional standard, they are giving them something to do, its no more than charity, but the good thing is they feel useful
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I've heard the same thing Mike, another October crash coming?
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
I consider less than 20 seats would be a kind of failure in my eyes.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I've heard the same thing Mike, another October crash coming?
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
Again I think your figures (3-8% etc ) justify your argument, and this could go on all day
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
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:
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.
The values L&N used for Brown were 33% approval (late January 2010 MORI) and 72% two-party vote.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I've heard the same thing Mike, another October crash coming?
I don't know about that and I sincerely hope not but the DOW is presently 245 points down today and pressing 16,000 after being near 18,000 only last week.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
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.
I think I've gone totally native now -I was such a die hard Tory for so many years, but I just can't imagine even my idea leader tempting me back, except if it were ever required tactically to avoid someone worse getting in.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I've heard the same thing Mike, another October crash coming?
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
Lets stop the fussing
I will take 3&4 you can have 1&2
EVEN Money? Any other amount of seats = VOID
Yeah, that's fine
How much?
How much do you want?
One million dollars? *little finger to mouth*
I dunno £100?
Yeah, that's fine. I expect it will be void anyway :-) I'll message you and PtP to confirm.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
How times change, eh?
It can't have been that many months ago that you wouldn't have thought to use the word "only" in connection with UKIP winning 3-4 seats at the 2015 general election, but now it would take some sort of black swan event to push UKIP back down there.
@MrHarryCole: Can't help but think of the disabled people that Labour stewards moved out of shot at their party conference if we are doing high horses.
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
How times change, eh?
It can't have been that many months ago that you wouldn't have thought to use the word "only" in connection with UKIP winning 3-4 seats at the 2015 general election, but now it would take some sort of black swan event to push UKIP back down there.
Yeah if I had tipped 3-4 at 7/1 in May I reckon people would have said it was a bit optimistic!
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.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
But if "something happens" there's every chance that you're just left with Carswell and maybe Reckless.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here] on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses] on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
Lets stop the fussing
I will take 3&4 you can have 1&2
EVEN Money? Any other amount of seats = VOID
Yeah, that's fine
How much?
How much do you want?
One million dollars? *little finger to mouth*
I dunno £100?
Yeah, that's fine. I expect it will be void anyway :-) I'll message you and PtP to confirm.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I don't care what some experts on PB are saying; the Stock Markets are falling for the 5th day in succession. Something is in the wind. I spoke to my stockbroker 2 hours ago, and he smells trouble.
I've heard the same thing Mike, another October crash coming?
Don't worry. Ebola will be along shortly.
You may soon regret saying that, even in jest.
I'm not jesting. Look at the numbers, and the slow realisation of world governments as they begin to throw the armed forces at an almost insurmountable problem.
We've got UKBA defending us. They'll either wave sufferers through to avoid dealing with the paperwork, or go on strike demanding 'danger money'.
Whereas Miliband taking this baton may seem opportunistic but when Harriet picks it up it really resonates.
The Tories have only themselves to blame. Through the offices of IDS they have now got themselves a horrible reputation for kicking the disabled. By contrast Labour's credentials are impeccable.
This is what Labour should have been doing for months. Privilege is Cameron's weakness and compassion is Labour's strength. For Labour this is the perfect 10
Looking at ICM's latest polling there does seem to be a competition on to see who dislikes David Cameron the most, Ukip voters or Labour voters. You have to wonder how many of those lost to Ukip can be won back under the current Tory leadership. And what would the next leader need to promise to them?
@Hugh The logic is that if you do away with the minimum wage for the "disabled", you would have to remove it from the "able", otherwise it is discrimination. Logic of course plays no part in debate here, so just carry on as usual everyone.
Whereas Miliband taking this baton may seem opportunistic but when Harriet picks it up it really resonates.
The Tories have only themselves to blame. Through the offices of IDS they have now got themselves a horrible reputation for kicking the disabled. By contrast Labour's credentials are impeccable.
This is what Labour should have been doing for months. Privilege is Cameron's weakness and compassion is Labour's strength. For Labour this is the perfect 10
Compassion = Hospital patients drinking from water vases.
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.
I think I've gone totally native now -I was such a die hard Tory for so many years, but I just can't imagine even my idea leader tempting me back, except if it were ever required tactically to avoid someone worse getting in.
I'm completely mercantile about it. If there was a Tory leader that was prepared to demand major repatriations from Brussels or leave, who wanted to genuinely cut immigration to the tens of thousands, and who had a strong sense of traditional British liberties, I'd happily vote for them.
The point is that the example Lord Freud was given was of someone who is incapable of doing a job that pays £6.31 an hour
The point is that every job is worth at least £6.50, because that is the legal minimum wage.
Freud's point was that some jobs are worth less than that if they are done by a disabled person.
No that wasn't his point at all
They aren't being used to do jobs that could be done by an able minded person for economic reasons
He is talking about non jobs given to people to give them something to do rather than stare out of a window
And now they will just stare out of the window, because there isn't a real job available that they could do on merit, and no one will bung them a bit of pocket money to do some menial and probably unnecessary task either because of inflexible bureacracy
OK, the argument that is mostly put forward is that the "disabled" should be exempt from the minimum wage requirements. How "disabled" do you have to be, to qualify for this dubious honour?
Interesting how certain political events provoke sundered political allegiances to heal. The pb kippers are hotly coming to the defence of the point being made by Lord Freud (compare and contrast Douglas Carswell's comments).
@Hugh The logic is that if you do away with the minimum wage for the "disabled", you would have to remove it from the "able", otherwise it is discrimination. Logic of course plays no part in debate here, so just carry on as usual everyone.
A person who can do some work but not sufficient to generate the minimum wage's worth of value for his/her employer. Should that person be condemned to rot on benefits or is there another way, perhaps involving employment subsidy, whereby the person can join the workforce? If you want to stick rigidly to the idea that the employer must pay the minimum wage then more disabled people are going to be doomed to a life on benefits than needs to be the case. If you want to think about the problem then maybe some solutions can be found that benefit the disabled, the employers and the taxpayers.
The point is that the example Lord Freud was given was of someone who is incapable of doing a job that pays £6.31 an hour
The point is that every job is worth at least £6.50, because that is the legal minimum wage.
Freud's point was that some jobs are worth less than that if they are done by a disabled person.
I presume then that you are happy for those whose disabilities prevent them from matching the output of their non-disabled cohort simply never to get jobs. It's a view...
@HurstLlama Benefit to the taxpayers? If a disabled person works "full time", then they are entitled to full tax credits to take them up to a certain level (remember "work will always pay?), this means more employment subsidies. Spin it on the other matters, but that one is nonsense.
Comments
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win-at-the-general-election/
Not difficult to see who really is the nasty party.
( I don't mean I think it should be two on if that's what you thought I meant by shorter than 1-2!!)
Here are the prices
0 is 7/1
1-2 10/3
3-4 7/1
5+ 8/11
If it was an EVEN money bet with all other seat totals VOID, I would be happy to take 3-4 against 1-2
If your potential output as a disabled person is 50% of that of an able bodied person, you are at a disadvantage in getting a job as the cost is double to the employer. The value of the job to the disabled person is often far greater than the monetary reward in psychological terms. The business is not a charity or social service, so I don't see the harm in having a lower payment which is subsided by the community. Alternatively you could make it impossible for the disabled to get jobs, miss out on the opportunity of self esteem and worth boosts and in some instances see improvements in their conditions.
It is about giving better and more opportunities to the disabled. Just because the initial observations grates, it doesn't make it sick as it is a step to enabling better outcomes.
OK. But that leaves some severely disabled people on welfare for ever. Happy?
"Why?"
Perhaps it would mean prospective employers would use them as more than cheap beasts of burden?
It all tasted at least “pleasant”. Some was better than others of course!
Labour gain a net 24 voters from the Lib Dems, but they lose 23 voters to UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. So only the barest advance on 2010.
And then they lose a net 3 voters to the Conservatives, putting them down on 2010. I think they only score 33% in this poll because a smaller proportion of their 2010 voters are "uncertain" than 2010 Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Well, if you can get the same work out of them but pay a fraction of the already low wages, there is a fair chance someone will exploit the system for their own ends?
Think of all the modern day slavery cases?
eg if it would usually take two hours and cost you £12.62, you pay the person in question £20 but it takes them 8 hours.. £2.50 an hour but you're not having them over, in fact you could get it done cheaper
Getting the same output is highly unlikely!
No. Because that is the legal minimum wage. It's the minimum that any labour, of any kind, is worth.
I suppose your concerns are legitimate but the fact remains there are some people with severe disabilities to whom employers will not offer work at the minimum wage.
What should be done with them? How should they spend their lives? The answer will be different in every case, of course, but what you are arguing rules out paid work in ANY case for these people.
e.g. [example only, not too sure on my percentages here]
on national polling < 3%, you have no MPs [somehow Carswell loses]
on national polling 3-8%, you have 1-2 MPs
on national polling 8-9%, you have 3-4 MPs
on national polling 9-10%, you have 5-7 MPs
on national polling 10-11%, you have 7-12 MPs
etc.
So the 1-2 MPs covers a much broader band of percentage outcomes (albeit more unlikely outcomes) than the 3-4 MPs band
Are you proposing to outlaw people who do volunteer work for charities? Some of them probably work harder than us office slaves!
No, I am arguing for them to be paid the minimum wage, otherwise it is no longer a "minimum" but something to be negotiated between the parties, with the employer holding the cards.
She will also never be able to live a fully independent life.
How do we, as a society, cope?
Therefore if Worth < Paid, then that person is left without a job.
In the case of someone unable (for any reason) to perform a suitable task, they are forced (unfairly) onto benefits.
The bankers have finally worked out that the mathematical model they thought was perfect, isn't.
The point is that the example Lord Freud was given was of someone who is incapable of doing a job that pays £6.31 an hour... so all that will happen if we adhere to your inflexible rule is these people will sit indoors all day watching telly or staring out of the window because no one will bung them a tenner to spend an afternoon clearing the leaves from the garden etc even though they want to do it
People aren't employing these poor people because they want the job done to a professional standard, they are giving them something to do, its no more than charity, but the good thing is they feel useful
"I am reminded of some advertising guru or other who said, when talking about campaigns: if you have nothing to say, sing it."
Rod Allen of Allen Brady Marsh. A lunatic who I shot a weetabix ad for. Pleasantly eccentric even by the whacky standards of advertising
http://streamabout.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/madmen-they-were-greatest-pitch-of-them.html
Again I think your figures (3-8% etc ) justify your argument, and this could go on all day
So lets stop the fussing
I will take 3&4 you can have 1&2
EVEN Money? Any other amount of seats = VOID
I think I've gone totally native now -I was such a die hard Tory for so many years, but I just can't imagine even my idea leader tempting me back, except if it were ever required tactically to avoid someone worse getting in.
woe betide any scout knocking on Hugh's door.
Bob a job sir?
''Any employment offered would not be at the minimum wage. Get lost''
I dunno £100?
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
http://en.ria.ru/world/20141014/194085345/Europe-Losing-Fight-Against-Nazism.html
It can't have been that many months ago that you wouldn't have thought to use the word "only" in connection with UKIP winning 3-4 seats at the 2015 general election, but now it would take some sort of black swan event to push UKIP back down there.
Putin must have been listening to SeanT writing about how Europe was moving inexorably to the right?
http://euobserver.com/opinion/126062
Joking joking!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100289442/the-tories-must-pray-that-the-economic-news-is-positive-between-now-and-the-general-election/
It's a well known political tactic which the Tories have used in the past.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disabled-labour-delegate-asked-to-move-to-make-way-for-partys-bright-young-things-9754437.html
Move them out of the way...
We've got UKBA defending us. They'll either wave sufferers through to avoid dealing with the paperwork, or go on strike demanding 'danger money'.
The Tories have only themselves to blame. Through the offices of IDS they have now got themselves a horrible reputation for kicking the disabled. By contrast Labour's credentials are impeccable.
This is what Labour should have been doing for months. Privilege is Cameron's weakness and compassion is Labour's strength. For Labour this is the perfect 10
The point is that the example Lord Freud was given was of someone who is incapable of doing a job that pays £6.31 an hour
The point is that every job is worth at least £6.50, because that is the legal minimum wage.
Freud's point was that some jobs are worth less than that if they are done by a disabled person.
FPTP - not fit for purpose.
The logic is that if you do away with the minimum wage for the "disabled", you would have to remove it from the "able", otherwise it is discrimination.
Logic of course plays no part in debate here, so just carry on as usual everyone.
The (minimum) hourly wage to an employer is the legal minimum wage.
I reckon even stupid people can see past labour's deliberate misrepresentations. Time will tell.
They aren't being used to do jobs that could be done by an able minded person for economic reasons
He is talking about non jobs given to people to give them something to do rather than stare out of a window
And now they will just stare out of the window, because there isn't a real job available that they could do on merit, and no one will bung them a bit of pocket money to do some menial and probably unnecessary task either because of inflexible bureacracy
Ed had them cleared out of shot.
Who has perfect credentials?
However, its economic worth may be less than that if the person employed to do it has productivity substantially below average.
So what to do?
Dragoon employers into hiring people who will drive them out of business?
Write off people whose productivity is substantially below average?
Or, as Lord Freud very clumsily suggested, work out ways of squaring the circle?
How "disabled" do you have to be, to qualify for this dubious honour?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures#employment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/russell-brand-will-make-you-all-homeless-says-john-lydon-9796165.html
Benefit to the taxpayers? If a disabled person works "full time", then they are entitled to full tax credits to take them up to a certain level (remember "work will always pay?), this means more employment subsidies.
Spin it on the other matters, but that one is nonsense.