Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two pollsters, three polls, and UKIP shares between 16% and

SystemSystem Posts: 11,694
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two pollsters, three polls, and UKIP shares between 16% and 24%

With all eyes on UKIP polling shares following their by election successes the online survey by ComRes for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror carried out a test to see whether, as many purple enthusiasts argue, their shares are understated by firms that don’t specifically prompt for the party.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Suggests women are more concerned about waking up with Ed Miliband ?
  • Options
    TGOHF said:

    Suggests women are more concerned about waking up with Ed Miliband ?

    Or this has scared them off completely:

    http://postimg.org/image/4w3p3ap13/
  • Options
    The problem with this is that the sample sizes became so small, down to 782 in one case, that the margin of error increases substantially especially when trying to analyse the UKIP voting subset.

    Hmmmmmm

    Margin of Error with 1001 = 3.1
    Margin of Error with 782 = 3.5

    Comres MOE calculator

    http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm

    has UKIP down 3% from dizzy heights of last week to a more normal looking 16%.

    UKIP has achieved 16% or more in just 21 of the last 627 Yougov polls or in 3.3% of Yougov's last 627 polls (the number the UKPR displays the UKIP score) and would not have achieved it in any Westminster poll prior to that. Its hardly normal.
  • Options
    Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    TGOHF said:

    Suggests women are more concerned about waking up with Ed Miliband ?

    Or that other poll which indicated men didn't like the thought of Boris's hands on the nuclear button, while women were Ok with that 'cos at least they would then know where his hands were ;-)
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2014
    UKIP should embrace the emasculated bloke demographic - they should try and convince Jeremy Clarkson to stand against Ed in Doncaster North.

    He'd do Labour a favour if he won.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.

    YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.

    If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    Today's YouGov:

    "Trust to tell the truth" (net) - OA (among VI):
    Cameron: -30 (+66)
    Miliband: -42 (+26)
    Clegg: -57 (+40)
    Farage: -45 (+59)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/u8bo20w8ll/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-171014.pdf

    Miliband's poor rating worsens among 2010 Lab voters where net trust is +7, (Cameron +28)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    On leader's debates:

    Should be included (net):
    Cameron:+85
    Miliband:+ 84
    Clegg:+68
    Farage:+45
    Bennett:+18
    Galloway: -32
    Salmond/Sturgeon: Not asked (???)
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,029

    Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.

    YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.

    If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?

    Bears out impression though doesn’t it, that a significant part of the UKIP vote was previously NOTA who weren’t preparted to vote LD. Or whatever. Whether they will ALL be prepared to turn out in May is the big question
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    12-month YouGov moving average chart...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

    YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

    I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2014
    Comres lead more like 1 than 3 on 5-10 certainty to vote on unprompted. Prompt for UKIP hurts Labour by 3, Tory by 2.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pong said:

    UKIP should embrace the emasculated bloke demographic - they should try and convince Jeremy Clarkson to stand against Ed in Doncaster North.

    He'd do Labour a favour if he won.

    While Jezza is very entertaining in his current job, I have not heard him express party political views or UKIP. I think he is a Tory, and probably a Cameronite.
  • Options
    Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    edited October 2014
    Gadfly said:

    12-month YouGov moving average chart...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

    YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

    I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)

    Looking at your charts I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP were polling near Labour by the GE.

    The Greens are coming (to split the left's vote), Greens eye twelve seats: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/18/green-party-general-election-12-seats-england

    Bristol W amongst others are listed.

    NB Betfair have put up a Greens UK seat totals market, I did ask for some of the constituencies such as Bristol W but no luck yet. I'll send them a link to the Guardian article.
  • Options
    :Off-topic:

    Wandered off whilst trawling t'internet. Found this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQr6FYFEjI8

    What is is about us Engerlisch? Completely off-board, eclectic and brilliant. Maybe out in-house Scots-born lawyer [Plastic Yourshireman] could explain. Oh; I feel really old for remembering this song.... :(
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Gadfly said:

    12-month YouGov moving average chart...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

    YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

    I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)

    The Greens are coming (to split the left's vote), Greens eye twelve seats: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/18/green-party-general-election-12-seats-england
    I asked YouGov for the Green Party data, with the aim of including it within my charts. Unfortunately, up to press this has not been forthcoming :-(

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    Fair enough. What did Blair know (apart from how to win General Elections)?

    Labour in Scotland is to ditch the legacy of Tony Blair and return to its “socialist principles” as it seeks to ­counter the rising Nationalist threat and win power next May, one of the party’s most senior figures has said.

    In an article for Scotland on Sunday Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran says Labour is “no longer the party of a ­decade ago” and in Ed ­Miliband now has a leader ready to stand up to big business.


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-labour-turns-its-back-on-blair-legacy-1-3577105
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Dr Fox,

    I'd agree. And his programme isn't a great advert for Labour. I'm surprised they haven't tried to get it banned.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    Interesting analysis of what countries around the world see as the greatest threat - as ever, Britain stands out in Europe:

    While the British are also concerned about inequality, [25%] fears about religious and ethnic hatred are even more common in the United Kingdom (39% name it top threat).

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/what-is-the-greatest-threat-to-the-world-depends-on-where-you-live/
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    dave says next election is most important in a generation.

    Didn't he say that about the last one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11171923/PM-warns-Britains-future-is-at-stake-in-most-important-election-in-a-generation.html
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    I expect it will also be "the dirtiest in a generation"

    Like the last one....
  • Options
    Off-topic:

    Once Master Dancer awakes he may find some resonance with this version of the classic...:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1ePVGmP3ek
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,997
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Thoughts, I'd not seen that version before. Cheers for posting it.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,029
    I’m sure Electoral Calculus has blown a gasket; I’ve just put the ComRes (prompted) results into it and it gives UKIP three seats, two of them in Scotland.

    No, I don’t think so eithjer!
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,352
    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.
  • Options
    maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,391

    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

    You've successfully raised a generation who only give a monkeys about Liberty if it impinges them personally. Well done!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,349
    On topic yet more evidence of the relative intelligence of the sexes?

    I wonder if advertisers also find men so much more suggestible. Presumably yes or there would not be so many adverts with partially clad women in them.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,957
    edited October 2014
    Frank Field on ed milibands immigration policies, and on Ukip


    "“The programme we now have [on immigration] might have been adequate in 1997. But the whole nature of England has changed, with wages and living standards forced down. It is pissing while Roman burns...

    ...Apart from welfare reforms Ukip have adopted my policies. They want the restrictions that I want. They want justice over who gets social housing. These should all be Labour policies. I know we are supposed to present them as extreme wickedness but they don’t appear like that to lots of Labour voters who thought this was mainstream Labour policy."

    Not defecting though

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/14/miliband-immigration-threat-labour-ex-minister-frank-field?CMP=twt_gu
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,997
    Mr. L, beg to differ.

    Most adverts are (understandably) geared heavily towards women. Women make about 80% of all purchases, which is why even adverts for things like toiletries aimed specifically at men are often marketed towards women.

    It may also explain the irritating and pervasive stereotype of men being moronic/incompetent compared to a dazzlingly clever lady counterpart.

    Anyway, I must go get some work done.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Pong said:

    UKIP should embrace the emasculated bloke demographic - they should try and convince Jeremy Clarkson to stand against Ed in Doncaster North.

    He'd do Labour a favour if he won.

    While Jezza is very entertaining in his current job, I have not heard him express party political views or UKIP. I think he is a Tory, and probably a Cameronite.
    Socially, at least, the answer is yes: Jeremy Clarkson is part of the Chipping Norton set.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015563/Elisabeth-Murdoch-threw-party-Camerons-cronies-hours-beofre-Milly-Dowler-scandal.html
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited October 2014

    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

    Also off topic: Obviously we must allow for freedom of choice to a reasonable degree. I may be weird though, for if someone is smoking a fag upwind, maybe a street or three away, I can smell them. I've always preferred the scent of cigars & pipes.

    I seem to recall reading that Bolivian women in the market place smoke ciggies with the burning end in their mouths. Would that help?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,349

    Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.

    YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.

    If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?

    Bears out impression though doesn’t it, that a significant part of the UKIP vote was previously NOTA who weren’t preparted to vote LD. Or whatever. Whether they will ALL be prepared to turn out in May is the big question
    I think that most of the analysis of the results of the Scottish referendum indicated that the success of the Yes campaign in getting previous non voters (a) on the register and (b) to the polling station was modest. What seems to have happened is that of those who had previously voted turned out giving the exceptional turnout.

    Yes was convinced they would win because they really believed that these people would vote. ICM's discount of 50%, which for so long made them the gold standard, was vindicated under even the most extreme pressure of the most exceptional turnout.

    All of which is a long way of saying that a more accurate way of assessing UKIP's likely support is to take that element of their support that did not vote at the last election and half it.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,457
    edited October 2014
    Few more interesting things from yougov:

    (1) Very little support for a Conservative-UKIP electoral pact: it's opposed 63% to 14%. Also at a "local MP" level by 60% to 16%

    (2) Not much evidence that voters have a clear view on whether the Tories should be more/less like UKIP. 21% say they'd be more likely to appeal to them if they were more like UKIP, whereas 13% say less likely. 14% say the Tories appeal just as they are, and 39% say they'd never appeal to them.

    The difference on the 'more/less likely' seems to be between the current Lib Dem supporters (34% say less likely) and current UKIP supporters (64% say more likely)

    (3) Some relief for Dave. 57% think he should stay PM and Conservative leader if he loses Rochester. He's ahead even amongst UKIP supporters (54% to 31%)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/u8bo20w8ll/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-171014.pdf
  • Options
    What an interesting discussion - George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show in January 2010:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489984.stm

    Some highlights:

    "at the moment we borrow money from the Chinese in order to buy the things that the Chinese make for us."

    Four years of Osborne as Chancellor and the UK has a government deficit over £100bn and a balance of payments defict over £90bn. The icing on the overconsumption cake is that the UK is now selling government bonds in renminbi.

    "In the 19th century we built the railways; in the 20th century we built the motorways. In the 21st century, let's build the super-fast Broadband network."

    A good idea. But my broadband isn't any faster than it was in 2010 and the government has decided to throw tens of billions at '19th century' Expense Account Rail.

    "we risk a Greek style budget crisis"

    How can Osborne be talking about financial problems in Greece ? Haven't the PB Tories told us that the EuroZone problems didn't start until after Osborne had delivered his 2010 budget ?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,457

    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

    I found them quite interesting actually. Like you, I was also surprised on the answer on banning smoking in public open spaces. However, interesting that an even bigger number (60%) support a ban on using e-cigarettes in indoor public places, like restaurants and workplaces. Much harder to make the passive smoking/health argument with that one.

    On smoking, it's interesting that on the long list of options under the "Which, if any, of the following did you find useful in giving up smoking tobacco?" question, 69% picked NOTA.

    I've never smoked, but it seems the vast majority of ex-smokers must have found it very hard to give up. Perhaps they're against e-cigarettes, because it's too much of an unhelpful reminder of what they used to be able to do.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    In January 2013 YouGov experimented with prompting for UKIP in their EU Parliament poll.

    They found a 4 point increase in UKIP's VI.

    "Using our usual two-stage prompting, UKIP are doing seven points better in the EP election than in the Westminster election. Using a single list, UKIP are doing eleven points better. This suggests prompting for UKIP in a question on European voting intention would give them a boost of about four points"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/

    (YouGov included UKIP in their prompting for the EU Parliament campaign in 2014.)

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/european-elections-ukip-closes-first-place/
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014

    "... the UK is now selling government bonds in renminbi."

    Isn't that a bad idea?

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    What an interesting discussion - George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show in January 2010:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489984.stm

    Some highlights:

    "at the moment we borrow money from the Chinese in order to buy the things that the Chinese make for us."

    Four years of Osborne as Chancellor and the UK has a government deficit over £100bn and a balance of payments defict over £90bn. The icing on the overconsumption cake is that the UK is now selling government bonds in renminbi.

    "In the 19th century we built the railways; in the 20th century we built the motorways. In the 21st century, let's build the super-fast Broadband network."

    A good idea. But my broadband isn't any faster than it was in 2010 and the government has decided to throw tens of billions at '19th century' Expense Account Rail.

    "we risk a Greek style budget crisis"

    How can Osborne be talking about financial problems in Greece ? Haven't the PB Tories told us that the EuroZone problems didn't start until after Osborne had delivered his 2010 budget ?

    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877

    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

    I found them quite interesting actually. Like you, I was also surprised on the answer on banning smoking in public open spaces. However, interesting that an even bigger number (60%) support a ban on using e-cigarettes in indoor public places, like restaurants and workplaces. Much harder to make the passive smoking/health argument with that one.

    On smoking, it's interesting that on the long list of options under the "Which, if any, of the following did you find useful in giving up smoking tobacco?" question, 69% picked NOTA.

    I've never smoked, but it seems the vast majority of ex-smokers must have found it very hard to give up. Perhaps they're against e-cigarettes, because it's too much of an unhelpful reminder of what they used to be able to do.
    In my part of the world, there's a lot of communal and rental housing and smoking indoors is prohibited in most of these. You therefore see groups of smokers outside properties puffing away - the other no-go zone for smokers is of course the Underground for obvious reasons. The smokers therefore use the walk to the station to have a ciggy and the rest of us walking up the road to the station have to enjoy it too.

    The concept of people being able to smoke indoors just doesn't exist any more.

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

  • Options
    BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408

    In January 2013 YouGov experimented with prompting for UKIP in their EU Parliament poll.

    They found a 4 point increase in UKIP's VI.

    "Using our usual two-stage prompting, UKIP are doing seven points better in the EP election than in the Westminster election. Using a single list, UKIP are doing eleven points better. This suggests prompting for UKIP in a question on European voting intention would give them a boost of about four points"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/

    (YouGov included UKIP in their prompting for the EU Parliament campaign in 2014.)

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/european-elections-ukip-closes-first-place/

    To prompt or not to prompt has real consequences given that polling is used in the mix of metrics that inform the decisions of OFCOM, the BBC and other broadcasters when determining fair ratios of coverage.

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.

    YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.

    If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?

    Good Morning.
    I love it when @audreyanne and co, start to dissimulate and infer that this particular poll is all nonsense. Something that Mike did in his intro with - good old YouGov to the rescue. What these observers can't hide is that UKIP is gaining adherents and supporters and it absolutely KILLS THEM to admit it.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,457
    edited October 2014
    stodge said:

    Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

    I found them quite interesting actually. Like you, I was also surprised on the answer on banning smoking in public open spaces. However, interesting that an even bigger number (60%) support a ban on using e-cigarettes in indoor public places, like restaurants and workplaces. Much harder to make the passive smoking/health argument with that one.

    On smoking, it's interesting that on the long list of options under the "Which, if any, of the following did you find useful in giving up smoking tobacco?" question, 69% picked NOTA.

    I've never smoked, but it seems the vast majority of ex-smokers must have found it very hard to give up. Perhaps they're against e-cigarettes, because it's too much of an unhelpful reminder of what they used to be able to do.
    In my part of the world, there's a lot of communal and rental housing and smoking indoors is prohibited in most of these. You therefore see groups of smokers outside properties puffing away - the other no-go zone for smokers is of course the Underground for obvious reasons. The smokers therefore use the walk to the station to have a ciggy and the rest of us walking up the road to the station have to enjoy it too.

    The concept of people being able to smoke indoors just doesn't exist any more.

    Where do you live?

    Lots of rental properties in my area are non-smoking too. I guess it's only really do-able indoors 'at will' if you own your own home.

    Smoking seems to have become an antisocial activity to do at all, in a way it wasn't even as recently as 10 years ago. Going back a little further (25 years or so) it was pretty much universal: offices, trains, planes, buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs... you couldn't really avoid it. I used to really resent smokers as selfish, for making me have to inhale it.

    I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

    I don't particularly like entering large shopping centres, or office buildings now, as you often have to waft through a cloud of fuggy tobacco outside the main entrance.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Blueberry said:

    In January 2013 YouGov experimented with prompting for UKIP in their EU Parliament poll.

    They found a 4 point increase in UKIP's VI.

    "Using our usual two-stage prompting, UKIP are doing seven points better in the EP election than in the Westminster election. Using a single list, UKIP are doing eleven points better. This suggests prompting for UKIP in a question on European voting intention would give them a boost of about four points"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/

    (YouGov included UKIP in their prompting for the EU Parliament campaign in 2014.)

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/european-elections-ukip-closes-first-place/

    To prompt or not to prompt has real consequences given that polling is used in the mix of metrics that inform the decisions of OFCOM, the BBC and other broadcasters when determining fair ratios of coverage.

    Nick Sparrow (ex ICM) said of prompting:

    "The established conventions for question design in market research would be to ask for a spontaneous response, i.e without mentioning any possible choices, or prompt with all the main alternatives.

    By this yardstick it becomes difficult to justify continuing to omit mention of UKIP at least, and arguably other smaller parties as well, as they appear to add up to a choice for almost one in five of those who would vote in a new election."

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/07/take-polls-with-large-pinch-of-salt-do-not-consume-in-excess/
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    The elimination will now be cleared by the end of the next parliament.

    So no need to be confused , you just have to change your belief system.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Peter Hitchens ‏@ClarkeMicah 2m2 minutes ago
    Peter Hitchens mocks the Tories' ludicrous pretences on immigration and the EU: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/10/so-how-long-will-it-be-before-we-invite-the-is-jihadis-to-a-white-tie-dinner-.html
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    surbiton said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.


    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault

    I'm glad you finally accept that.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Like this guy...

    @AdamBienkov: Labour's privatisation of the NHS was good but the government's privatisation of the NHS is bad, Andy Burnham tells #marr
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Yorkcity said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    The elimination will now be cleared by the end of the next parliament.

    So no need to be confused , you just have to change your belief system.
    This government's failure to address overspending is shameful. It was their single most important task.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    surbiton said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.
    The first budget next year will tell you nothing about how the deficit will be managed.

    However the budget after the GE , will tell you everything.

    If the present government continues in office 25% VAT, will be your appetiser.

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877


    Where do you live?

    Lots of rental properties in my area are non-smoking too. I guess it's only really do-able indoors 'at will' if you own your own home.

    Smoking seems to have become an antisocial activity to do at all, in a way it wasn't even as recently as 10 years ago. Going back a little further (25 years or so) it was pretty much universal: offices, trains, planes, buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs... you couldn't really avoid it. I used to really resent smokers as selfish, for making me have to inhale it.

    I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

    I don't particularly like entering large shopping centres, or office buildings now, as you often have to waft through a cloud of fuggy tobacco outside the main entrance.

    Home for me and Mrs Stodge is East Ham in the London Borough of Newham. There is a high proportion of rental accommodation while much of the rest is Tamil families where again smoking seems to be the activity of young men outside the family home.

    When Mrs Stodge and I ate out in Cork after Ireland introduced a smoking ban (and before the UK) it was quite literally "a breath of fresh air". I think the smoking ban revolutionised dining in London and elsewhere and made eating out a real experience. I appreciate what it's done to "the traditional boozer" but it's made pubs much more pleasant places in my view.

    The "smoking room" is now the pavement for many and as you say not easy for the rest of us to avoid. I also agree that smoking in parks is much less an issue.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Like this guy...

    @AdamBienkov: Labour's privatisation of the NHS was good but the government's privatisation of the NHS is bad, Andy Burnham tells #marr
    Apart from his not being Ed Miliband, it has never been entirely clear quite what is the appeal of Andy Burnham.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    surbiton said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.


    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault

    I'm glad you finally accept that.
    Everyone around the world blames Labour, they tell you all the time in Detroit.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm intrigued to see the hostility to e-cigs, which I first encountered over the summer from my mother. I'm not a smoker, but I find this baffling. It suggests to me that the objection to smoking goes well beyond a public health concern and into aesthetics.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.


    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault

    I'm glad you finally accept that.
    Everyone around the world blames Labour, they tell you all the time in Detroit.
    This excuse, which started in America...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,457
    stodge said:


    Where do you live?

    Lots of rental properties in my area are non-smoking too. I guess it's only really do-able indoors 'at will' if you own your own home.

    Smoking seems to have become an antisocial activity to do at all, in a way it wasn't even as recently as 10 years ago. Going back a little further (25 years or so) it was pretty much universal: offices, trains, planes, buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs... you couldn't really avoid it. I used to really resent smokers as selfish, for making me have to inhale it.

    I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

    I don't particularly like entering large shopping centres, or office buildings now, as you often have to waft through a cloud of fuggy tobacco outside the main entrance.

    Home for me and Mrs Stodge is East Ham in the London Borough of Newham. There is a high proportion of rental accommodation while much of the rest is Tamil families where again smoking seems to be the activity of young men outside the family home.

    When Mrs Stodge and I ate out in Cork after Ireland introduced a smoking ban (and before the UK) it was quite literally "a breath of fresh air". I think the smoking ban revolutionised dining in London and elsewhere and made eating out a real experience. I appreciate what it's done to "the traditional boozer" but it's made pubs much more pleasant places in my view.

    The "smoking room" is now the pavement for many and as you say not easy for the rest of us to avoid. I also agree that smoking in parks is much less an issue.
    Thanks Stodge. I agree with you on the revolution in dining; it's much more pleasant now.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stodge said:


    I think you're just confused AR.

    Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

    I hope that clears matters up.

    Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

    Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

    Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

    Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.


    The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault

    I'm glad you finally accept that.
    Everyone around the world blames Labour, they tell you all the time in Detroit.
    Oh it doesn't have to be the whole world they've got their own problems, just the UK.

    And in the UK people know what's what. Labour massacred the economy during their term of office.

    - they overspent
    - they hollowed our manufacturing
    - they pushed debts off balance sheet
    - they founded the tax base on thin ice
    - they ignored taxpayer value for money

    You lot are crap at the economy, it's surprising you just can't admit it to yourselves and apologise to the rest of us.
  • Options
    Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

    As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

    I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Is it possible that there could be a deadheat election result, where it is not possible for a new government to be formed with a majority ? That Cameron decides to continue as PM for another say 4 months and to then hold another election in say September, where Cameron asks the public to give the Tories a majority to offer the country strong government for difficult times ?

    Are there any betting odds for 2 general elections during 2015 ?
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877

    Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

    As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

    I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

    As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

    It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,349
    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?
  • Options
    stodge said:

    Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

    As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

    I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

    As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

    It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

    Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    bang on David.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,095
    Surbiton The US did let Lehmans go bust, Labour bailed out all UK banks that needed a bailout
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877

    stodge said:

    Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

    As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

    I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

    As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

    It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

    Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?

    No, do I touch a note of regret - "You've never smoked, I wish I'd never smoked" ?

  • Options
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

    As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

    I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

    As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

    It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

    Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?

    No, do I touch a note of regret - "You've never smoked, I wish I'd never smoked" ?

    You haven't got time to listen to me tell you all the things I wish I'd never done...

  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,877
    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    No, David, we're long past the point when the default Conservative position can be "look how bad Labour were". The Coalition has a five-year record of its own to defend and the fact activists like you are still playing this game shows what a weak record the Government has on the economy and how so much remains unresolved and how many of the 2010 promises were nothing more than the merest chimera.

    As for the future policy direction, we now have the ludicrous prospect of the Conservatives, far from wanting to reduce the deficit, actually making it worse with unfunded tax cuts as the crudest of vote-winning bribes.

    Whatever happened to 80:20 cuts to tax rises ? What taxes will be increased to reduce the deficit from 2015-20 ? How much will spending be cut and where will the cuts be made given so much spending is ring-fenced (another absurdity) ?

    Conservative economic policy is frankly a nonsense and seems almost predicated on the assumption they will be in Opposition from 2015-20.

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

    The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2014
    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    Well said DavidL - the damage to the UK economy was akin to economic vandalism, anyone who thinks there is a painless, quick fix solution is either deluded or an idiot.
  • Options

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    No, David, we're long past the point when the default Conservative position can be "look how bad Labour were". The Coalition has a five-year record of its own to defend and the fact activists like you are still playing this game shows what a weak record the Government has on the economy and how so much remains unresolved and how many of the 2010 promises were nothing more than the merest chimera.

    As for the future policy direction, we now have the ludicrous prospect of the Conservatives, far from wanting to reduce the deficit, actually making it worse with unfunded tax cuts as the crudest of vote-winning bribes.

    Whatever happened to 80:20 cuts to tax rises ? What taxes will be increased to reduce the deficit from 2015-20 ? How much will spending be cut and where will the cuts be made given so much spending is ring-fenced (another absurdity) ?

    Conservative economic policy is frankly a nonsense and seems almost predicated on the assumption they will be in Opposition from 2015-20.

    Aren't you a Lib Dem? You do realise Clegg and Alexander (recently appointed economic spokesman for the election) will be spending their time defending that record for the next 6 months. I do find it amusing that Conservatives are obsessing about employment numbers,not something they seemed too fussed about in 2010, but since it's the one thing that has come good, it's all they want to talk about.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.
    No I'd accept that he had his share of the blame, Black Wednesday was forced on him; but once he was free of the shackles, Ken Clarke did a reasonable job of restoring sanity to public finances and getting the country back onto the growth path.
  • Options
    FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    It's important to be objective about UKIPs prospects if we are going to bet right. The key assessment we have to make is to examine wha
  • Options

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.
    No I'd accept that he had his share of the blame, Black Wednesday was forced on him; but once he was free of the shackles, Ken Clarke did a reasonable job of restoring sanity to public finances and getting the country back onto the growth path.
    I think my point is that Black Wednesday was not forced upon him. It was an inevitable result of the decision he made to persuade the previous administration to take us into the ERM. Clarke did indeed do well but it is worth considering if any of the restoration would have been necessary had not people like Clarke and Major been so desperately keen for us to be part of the ill considered European project.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

    You obviously don't live in overcrowded London though, where managing to grab a piece of real estate in a public park on a sunny afternoon can be a mission in most of them.

    Last night I saw someone who had moved back to London after spending five years abroad, and she said she could definitely notice the increase in congestion over only that time. Another friend in the group pointed out that just 15 years ago, when the Christmas lights went up, they used to drive down from north London (zone 3), park in Oxford street (!) and walk along looking at the displays in every window. With immigration remaining at current levels, London's going to be truly hell in another 15 years. Even with a top rate construction plan, there's no way we can accommodate the population surge we have now in the capital. It's completely unsustainable if the governments cares about people's standard of living.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    antifrank said:

    The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

    The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.

    That just sums it up doesn't it. At least we aren't part of the insane death spiral of the eurozone, so let's be grateful. But antifrank, you have to ask why is it that if the current government's record is pretty good, the prognosis for the next 5 years isn't good? Doesn't suggest the coalition has really fixed things does it?
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Hardly he was hard to find on the day the shit hit the fan.
    The shit he caused by bouncing the UK in to the ERM as chancellor for a short term interest gain for party advantage.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,969
    edited October 2014
    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
  • Options
    stodge said:



    As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

    My late grandma was a heavy smoker for 60 years (until finally giving it up at the age of 79). When my brother and I were kids we used to go and stay with our grandparents over parts of the school holidays. When we got home our mum used to always insist in washing all our clothes straight away - even the garments that we'd not worn and had never even left the inside of our suitcases. The smell of cigarette smoke on them was just overwhelming once they were back in a non-smoking environment.

    It's worth mentioning that my grandma only ever, by her own rules, smoked in just one room of her house (the kitchen) and even then she'd do it with the back door at least ajar if not usually fully open and the internal door to the rest of the house closed. These actions didn't stop the smell being all pervading in the house though - even for several years after she'd given up smoking.

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

    The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.

    That just sums it up doesn't it. At least we aren't part of the insane death spiral of the eurozone, so let's be grateful. But antifrank, you have to ask why is it that if the current government's record is pretty good, the prognosis for the next 5 years isn't good? Doesn't suggest the coalition has really fixed things does it?
    It suggests, as DavidL says, that it's a longterm project and politicians don't have the patience or nerve to explain that. So they opt for silly promises that they have no intention of keeping, or where they have other less pleasant things up their sleeve for later.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.
    No I'd accept that he had his share of the blame, Black Wednesday was forced on him; but once he was free of the shackles, Ken Clarke did a reasonable job of restoring sanity to public finances and getting the country back onto the growth path.
    I think my point is that Black Wednesday was not forced upon him. It was an inevitable result of the decision he made to persuade the previous administration to take us into the ERM. Clarke did indeed do well but it is worth considering if any of the restoration would have been necessary had not people like Clarke and Major been so desperately keen for us to be part of the ill considered European project.
    The ERM debacle was simply one of the fault lines in the Thatcher government and from memory Lawson was one of it's earliest proponents. This was of course back in the days when Europe was inevitable and the single market reforms were the future.

    Strangely however the UKs early failure in the ERM has been the silver lining in the cloud; it made the UK population as a whole skepitical of any closer currency or political Union and it also highlighted through the acts of the Bundesbank that the UK would get no favours or help in a crisis. Without it Blair would quite happily have had us in the Euro and now facing Greek or Italian levels of decline.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    A summary of the last month.

    Chart: YouGov for last month

    Bounce up for Conservatives after conference, then revert.

    Bounce up for UKIP for by-election then revert.

    Labour drop after Miliband Speech, and stay down.

    LibDems steady on around 7.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    A bombshell police report has revealed 75 per cent of known on-street child sex groomers in the West Midlands are Asian – with 82 per cent of victims, aged 14 to 16, being white.

    And a Birmingham Mail investigation has discovered how police, councils and social services have been failing vulnerable victims in a new abuse scandal which follows those identified in Rotherham, Rochdale and Derbyshire.

    The shocking statistics are contained in a confidential report from West Midlands Police.


    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-report-reveals-7948902



  • Options
    FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    t their strategy will be. Obviously some of this will depend upon the Rochester result. However, they are planning, according to my sources, a significant campaign of advertisements in the local press next month, at least here in the East of England. They are also adopting a strategy to maximise their presence even in seats where they have no serious prospects or where they think there will be major press attention during the GE Campaign. They are currently concentrating on main roads in these areas, trying to get as many poster sites as possible to give them an impact well beyond their actual support levels.

    I think the Lib Dems with Connect and the Tories with Blue Chip and Merlin will probably pick this up. I'm not sure Labour will as they rarely analyze data using it just to confirm their pre-conceived ideas of what is happening. I therefore expect Labour to suffer disproportionally from these UKIP tactics, which could have a significant effect in some areas.

    So, counter-intuitively UKIPs tactics could help the Tories, and even more oddly the Lib Dems in certain seats!
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
  • Options
    FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Sorry to repeat this, but it somehow got cut into two chunks!

    It's important to be objective about UKIPs prospects if we are going to bet right. The key assessment we have to make is to examine what their strategy will be. Obviously some of this will depend upon the Rochester result. However, they are planning, according to my sources, a significant campaign of advertisements in the local press next month, at least here in the East of England. They are also adopting a strategy to maximise their presence even in seats where they have no serious prospects or where they think there will be major press attention during the GE Campaign. They are currently concentrating on main roads in these areas, trying to get as many poster sites as possible to give them an impact well beyond their actual support levels.

    I think the Lib Dems with Connect and the Tories with Blue Chip and Merlin will probably pick this up. I'm not sure Labour will as they rarely analyze data using it just to confirm their pre-conceived ideas of what is happening. I therefore expect Labour to suffer disproportionally from these UKIP tactics, which could have a significant effect in some areas.

    So, counter-intuitively UKIPs tactics could help the Tories, and even more oddly the Lib Dems in certain seats!
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
    The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.

    And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

    UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
    A smart agenda would be this:

    1. Cap on EU migration to say 75,000 a year.
    2. Opt-out of the CAP
    3. Opt-out of the CET
    4. Anti-corruption reforms throughout the institution

    That would make EU membership worth it.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    antifrank said:

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
    The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.

    And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
    In that case the EU referendum would be based on in/out on current terms. Unless PM Miliband does not allow a referendum.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
    The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.

    And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
    From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.

    When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

    UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.

    True. But many people in this country don't seem to understand and just think a Mansion Tax, or The 1%, or something will pay for everything. Then there wouldn't be any need for cutbacks.

    Getting the message across to moderate consumption is not easy.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    antifrank said:

    Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

    He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

    When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

    However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
    The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.

    And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
    No 10 has leaked the "emergency brake" as the lower bar and a "points system" as an upper bar. It's the first major demand they've released, so let them see if they can achieve it. If they ditch it from their manifesto now they will clearly be on full retreat on doing anything about immigration.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    DavidL said:

    The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

    First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

    Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

    The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

    I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

    UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.

    True. But many people in this country don't seem to understand and just think a Mansion Tax, or The 1%, or something will pay for everything. Then there wouldn't be any need for cutbacks.

    Getting the message across to moderate consumption is not easy.

    To reply to myself, I would add that consumption per se is not the problem, if only we were making the items we consumed in our own country.

  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Yorkcity said:

    AlanBrooke

    Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

    This might illuminate us .

    Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.
    Of course he also was not in coalition - something your hysterical anti-Osborne rhetoric conveniently forgets.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @MarkHopkins
    Moderating consumption is a lot easier when you have an excess of money to spend.
    Unfortunately most of the moderating has been done by those with the least.
This discussion has been closed.