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

13

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    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).

    I disagree with Douglas!

    But if my political allegiances healed, I would be agreeing with Ed
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited October 2014
    Ed Miliband has spent the week being told to get out of his comfort zone and show he is in touch with normal people.

    So a chance meeting with the star of one of Britain's biggest soap operas was a perfect opportunity to prove he is in tune with the zeitgeist.

    Chatting with EastEnders' star Danny Dyer the Labour leader rattled off detailed facts about the cast, before admitting he had not watched the show but had been reading about it online.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794121/i-love-eastenders-says-ed-miliband-boasts-baffled-danny-dyer-read-online-five-actors-played-ben-mitchell.html

    It is like something out of the thick of it...I can just see Ed slumped over his laptop until 3am every night making notes from wikipedia about anything vaguely popular with the plebs.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2014

    RodCrosby said:

    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%.
    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.
    Plus Labour are going to go down like the Lusitania when voters twig that 7 May 2015 ain't just another opinion poll, and their 'X' could actually put Miliband in Number 10...

    [coincidentally election day is the centenary of the sinking (^_-) ...]
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Smarmeron said:

    @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.
    Well said Mr Llama, - this is a classic case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Apologies if posted before, but here are some words of wisdom from a truly great man:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/russell-brand-will-make-you-all-homeless-says-john-lydon-9796165.html

    UKIP supporters Pretty Vacant?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2014
    Akin to reading a tourist handbook about the Alps and mentioning the heights of the various peaks in conversation.

    Ed Miliband has spent the week being told to get out of his comfort zone and show he is in touch with normal people.

    So a chance meeting with the star of one of Britain's biggest soap operas was a perfect opportunity to prove he is in tune with the zeitgeist.

    Chatting with EastEnders' star Danny Dyer the Labour leader rattled off detailed facts about the cast, before admitting he had not watched the show but had been reading about it online.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794121/i-love-eastenders-says-ed-miliband-boasts-baffled-danny-dyer-read-online-five-actors-played-ben-mitchell.html

    It is like something out of the thick of it...I can just see Ed slumped over his laptop until 3am every night making notes from wikipedia about anything vaguely popular with the plebs.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Smarmeron said:

    @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.

    "Spin", what are you talking about? Who is trying to spin anything?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    Something worth considering in the context of the discussion about the disabled and the minimum wage:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures#employment

    I guess the solution for cases such as the one Lord Freud spoke of is "price work"

    So the jobs is to cut the grass and sweep up the leaves. Its worth £25 whether it takes you one hour or ten

    Lots of electricians and plumbers work on this basis.. this is probably what Lord Freud was talking about anyway
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Will the "Dow" beat the "FTSE" in percentage losses today?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    Apologies if posted before, but here are some words of wisdom from a truly great man:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/russell-brand-will-make-you-all-homeless-says-john-lydon-9796165.html

    UKIP supporters Pretty Vacant?
    Yes, very good but that's not quite what he says. He can understand why UKIP appeal to the WWC, but argues they'll just be let down again. The final piece of advice 'Read as much as you can and find out who's using you' is superb. I also love the way he dispatches Russell Brand.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    2007 how Labour helped the disabled.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/nov/12/economy.uk
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    Hugh said:

    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.

    Ah. I understand.
    So anyone unable to produce an output valued in excess of £6.31 per hour (which some mentally disabled people cannot do, through no fault of their own) should not have any job.

    Not so sure that's a completely meritorious stance, but I understand.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    currystar said:

    MikeK said:
    So will any bad economic news be the tories fault?
    No. However they will be blamed.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    DOW now down 350 points.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @isam
    It's called piece work, it finds favour in the Bangladesh garment industry. ("skilled" trades, especially in construction use it as well, but mainly for the tax avoidance opportunities)
  • I will be running some Scottish numbers overnight and should have an update ready tomorrow, including polling data with proper demographic weighting :)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Smarmeron said:

    @isam
    It's called piece work, it finds favour in the Bangladesh garment industry. ("skilled" trades, especially in construction use it as well, but mainly for the tax avoidance opportunities)

    Oh I always mis heard it as price! it rhymes with price right?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @MikeK
    Osbourne has caused an economic crisis worldwide?
    Of course you would be insane to infer that, only Brown was powerful enough ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Something worth considering in the context of the discussion about the disabled and the minimum wage:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures#employment

    I guess the solution for cases such as the one Lord Freud spoke of is "price work"

    So the jobs is to cut the grass and sweep up the leaves. Its worth £25 whether it takes you one hour or ten

    Lots of electricians and plumbers work on this basis.. this is probably what Lord Freud was talking about anyway
    Another possibility is to provide those who employ people with serious disabilities with an additional annual tax relief (calculated as a percentage of the employee's pay), so as to encourage the employer to employ them and make necessary adjustments. Employers would still be subject to the same requirements regarding the minimum wage etc, but would be incentivised to consider the disabled more actively.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited October 2014
    Scott_P said:

    @Kevin_Maguire: Whisper is Labour has tapes to embarrass other Ministers over the next few weeks. Freud unlikely to be the last

    Quite possibly the most vacuous thing I've seen from Labour for a while:

    1. rubbishing your competition ultimatley means rubbishing your industry as people believe youre all the same
    2. It's obviously displacement theory as Labour have bugger all to say on what matters.

    More stupid politics from the Stupid Party.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @isam
    Much the same in most cases, often an electrician will have a flat fee per kitchen in a housing build. Floor layers price by the meter, garment factories by the unit, price or piece it is the same principle.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    MikeK said:

    currystar said:

    MikeK said:
    So will any bad economic news be the tories fault?
    No. However they will be blamed.
    Labour of course called the 2008 world economic crisis so surely this one will be their fault too
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Scott_P said:

    @Kevin_Maguire: Whisper is Labour has tapes to embarrass other Ministers over the next few weeks. Freud unlikely to be the last

    Quite possibly the most vacuous thing I've seen from Labour for a while:

    1. rubbishing your competition ultimatley means rubbishing your industry as people believe youre all the same
    2. It's obviously displacement theory as Labour have bugger all to say on what matters.

    More stupid politics from the Stupid Party.
    I thought that this was the prelude to it all. Whiter than white, purer than pure...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-says-david-camerons-tories-in-the-gutter-as-2015-election-strategist-lynton-crosby-pushes-party-towards-the-politics-of-division-8959798.html


  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @RobD
    Think of the fun we will have during the election over who said what, or indeed promised (in a cast iron way)?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.

    Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf
  • isam said:

    MikeK said:

    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.
    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.
    Paddy Power's 'line' is at 5.5 seats, which is about right. (Most punters on here could probably nominate five likely wins but after that it gets sticky.)

    The real sea-change is that the potential is suddenly huge. If they win Rochester, pick up a couple of defections and continue to benefit from a favorable political wind, you could see them winning twenty or more. Conversely, it's hard to see them winning less than two now.

    What a pity there's no spread betting on it.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    perdix said:

    MikeK said:
    Kippers, like Labour, revel in bad news on the economy whether the government is at fault or not. Very unpatriotic.

    When would bad news on the economy not be the fault of the Governmemt?
    When it's a Labour government, then it's the fault of the bankers.

    Or Thatcher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.

    Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf

    Not you as well with Scottish sub-samples.

    Wait till we see proper full polls.

    We saw how the Scottish part of the YouGov panel operated during the IndyRef.



  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    HYUFD said:

    Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.

    Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf

    Scottish Tory Surger alarms are going off left right and centre!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    OGH Maybe, but several yougov polls have now had the Tories over 20% and the trend across the polls is for the SNP to have made gains at the expense of Labour. Post indyref it seems Yes voters have moved to the SNP but some No unionist voters have also moved to the Tories
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    RobD Indeed, hilarious after all the Yes claims about pandas and Tory MPs, they better be hoping those pandas are feeling broody
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    There have been two full Scottish polls since the referendum vote. Neither showed the Conservatives having made any significant progress. Both showed the SNP up a lot since 2010, Labour down a bit (in one case, a fair bit) and the Lib Dems dropping off a cliff:

    http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-be-likely-to-vote-in-a-uk-general-election#table
  • There are two problems with Scottish crossbreaks:

    1) Sample sizes are tiny (typically N~150, MoE ±8) which make them useless on their own.

    2) The demographic and political weighting is applied at GB-wide level, not to every individual subset.

    The first of these problems is easily overcome by aggregating a number of polls. The second might just have a clever fix as I'll hopefully be able to demonstrate tomorrow...
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    HYUFD said:

    Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.

    Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf

    Remarkable, but I think to be expected.

    What I find most telling there is the approval/disapproval ratings. Across every region, disapproval of the Government's record runs at between 52% and 62%. Even the South is at 53% disapprove.

    Cameron is toast.
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    Just watched Miliband attack Freud at PMQs. Grrrr. To misrepresent his comments like that was really below the belt.

    It felt a bit out of character too - Miliband chose not to get it, to be unintellectual - something that must irk him - just so that he could land a blow. I guess someone else is directing him, and it's going to get nasty.

    Mind you, I'm also disappointed that Cameron didn't feel confident enough to back Freud whose point was obviously good-natured and socially responsible.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014
    I told you so that something was going wrong with the world economy.

    Anyway margin calls should kick in New York now, and there is a record amount of margin debt, close to a trillion dollars.
    People will be forced to sell their stocks to cover their position.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction

    The money is not really that important as they will be on significant benefits, its the pride and the feeling of actually doing something that is far more important. Why Labour have chosen to go with this is beyond me, I can see why people get sick of politics. Cameron should also have been braver. The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.

  • RobD said:
    They really are incredible, biggest bunch of ignorant hypocrites imaginable.

    How will Hugh spin this?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033

    HYUFD said:

    Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.

    Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf

    Remarkable, but I think to be expected.

    What I find most telling there is the approval/disapproval ratings. Across every region, disapproval of the Government's record runs at between 52% and 62%. Even the South is at 53% disapprove.

    Cameron is toast.
    Predictions of toast have had a bad record of late... delayed toast, maybe?
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    btw, this story is hilarious:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29634122

    See, the police do *sometimes* get off their fat arses and do something....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Antifrank Indeed, but even if the Tory vote has only not declined in Scotland, that is still better than the lost Tory votes in rUK. It seems the relatively low Scottish UKIP score is not eating into the Tory total so much. As you also say the decline in the Labour and LD Scottish voteshares is consistent

    Numbercruncher Will await your figures tomorrow
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014

    I see this site has UNCROSSOVER today.

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Interesting, not just me then, they also think that Laws will lose his Yeovil seat to the Tories (as well as most other seats in the south)

    The west Lothian Question will gain new legs if as they think the SNP win 17 seats and hold the balance of power.

    According to them, Libdems would be left with only Lewes, Bath, Eastleigh, Torbay, St Ives, Thornbury & Yate, Carshalton & Wallington, Twickenham, Cambridge & North Norfolk in the south of England.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033

    RobD said:
    They really are incredible, biggest bunch of ignorant hypocrites imaginable.

    How will Hugh spin this?
    Back to the bunker to receive additional directives.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MikeK said:

    DOW now down 350 points.

    450 points now.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    currystar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction

    The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.

    I doubt he cares. Votes matter not the individuals affected.

    It's the same law of unintended consequences and short term gain, that lead to energy firms freezing higher prices after he threatened them.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    RobD said:
    Ah back in the day when I was a Labour supporter.. what has become of them?

    Good to see the leading charities were consulted etc

    Still, now they favour these poor souls spending the day gazing out of their care home window.. bloody red tape eh?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Dow off 450 - yikes.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    Dow off 450 - yikes.

    Margin calls should be just around the corner, many will be trying to sell before that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Isam/RobD Yes, Guido had a coup there, Ed M should have done his research
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    BobSykes But for the fact Ed Miliband is about as popular as the Argentine Jeremy Clarkson fan club!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Margin calls should be just around the corner, many will be trying to sell before that

    No rate increases by any central bank, ever.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    HYUFD said:

    Isam/RobD Yes, Guido had a coup there, Ed M should have done his research

    HAHAHAHAHAHA. That is an awesome bit of digging.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    HYUFD said:

    OGH Maybe, but several yougov polls have now had the Tories over 20% and the trend across the polls is for the SNP to have made gains at the expense of Labour. Post indyref it seems Yes voters have moved to the SNP but some No unionist voters have also moved to the Tories

    /why not look at the ICM Scottish sub sample SNP 32 Lab 31 Con 16 LD 7 UKIP 11
    Perhaps you did not do so because it does not show the movements you are looking for
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:

    Isam/RobD Yes, Guido had a coup there, Ed M should have done his research

    HAHAHAHAHAHA. That is an awesome bit of digging.
    Expect this story to drop off the radar pretty rapidly now.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @HYUFD
    If it is all about the dignity of work, why do those at the top demand ever more? Do they lack dignity?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    taffys said:

    Margin calls should be just around the corner, many will be trying to sell before that

    No rate increases by any central bank, ever.

    Japan has 0% interest rates since 1998 if I remember correctly, it didn't prevent half a dozen recessions, stock bubbles and crashes since then.
    Governments and central banks have focused on stock prices, house prices, inflation and interest rates for so long and all the time they failed.
    Proving Goodhart's Law correct, to those not familiar with it, here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    currystar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction

    The money is not really that important as they will be on significant benefits, its the pride and the feeling of actually doing something that is far more important. Why Labour have chosen to go with this is beyond me, I can see why people get sick of politics. Cameron should also have been braver. The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.
    I think the problem is the meaning of "worth". There is a purely market definition - the price that a labour unit can command in the market. IMO, in the context of where he was speaking, this is what Freud meant. A certain disabled person may not be productive enough to make it economic to pay him £6.50 per hour.

    On the other hand there is the more emotive meaning of your "worth" as an individual. This is what is being picked up on. As Freud has been in and around politics since 2006 you would have thought he would understand the nuance.

    Of course one method of trying to get disabled people into work would be a subsidy whereby the employer paid say £4 and the state the other £2.50, the employee would still be getting the minimum wage, just not all of it from the same source.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    HYUFD said:

    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important

    I doubt whether many people's dignity would be enhanced by being told that their work is only worth £2 an hour .
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Smarmeron said:

    @HYUFD
    If it is all about the dignity of work, why do those at the top demand ever more? Do they lack dignity?

    The simple fact is less disabled people will now be employed after today as no one wil dare mention this again and businesses will carry on not employing disabled peeple. Is that what Ed Milliband wanted as that is the result. Its the real world, not school debating fantasy land.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    RodCrosby said:

    I see this site has UNCROSSOVER today.

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Interesting site. I see they have dozens of seats being won with <33% and a few with sub-25%, which I can quite agree with...

    FPTP - not fit for purpose.</p>
    although they do have, at first blush, some bonkers seat forecasts.

    SNP taking Ross & Cromarty, Alexander holding Inverness.
    Con taking Southport, Yeovil and Colchester.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Smarmeron If the market deems them worth it of course
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014
    dr_spyn said:

    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.

    With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    edited October 2014
    Anorak RobD Indeed, very good from Guido, he beats the mainstream media again
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    HYUFD said:

    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important

    I doubt whether many people's dignity would be enhanced by being told that their work is only worth £2 an hour .
    Yes because people so mentally damaged they are unemployable on merit really factor that into the equation when they get a day out of the care home
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    dr_spyn said:

    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.

    I like the map of Ashcroft's polling.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited October 2014
    @currystar
    Word it however you like, but in the end you come up with the fact that the "disabled" are not entitled to the minimum wage that their fellow workers enjoy.
    Argue, by all means, that the minimum wage needs to be abolished, but please stop with the posturing.
    Freud issued an unreserved apology, so he must have thought the statement was ill advised.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Mark S Probably because the ICM poll was taken before Labour held up devomax by refusing to back EVEL. Even on ICM though Labour 10% down in Scotland since 2010
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.

    When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread.
    Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    I see this site has UNCROSSOVER today.

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Interesting, not just me then, they also think that Laws will lose his Yeovil seat to the Tories (as well as most other seats in the south)

    The west Lothian Question will gain new legs if as they think the SNP win 17 seats and hold the balance of power.

    According to them, Libdems would be left with only Lewes, Bath, Eastleigh, Torbay, St Ives, Thornbury & Yate, Carshalton & Wallington, Twickenham, Cambridge & North Norfolk in the south of England.
    has them holding Eastbourne by a landslide...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Speedy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.

    With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
    I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important

    I doubt whether many people's dignity would be enhanced by being told that their work is only worth £2 an hour .
    Yes because people so mentally damaged they are unemployable on merit really factor that into the equation when they get a day out of the care home
    Yes Ed reminds me of Chauncey Gardner.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    shadsy said:

    Ladbrokes give the Lib Dems a greater than 50% chance of winning in 31 seats. Here's the rundown:
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win-at-the-general-election/

    The number of seats for the Lib Dems for any given share of the vote relies heavily on the number of votes won in lost seats and the number of votes won in retained/gained seats.
    At some point, no feasible drop in average number of votes in lost seats can make up for the low polling scores. The question is where that point might be.

    You can put in a vote share (and estimated number of votes) and then estimate how many votes (on average) will be in seats won and what the average vote score will be in seats lost. That will give you (subject to your estimates) a seat score.

    For example, last time round, the Lib Dems scored 21,610 votes (on average) in seats won and 9,763 in seats not won. In 1997, they scored 21,895 in seats won and 7,068 in seats not won - a more efficient vote distribution.

    If we assume a turnout about 65%, there will be about 25 million votes. So shares of:
    6% = 1.5m
    7% = 1.75m
    8% = 2.0m
    9% = 2.25m
    10% = 2.5m
    11% = 2.75m
    12% = 3.0m
    Assume about 20,000 votes in seats won, then we can estimate seats retained for assumptions of votes in lost seats. They're not going to be doing better in seats not won than in 1997, I'd say. But how low can they go? About 1900 votes is deposit-losing time. An average of losing deposits in lost seats would, I feel, be highly unlikely and we needn't bother going lower than that. So for not-very-much targetting, 7,000 seats in lost seats; for incredible targetting, 2,000 votes in lost seats.

    At 6%, it's disastrous. The average votes scored in seats not won has to be around a near-deposit-losing 2000 to retain even 13 seats. There just aren't enough votes to go around.
    At 8%, still pretty bad. They'd retain 6 seats if the average score in lost seats was 3,000, but 41 seats if the average score was 2,000. I think that's unfeasibly low, though.
    At 10%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 could still see them retain 36 seats. 2,000 would lead to implausible gains of 12 seats (!). 4,000 average votes in lost seats would see them retain no seats at all.
    At 12%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 sees them hold all seats and make gains again (!). An average of 4,000 sees them down at 30 seats.

    So - it's all down to how few votes they get (waste) in lost seats. And below 8% sees no plausible way to retain more than a very few number of seats. Above 12% and there's all to play for. Between those numbers, and its anyone's guess.

    Interestingly, it looks set to be between those numbers ...
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.

    With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
    I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
    The constituency poll there in Camborne is:

    CON 29
    UKIP 26
    LAB 24
    LD 14
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Speedy, indeed.

    I was surprised that Maguire and Pierce on the Sky paper review a night or two ago were so relaxed about it, citing stats showing (no doubt correctly) more people die each from influenza or malaria.

    The high mortality rate (over 70%) coupled with the rapid increase in the number of infections makes ebola a different kettle of fish.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    FalseFlag said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important

    I doubt whether many people's dignity would be enhanced by being told that their work is only worth £2 an hour .
    Yes because people so mentally damaged they are unemployable on merit really factor that into the equation when they get a day out of the care home
    Yes Ed reminds me of Chauncey Gardner.
    The difference is the establishment supported Chauncey because he was so stupid he could connect with the average voter/normal people.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Precisely - and also to bring the value they have as simply people to the fore. There's nothing like sticking everyone with a disability in a lump - it doesn't educate anyone in the wider population.

    We had about 10 profoundly deaf kids at my primary school [we had the local deaf unit teacher on staff] and it really helped me to understand some of the issues/think of them as just another kid like me - and that some of the difficult behaviour was frustration, more than anything else. There was no fear of *telling* on anyone who pinched or shoved you.

    How commonplace is this today? I could see some advantages in Remploy, but I'd rather bring the disabled into the workplace whenever we can - and stop being so blinking PC about it. Whenever I think about this - one guy springs to mind. He used to speed about our open-plan offices in his souped-up wheelchair and would deliberately run-over the toes of anyone who tried to patronise him. It was a great ice breaker, if a trifle OTT.
    HYUFD said:

    Currystar Exactly, it is the dignity of work for some people who would otherwise not get the chance which is important

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    MarkS If you are disabled, often with serious mental problems, earning any wage at all for work you have done is a huge boost to your self esteem. It is about self worth, not left wing envy!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Currystar Exactly
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    Re Freud, if anyone doesn't get it, Sam Bowman gives a good explanation @3.30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nK2FSvOs3Y
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Speedy said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.

    When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread.
    Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
    It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    shadsy said:

    Ladbrokes give the Lib Dems a greater than 50% chance of winning in 31 seats. Here's the rundown:
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win-at-the-general-election/

    The number of seats for the Lib Dems for any given share of the vote relies heavily on the number of votes won in lost seats and the number of votes won in retained/gained seats.
    At some point, no feasible drop in average number of votes in lost seats can make up for the low polling scores. The question is where that point might be.

    You can put in a vote share (and estimated number of votes) and then estimate how many votes (on average) will be in seats won and what the average vote score will be in seats lost. That will give you (subject to your estimates) a seat score.

    For example, last time round, the Lib Dems scored 21,610 votes (on average) in seats won and 9,763 in seats not won. In 1997, they scored 21,895 in seats won and 7,068 in seats not won - a more efficient vote distribution.

    If we assume a turnout about 65%, there will be about 25 million votes. So shares of:
    6% = 1.5m
    7% = 1.75m
    8% = 2.0m
    9% = 2.25m
    10% = 2.5m
    11% = 2.75m
    12% = 3.0m
    Assume about 20,000 votes in seats won, then we can estimate seats retained for assumptions of votes in lost seats. They're not going to be doing better in seats not won than in 1997, I'd say. But how low can they go? About 1900 votes is deposit-losing time. An average of losing deposits in lost seats would, I feel, be highly unlikely and we needn't bother going lower than that. So for not-very-much targetting, 7,000 seats in lost seats; for incredible targetting, 2,000 votes in lost seats.

    At 6%, it's disastrous. The average votes scored in seats not won has to be around a near-deposit-losing 2000 to retain even 13 seats. There just aren't enough votes to go around.
    At 8%, still pretty bad. They'd retain 6 seats if the average score in lost seats was 3,000, but 41 seats if the average score was 2,000. I think that's unfeasibly low, though.
    At 10%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 could still see them retain 36 seats. 2,000 would lead to implausible gains of 12 seats (!). 4,000 average votes in lost seats would see them retain no seats at all.
    At 12%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 sees them hold all seats and make gains again (!). An average of 4,000 sees them down at 30 seats.

    So - it's all down to how few votes they get (waste) in lost seats. And below 8% sees no plausible way to retain more than a very few number of seats. Above 12% and there's all to play for. Between those numbers, and its anyone's guess.

    Interestingly, it looks set to be between those numbers ...
    I have put the event horizon for the LD at 5%, if they get 5% or lower then UNS kicks in.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Smarmeron said:

    @HYUFD
    If it is all about the dignity of work, why do those at the top demand ever more? Do they lack dignity?

    because they're bloody communists who think they can live off the fruits of other people's labour and put nothing back bar bullshit.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Smarmeron said:

    @currystar
    Word it however you like, but in the end you come up with the fact that the "disabled" are not entitled to the minimum wage that their fellow workers enjoy.
    Argue, by all means, that the minimum wage needs to be abolished, but please stop with the posturing.
    Freud issued an unreserved apology, so he must have thought the statement was ill advised.

    He chickened out, he was exactly right in what he said, today is a sad indictment of what politics has become. It is not a case of being entitled, but businesses in a competitive market place where everything is won on price will not employ a disabled person to do a job at minimum wage when an able bodied person can do it better. Its a simple real world fact. You can argue whether a business is right or wrong but that is what they do and will continue to do now. What Labour said in 2003 was also right. I look forward to Ed telling Patricia Hewitt that she should never have been in Government with her abhorent views.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Andy Cooke - the Lib Dems have sounded blase about their non-seats at the election. The believe they have a cockroach ability to hang on where they are incumbent. But it's worth remembering that if you stand in every seat in the UK you stand to lose a potential £300k in lost deposits. They aren't a party full of money. I'd like to see a betting market on Lib Dem deposit saves. A spread at 300?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Speedy said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.

    When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread.
    Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
    It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
    Its alright for you with your tins of beans and shotgun; we have a health system that is creaking with no beds already, half the intensive care beds recommended per capita and too few staff.

    When Ebola strikes, it will be very messy and your BUPA policy will not be worth a thing...
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    UKIP candidate didn't bother his sheep, shock.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429

    Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.

    With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
    I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
    Yes David Evans is a disgusting fellow and deserves to be stripped of his UKIP membership. UKIP doesn't want or need people who are cruel to animals in it's ranks.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014

    Speedy said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.

    When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread.
    Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
    It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
    Our response to disease is typical of every problem, look at the economy for instance, nothing is fixed, we just pretend until it's too late.

    Governments and businesses don't have the right people to attend to details before those details blow up in their face, and that happens throughout written history, it's what causes historical events.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    HYUFD said:

    MarkS If you are disabled, often with serious mental problems, earning any wage at all for work you have done is a huge boost to your self esteem. It is about self worth, not left wing envy!

    As I was married ( for several years until my wife died ) to someone who was disabled , I can tell you from experience that you are talking utter sanctimonious garbage
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014
    Speedy said:

    MikeK said:

    DOW now down 350 points.

    450 points now.
    Shit! looks like the fan may soon be hit. :(
    Having said that the Fed is trying to pull the market back with wonderful forcast for the future, but how many times will that trick work?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Plato Indeed, at the end of the day most disabled people want the chance to be as normal as possible, even if sometimes accomodations have to be made to allow that
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Speedy said:

    Speedy said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
    "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."

    That's rather a lot.

    When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread.
    Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
    It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
    Our response to disease is typical of every problem, look at the economy for instance, nothing is fixed, we just pretend until it's too late.

    Governments and businesses don't have the right people to attend to details before those details blow up in their face, and that happens throughout written history, it's what causes historical events.
    HMG appear to be about 2 weeks behind the curve.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Lord Freud's comments befit the nasty party but do not reflect well on the authoritarian Blairite Labour party which saw fit throw rose petals in his steps..He's the same excuse for a human being he always has been.
    I must also comment Cameron's consistent reference of his personal experience with his disabled son as defence against government policies as they effect disabled people in general is wearing a bit thin and means he has made this intensely personal matter of the loss of his son Ivan public property.He cannot continue with this form of emotional blackmail and needs to separate the personal from the political.He must not allow this personal matter to become a political devise.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    The Tories need to sack Freud ASAP. They really don't want to get into a flame fight over this issue.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014
    .

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Blueberry said:

    Re Freud, if anyone doesn't get it, Sam Bowman gives a good explanation @3.30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nK2FSvOs3Y

    He is from the Adam Smith institute.

    Why do they have these Crazies on.

    There would be no minimum wage at all if it was down to the ASI

    Of course the Tories pretend they support the minimum wage now despite warning it was a dangerous socialist evil that would cost 000's of jobs when it was introduced.
This discussion has been closed.