By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Nick, I am sure you will get elected, will you continue to post if so?
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Voting for proven competent local government candidates where opinions on Europe and immigration are immaterial is very different to voting for national candidates.
The local election results have - historically - been excellent indicators of local strength, and have been much better predictors of electoral results than European elections.
I feel that with Everton, Spurs and Liverpool sidetracked with European football then fourth is up for grabs, presuming Arsenal finish third. Much as I'd like to see West Ham or Southampton get fourth I don't think their respective squads are strong enough.
If I lose then the effect on United's finances of going two years without Champions League football will be £25 well spent!
Marvellous, good luck over the rest of the season. Any chance I'll see you at Dirty Dicks in November?
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Nick, I am sure you will get elected, will you continue to post if so?
Cheers. The LD surge probably was important., and the wiley Mandelson too. There was perhaps some relief that the economy wasn't unrecoverable as well. There's certainly an unexplained gap though I feel.
The betting problem is Ed - he's awful.. but he's not that awful. The electorate have him pegged right at the low end, and even the faintest hint of adequacy could change all that.
I hate betting with my political views too.
I don't see any upside for ed. He might stay at this level of inadequacy, and that might already be priced in, but I doubt it. The conference speech was genuinely a startling new low, and for two quite separate reasons, being 1. The bits he left out and 2. The bits he didn't.
I feel that with Everton, Spurs and Liverpool sidetracked with European football then fourth is up for grabs, presuming Arsenal finish third. Much as I'd like to see West Ham or Southampton get fourth I don't think their respective squads are strong enough.
If I lose then the effect on United's finances of going two years without Champions League football will be £25 well spent!
Marvellous, good luck over the rest of the season. Any chance I'll see you at Dirty Dicks in November?
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Nick, I am sure you will get elected, will you continue to post if so?
By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
Didn't the economy "rebound" because Brown increased public spending/borrowing just enough to ensure that the GDP figure rose?
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Betfair market on Brasil has tightened a little - should get a good steer in next half hour. Would be incredible if Neves won - I assumed South America just likes being regulated in to the ground.
Your use of hyperbole on the last thread merely outlined the weakness of your argument.
I'm well aware of the long term nature of rebalancing the economy and that's why I'm aware of the importance of changing the public's mentality re wealth consumption and living within our means.
It was Osborne who complacently predicted an end to the government deficit while making speeches about "borrowing money from China to pay for goods made in China".
When this failed to happen we returned to shaking the magic money tree, subsidising house prices and promising future tax cuts with Cameron repeatedly lying about "paying down Britain's debts".
The result is that this country now has a government deficit of over £100bn and a balance of payments deficit of over £90bn with a widespread public sentiment that 'austerity' has been completed and its time to start spending more money again.
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
I remember the news a few months ago about the inclusion of certain illicit activities in the national GDP calculation, I presume that activity was to do with this recalculation?
Not really. It was related to long-standing reservations about how, for example, the size of the voluntary sector was reflected in accounts. For someone who previously gave every impression of not wanting to appear nuts about Europe Cameron appears to be going nuts over Europe.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Nick, I am sure you will get elected, will you continue to post if so?
I wonder if NP has been mobilising the anti-Soubry Ukip vote and encouraging them to vote tactically?
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats, or had them sitting on their hands not turning out (which cost them several more seats), along with Cameron spouting various fashionable metropolitan nostrums (hug a huskie and hug a hoodie), which led some to decide he wasn't Conservative and sit on their hands.
Me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt to get rid of Gordo and realised when Gideon announced no child benefit if you are on higher rate tax at the subsequent autumn 2010 party conference that the promises to be the most family friendly government ever were a pack of lies.
Won't make the same mistake again. UKIP this time, even if it means a Labour government. Would rather have a bunch of incompetent fools who have some regard for those who struggle in life than a bunch of incompetent greedy selfish fools who care only about themselves and their rentier cronies.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
Didn't the economy "rebound" because Brown increased public spending/borrowing just enough to ensure that the GDP figure rose?
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Yes, the Brown splurge was a factor, no shock to find the coalition has slowed fiscal consolidation this year.
By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
Didn't the economy "rebound" because Brown increased public spending/borrowing just enough to ensure that the GDP figure rose?
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Yes, the Brown splurge was a factor, no shock to find the coalition has slowed fiscal consolidation this year.
It appears to have caught the Coalition by surprise!
I think NOM will be determined by the SNP. If the SNP gain more that 10 seats from Labour then there will be a big chance of NOM.
Fantasies of a Tory majority or even the Tories largest party are just fantasies by Tories. Labour and the Tories are going to gain about the same number of seats from the LD, while the constituency polling so far suggests at least 29 gains for Labour from the Tories, while the Tories also lose at least 4 seats to UKIP, and that's just from the seats that have been polled.
Scotland is the only region where Labour can lose seats and the Tories can gain seats, it's there where the NOM will be decided or not. So far there haven't been any constituency polls there, fortunately Lord Ashcroft said that he will conduct some there.
Until some scottish constituency polls have been published I advise caution on the NOM betting.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The fear factor among middle class public sector workers and other middle class heavy users of public services.
These voters were main targets of the 'Cameron Project' but Cameron didn't 'seal the deal'.
It was, ironically, Brown's trip to Rochdale angering wwc voters which put the Conservatives over 300 MPs.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
Oh, the horror!
But thank you for confirming the polling about the dull UKIP sex life....
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
Betfair market on Brasil has tightened a little - should get a good steer in next half hour. Would be incredible if Neves won - I assumed South America just likes being regulated in to the ground.
It has been a dirty campaign in Brazil, the banks there have given a lot of funds to defeat Dilma,for instance Marina Silva's campaign was funded largely by a large bank in order to split the left wing vote with window dressing ecological policies.
Neves doesn't have the best reputation (in fact he is like a classic 80's Gordon Gekko type), but he can buy the allegiance of the media and politicians.
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
It's all a question of where you start.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
If you think it is definite, would you be interested in a small wager at the bookies prices? Betvictor are still offering 5/4*, would you offer £25 to my £20?
*And best odds on them being Top 4 is 4/5 (WH).
Just to be clear you are backing them to not finish in the top four?
Yeah. Just to make perfectly clear:
Utd finish top 4: I pay you £20 Utd finish outside top 4: You pay me £25
That's good for me, done!
I feel that with Everton, Spurs and Liverpool sidetracked with European football then fourth is up for grabs, presuming Arsenal finish third. Much as I'd like to see West Ham or Southampton get fourth I don't think their respective squads are strong enough.
If I lose then the effect on United's finances of going two years without Champions League football will be £25 well spent!
I forgot to back those bookings bets! Well done though
If I had remembered, I cant get on anyway, so no harm done!
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
It's all a question of where you start.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
I wouldn't put too much faith in structural deficits which can be argued about forever.
The Tory lead fell from about 15% in Summer 2009 to under 10% by January 2010, and continued to narrow to around 6% by March. In the couple of weeks before Gordon fired the starting gun it briefly spiked up to 9% and then fell as sharply back down to 5%. In the period of the 3 TV debates the lead gradually drifted upward to the 7.3% obtained on polling day.
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
Me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt to get rid of Gordo and realised when Gideon announced no child benefit if you are on higher rate tax at the subsequent autumn 2010 party conference that the promises to be the most family friendly government ever were a pack of lies.
Although they have announced an intention to introduce some element of marriage recognition into the tax system, plus extended the availability of support for childcare. You've also got to remember that the LibDems are virulently anti any support for married couples & we do have a Coalition rather than a Tory government.
The unfortunate reality is that with the deficit where it is, well off people can't expect to receive the same kind of sweeties that we used to got.
There is no sensible reason, for instance, why I should receive child benefit (although, in fact, I choose to receive it and then pay it back at the end of the year, figuring that an interest free loan is better than nothing).
My preference would have been to cap it at, say, 2 or 3 children, or to make it taxable, but I haven't done the sums.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
There was a chance of an early election. Gordon could have called one, and in that instance the promise would have had relevance.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, what in your opinion would a referendum on a ratified treaty achieve?
By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
Didn't the economy "rebound" because Brown increased public spending/borrowing just enough to ensure that the GDP figure rose?
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Yes, the Brown splurge was a factor, no shock to find the coalition has slowed fiscal consolidation this year.
It appears to have caught the Coalition by surprise!
The sharp drop in commodity prices probably has too, imagine the kick that will have in H1 next year. Real boost to incomes, real wages, employment etc.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
Oh, the horror!
But thank you for confirming the polling about the dull UKIP sex life....
Give me a break. If Farage had said Anna Soubry looked like she enjoyed certain sexual acts, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops about how he should have resigned.
The argument against Osborne seems to be that he is doing the job more slowly than predicted five years ago. Five year economic forecasts seem like nonsense to me.
He should just say that he is dispensing with the notion of long term forecasting because events change the world.
"Among the several controversial scandals in which his name was mentioned, one involves a helicopter belonging to Neves' company, Agropecuaria Limeira, filled with 4.5 tons of cocaine, and seized by the Federal Police of Espiritu Santo, in the south east of the country last year.
The helicopter belonged to congressman Gustavo Perella, son of the senator and former president of the soccer team Cruzerio, Zeze Perella, both close political allies of Neves, also former governor of the region.
Yet the helicopter case could only be the tip of the iceberg. The attorney's office of Minas Gerais is investigating the possible illegal allocation of contracts to the company Agropecuaria Limeira, while Neves was governing this state. These contracts include the purchase of the property Guara, where the helicopter was seized. The airport where the helicopter landed is suspected to have been built with public funds in 2010 – the last year of Neves' mandate at the head of Minas Gerais, according to Pulzo.com, on a property belonging to a Neves' great uncle."
I don't call that a "hope in humanity" if Brazil's version of Berlusconi gets elected.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
So he entirely kept his promise; from a BBC page: "He promised a referendum if he took office before all EU states ratified it, but declined to say what he would do if this happened before a Tory win."
If you misunderstood it to mean that he'd give us a referendum even if it had already been ratified by every EU state, then you must have thought he promised a referendum on our membership of the EU.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
Tory under-performance (or rather Gordon outperformance) in Scotland. Doubt it will be replicated by EdM + ??
A very effective series of PPB's - pushing the heartless Tories taking away middle class benefits line. Probably switched enough votes in key marginals.
Charles - I don't believe Brown's (and Labour's) recovery prior to the last election had much, if anything to do with their PPBs. Firstly I don't believe many people are that gullible and secondly much of the recovery took place many months before the GE when PPBs are pretty few and far between. I'm surprised you make no mention of the "swingback" factor which has been shown to be benefit most incumbent governments over the past 30-40 years and is one of the planks of Stephen Fisher's and other forecasting models. As things stand, what are your own expectations of the outcome next May? It would be good if OGH were to organise a poll, say at each month end between now and the GE to track the collective wisdom of the PB.com community as regards their expectation of the GE result.
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
It's all a question of where you start.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
And Osborne has failed on industrial production, on productivity and on the balance of payments. Meanwhile our competitors grow in number and strength.
But where this government has truly failed is in changing the "cos I'm worth it, don't put it off, put it on" mentality.
This country is living beyond its means even more than it was doing in 2010 and yet Cameron peddles lies about "paying down Britain's debts" and makes promises of future tax cuts.
It might be a two term job fixing the mess but its a two term job this government isn't interested in - what Cameron and Osborne are interested in is spending whatever money they deem appropriate and leaving someone else to sort out the mess.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
By the election in 2010 the economy had rebounded sufficiently and the poll differential between the government and opposition was as you would expect based on economic indicators.
Didn't the economy "rebound" because Brown increased public spending/borrowing just enough to ensure that the GDP figure rose?
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Yes, the Brown splurge was a factor, no shock to find the coalition has slowed fiscal consolidation this year.
It appears to have caught the Coalition by surprise!
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
It's all a question of where you start.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
I wouldn't put too much faith in structural deficits which can be argued about forever.
Predicting the future, and placing my bets accordingly is part of what I do.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
Tory under-performance (or rather Gordon outperformance) in Scotland. Doubt it will be replicated by EdM + ??
A very effective series of PPB's - pushing the heartless Tories taking away middle class benefits line. Probably switched enough votes in key marginals.
Charles - I don't believe Brown's (and Labour's) recovery prior to the last election had much, if anything to do with their PPBs. Firstly I don't believe many people are that gullible and secondly much of the recovery took place many months before the GE when PPBs are pretty few and far between. I'm surprised you make no mention of the "swingback" factor which has been shown to be benefit most incumbent governments over the past 30-40 years and is one of the planks of Stephen Fisher's and other forecasting models. As things stand, what are your own expectations of the outcome next May? It would be good if OGH were to organise a poll, say at each month end between now and the GE to track the collective wisdom of the PB.com community as regards their expectation of the GE result.
Complete guess but I suspect swingback might have to do with governments manipulating the business cycle to fit the electoral cycle.
The Tory lead fell from about 15% in Summer 2009 to under 10% by January 2010, and continued to narrow to around 6% by March. In the couple of weeks before Gordon fired the starting gun it briefly spiked up to 9% and then fell as sharply back down to 5%. In the period of the 3 TV debates the lead gradually drifted upward to the 7.3% obtained on polling day.
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
Banging LD 10 UKIP 17 Lab 31.3 Con 35 produces Con 305, Lab 296 seats.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
You are correct Charles. It's amazing how kippers and their fellow travellers make misleading statements about this either through ignorance or malice.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
Eta What a remarkable error to have slipped through the subs:
"Its key target had been to unseat John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, but Ukip's Nick Farage could only muster third place."
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
The Tory lead fell from about 15% in Summer 2009 to under 10% by January 2010, and continued to narrow to around 6% by March. In the couple of weeks before Gordon fired the starting gun it briefly spiked up to 9% and then fell as sharply back down to 5%. In the period of the 3 TV debates the lead gradually drifted upward to the 7.3% obtained on polling day.
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
Banging LD 10 UKIP 17 Lab 31.3 Con 35 produces Con 305, Lab 296 seats.
The Tory lead fell from about 15% in Summer 2009 to under 10% by January 2010, and continued to narrow to around 6% by March. In the couple of weeks before Gordon fired the starting gun it briefly spiked up to 9% and then fell as sharply back down to 5%. In the period of the 3 TV debates the lead gradually drifted upward to the 7.3% obtained on polling day.
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
The Tory lead fell from about 15% in Summer 2009 to under 10% by January 2010, and continued to narrow to around 6% by March. In the couple of weeks before Gordon fired the starting gun it briefly spiked up to 9% and then fell as sharply back down to 5%. In the period of the 3 TV debates the lead gradually drifted upward to the 7.3% obtained on polling day.
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
Banging LD 10 UKIP 17 Lab 31.3 Con 35 produces Con 305, Lab 296 seats.
What about with the 4.7% lead?
312 to 288. The coalition keeps on rolling. (I took Labour down to 30.3)
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
It's all a question of where you start.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
And Osborne has failed on industrial production, on productivity and on the balance of payments. Meanwhile our competitors grow in number and strength.
But where this government has truly failed is in changing the "cos I'm worth it, don't put it off, put it on" mentality.
This country is living beyond its means even more than it was doing in 2010 and yet Cameron peddles lies about "paying down Britain's debts" and makes promises of future tax cuts.
It might be a two term job fixing the mess but its a two term job this government isn't interested in - what Cameron and Osborne are interested in is spending whatever money they deem appropriate and leaving someone else to sort out the mess.
It's difficult to see how one year of a government can rectify decades of mismanagement of the economy regarding industrial production and productivity. The drivers in the economy were short term capitalism and bloody minded unions.
As things stand, what are your own expectations of the outcome next May? It would be good if OGH were to organise a poll, say at each month end between now and the GE to track the collective wisdom of the PB.com community as regards their expectation of the GE result.
I've been a long-time believer in NOM: depending on my mood, I switch between Tory and Labour largest party. (Not quite as long as @antifrank, but probably from late 2011 onwards).
My view on most likely outcome would be a continuation of the current coalition.
Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that very few people who voted Tory in 2010 have a rational reason to change their vote. Similarly, I doubt they will have won many new supporters (but some from the cling-to-nurse voters last time round to offset the UKIP slippage). EdM I don't think will appeal to many - with most LibDems reverting back to the the mother short or to NOTA - with his slight gains offset by losses in Scotland.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
Eta What a remarkable error to have slipped through the subs:
"Its key target had been to unseat John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, but Ukip's Nick Farage could only muster third place."
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
The Telegraph's article (and others like it) get the thrashing they deserve here:
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
Why wouldnt he want to honour it'? He cant be that wedded to Lisbon over the pre Lisbon arrangements for running the EU. What downside to a vote on Lisbon would there have been?
I'll be honest - at the moment I'm hoping Ed gets Most seats but not a majority, that should mean the Tories have won the vote count and I'll have made a good profit !
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
So you're now saying that you understood his promise, that it wasn't what you said it was, but people might have believed that it was what you said it was because he said "cast iron guarantee"?
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
I don't know what he believed at the time, but a lot of people thought there was a real chance of an election
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
The tiny size of the constituency party is what cost the Tories that scalp. Not UKIP.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
No: that's the classic mistake people make.
Ball's majority was about 1,100 IIRC, and there were 1,500 votes cast for UKIP.
Your statement is only true if UKIP hadn't stood and *all* their votes transferred to the Tories, which is probably unlikely.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
yet Cameron peddles lies about "paying down Britain's debts"
The UK government debt to GDP ratio has fallen from 145% in 2010 to 125% in 2014.
Many commentators have forgotten that a lot of banks were nationalised, and so were their debts.
As those numbers don't take into account the nationalised banks's assets they're irrelevant.
The actual debt numbers are the ones used by the chancellor in his Budget speeches, the Treasury, the BoE, the OBR etc and they show that government debt has increased.
Yet Cameron has on multiple occasions claimed to be "paying down Britain's debts".
This can be understood as nothing but an attempt to mislead voters as to this government's fiscal record.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
The two theories are incumbency swingback and last-minute mobilisation of the anti-Tory vote. There are quite a lot of voters who don't like any of us much but who especially don't like the Conservatives; if they appear to be heading for a majority the "don't knows" tend to swing against them. That said, there really aren't that many don't knows out there, so my guess is that the current position will remain roughly the same. But none of us really know what the UKIP vote will do! - there are zero useful modern precedents to go on.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP, enough to cost them several seats
Eta What a remarkable error to have slipped through the subs:
"Its key target had been to unseat John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, but Ukip's Nick Farage could only muster third place."
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I really hate the word 'guestimate'. That's what an estimate *is*.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
I don't know what he believed at the time, but a lot of people thought there was a real chance of an election
There was.
But Cameron didn't expect to win it and so wouldn't have been in a position to offer a referendum.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
Probably the strongest argument against a hung Parliament after the next GE is that I have been predicting that as the likeliest outcome since the summer of 2010.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
No: that's the classic mistake people make.
Ball's majority was about 1,100 IIRC, and there were 1,500 votes cast for UKIP.
Your statement is only true if UKIP hadn't stood and *all* their votes transferred to the Tories, which is probably unlikely.
Well, not all; would only need 1,101 more than went Lab. I'd imagine that if you could survey every one of those 1,400 and offer them the chance of not being constituents of Ed Balls they'd probably go for it.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
So you're now saying that you understood his promise, that it wasn't what you said it was, but people might have believed that it was what you said it was because he said "cast iron guarantee"?
And what did I say it was ?
And I don't think people believed whatever you think I said it was but they believed the overblown impression that Cameron was happy for them to believe.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
Probably the strongest argument against a hung Parliament after the next GE is that I have been predicting that as the likeliest outcome since the summer of 2010.
SO - what's your view on Spurs? I thought we'd get 6th but it's looking grim....cup runs this year and try ensure we miss Europa this time (after another disaster post a Europa match)
As things stand, what are your own expectations of the outcome next May? It would be good if OGH were to organise a poll, say at each month end between now and the GE to track the collective wisdom of the PB.com community as regards their expectation of the GE result.
I've been a long-time believer in NOM: depending on my mood, I switch between Tory and Labour largest party. (Not quite as long as @antifrank, but probably from late 2011 onwards).
My view on most likely outcome would be a continuation of the current coalition.
Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that very few people who voted Tory in 2010 have a rational reason to change their vote. Similarly, I doubt they will have won many new supporters (but some from the cling-to-nurse voters last time round to offset the UKIP slippage). EdM I don't think will appeal to many - with most LibDems reverting back to the the mother short or to NOTA - with his slight gains offset by losses in Scotland.
Thanks Charles. I can't however help but think you are understating the impact of UKIP on both the major parties, especially the Tories, but I hope you are proved correct. I believe another Con-LD coalition is unlikely, firstly because both parties have grown to dislike each other, all the more so should Clegg leave the scene as expected and secondly because their potential influence would be greatly reduced were they to lose half their MPs as seems quite possible.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
I can't see Balls losing his seat and frankly hope he doesn't (That's my pocket talking though) but there was a corker on offer earlier in the parliament on Elmet and Rothwell. 9-2 for a Tory hold !
Because this way he can describe it as an unreasonable demand from the EU and have a tubthumping victory when he flatly refuses to pay it.
You appear to assume that the government can refuse to pay a demand which is owed under the European treaties. The European Communities Act 1972, s. 2(3) provides:
There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund or, if so determined by the Treasury, the National Loans Fund the amounts required to meet any [EU obligation] to make payments to any of the Communities or member States, or any [EU obligation] in respect of contributions to the capital or reserves of the European Investment Bank or in respect of loans to the Bank, or to redeem any notes or obligations issued or created in respect of any such [EU obligation]; and, except as otherwise provided by or under any enactment,— (a) any other expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Treaties or this Act by any Minister of the Crown or government department may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; and (b) any sums received under or by virtue of the Treaties or this Act by any Minister of the Crown or government department, save for such sums as may be required for disbursements permitted by any other enactment, shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund or, if so determined by the Treasury, the National Loans Fund.
In R v Her Majesty's Treasury, Ex parte Smedley [1985] QB 657, 665, Sir John Donaldson MR (with whom Slade & Lloyd LJJ agreed) stated that that provision:
provides the Treasury with authority to charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund or, as the case may be, the National Loans Fund the amounts required to meet any Community obligation to make payments to any of the Community or member states.
Now this obiter dictum seems to suggest that s. 2(3) confers a power. In fact, the clear words of the statute impose a duty to meet EU financial obligations. It must surely be open to the European Commission to apply to the High Court for a mandatory order requiring the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund any sums which are owed to the European Union under the Treaty.
Theres also the ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty which sent a slew of voters to UKIP
Are there any other treaties, already signed by the previous government, that you/kippers think that this government should have held a pointless referendum on?
It was perfectly obvious when Cameron made the promise to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, barring a black swan event, it would be ratified long before the election.
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
That's simply not true.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Cameron made the promise never expecting to be in the position where he would have to honour it.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
I don't know what he believed at the time, but a lot of people thought there was a real chance of an election
There was.
But Cameron didn't expect to win it and so wouldn't have been in a position to offer a referendum.
Any reason why he might not have wanted to offer a referendum?
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible. The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
Probably the strongest argument against a hung Parliament after the next GE is that I have been predicting that as the likeliest outcome since the summer of 2010.
SO - what's your view on Spurs? I thought we'd get 6th but it's looking grim....cup runs this year and try ensure we miss Europa this time (after another disaster post a Europa match)
Apparently ground-sharing with MK Dons is back on the agenda ...... Gulp! Plus the prospect of their newly rebuilt ground not being ready until the 2020-21 season.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
No: that's the classic mistake people make.
Ball's majority was about 1,100 IIRC, and there were 1,500 votes cast for UKIP.
Your statement is only true if UKIP hadn't stood and *all* their votes transferred to the Tories, which is probably unlikely.
You'd better watch out Charles we had another idiot from the apostrophe police on the site this morning.
You are quite right about the Morley result.
Because of the strong campaign waged there by Tony Calvert and the fact that the detestable Balls was the Labour MP I think the Conservatives pretty much maxed out their vote in Morley. The UKIP vote there would have had significant number of wwc ex Labour voters disgusted with both Balls and after Rochdale Brown.
I'm thinking there must be some value in the skybet 50/1 on Pochettino being next PL manager sacked
By Xmas.. as long as 'arry doesn't go first though...
'Arry's got to be less than a 1/50 shot though, surely
The risk in backing Poch going, which he will, is that Arry gets sacked first and so you lose the bet on Poch and have to take it out again post Arry.
I think Levy will give Poch time, realistically who would replace him, Moyes? Spurs need proper strikers, a centre half and they won't be far away. Harry will never resign and lose the chance of a payoff but they may sack him if they lose tomorrow.
Assuming Pardew is safe and the Ginger Mourinho is firmly established then it just leaves Harry.
Comments
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.101416490
What about the vast majority in the middle who aren't significantly affected in either way?
Has their mortgage rate rocketed? Has unemployment boomed? It's usually those things that lead to governments being sacked in my opinion.
And isn't that the trouble with using GDP as our measure of how our economy is performing? Just increasing government spending/borrowing improves the GDP figure, at least temporarily..
Your use of hyperbole on the last thread merely outlined the weakness of your argument.
I'm well aware of the long term nature of rebalancing the economy and that's why I'm aware of the importance of changing the public's mentality re wealth consumption and living within our means.
It was Osborne who complacently predicted an end to the government deficit while making speeches about "borrowing money from China to pay for goods made in China".
When this failed to happen we returned to shaking the magic money tree, subsidising house prices and promising future tax cuts with Cameron repeatedly lying about "paying down Britain's debts".
The result is that this country now has a government deficit of over £100bn and a balance of payments deficit of over £90bn with a widespread public sentiment that 'austerity' has been completed and its time to start spending more money again.
Conservative cheerleaders are never slow to criticize Brown for running a 3% deficit at the peak of an economic cycle yet are always willing to excuse this government for running a deficit twice that size at a similar time despite government debt being more than double what it was a decade ago and the challenges globalisation has brought to the UK economy now being so much greater.
Me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt to get rid of Gordo and realised when Gideon announced no child benefit if you are on higher rate tax at the subsequent autumn 2010 party conference that the promises to be the most family friendly government ever were a pack of lies.
Won't make the same mistake again. UKIP this time, even if it means a Labour government. Would rather have a bunch of incompetent fools who have some regard for those who struggle in life than a bunch of incompetent greedy selfish fools who care only about themselves and their rentier cronies.
If the SNP gain more that 10 seats from Labour then there will be a big chance of NOM.
Fantasies of a Tory majority or even the Tories largest party are just fantasies by Tories. Labour and the Tories are going to gain about the same number of seats from the LD, while the constituency polling so far suggests at least 29 gains for Labour from the Tories, while the Tories also lose at least 4 seats to UKIP, and that's just from the seats that have been polled.
Scotland is the only region where Labour can lose seats and the Tories can gain seats, it's there where the NOM will be decided or not.
So far there haven't been any constituency polls there, fortunately Lord Ashcroft said that he will conduct some there.
Until some scottish constituency polls have been published I advise caution on the NOM betting.
These voters were main targets of the 'Cameron Project' but Cameron didn't 'seal the deal'.
It was, ironically, Brown's trip to Rochdale angering wwc voters which put the Conservatives over 300 MPs.
THERE IS HOPE IN HUMANITY!!!!!!
But thank you for confirming the polling about the dull UKIP sex life....
Carshalton, Kingston, Twickenham and Bermondsey will all be holds
Brent C is a certain loss
Hornsey is a probable loss
Sutton is a possible loss
I didn't make the promise, he did, and then he ratted on it. The Tories opinion poll ratings, which were well into overall majority territory, decayed from then on.
Neves doesn't have the best reputation (in fact he is like a classic 80's Gordon Gekko type), but he can buy the allegiance of the media and politicians.
Ken Clarke bequeathed (IIRC) a small structural surplus.
Brown left a massive structural deficit.
Osborne has done an okay job of bringing down the structural deficit in a very tough economic climate. Not as fast as I would have liked, but he has achieved it without mass unemployment (albeit with pressure on real wages).
It was always going to be a two term job fixing Brown's mess, just as it was in the 80s.
But I am still at a loss as to what exactly it is that he didn't fuck up last time that he feels he needs another term to fuck up next time?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/7693877/General-Election-2010-Ukip-challenge-cost-Tories-a-Commons-majority.html
If I had remembered, I cant get on anyway, so no harm done!
Was on the Drog bigtime FGS though17/2 a gift!
An exact rerun of the 2009-10 polling recovery would see the Tories take the lead by January 2015 and have a 4.7% lead on election day.
The unfortunate reality is that with the deficit where it is, well off people can't expect to receive the same kind of sweeties that we used to got.
There is no sensible reason, for instance, why I should receive child benefit (although, in fact, I choose to receive it and then pay it back at the end of the year, figuring that an interest free loan is better than nothing).
My preference would have been to cap it at, say, 2 or 3 children, or to make it taxable, but I haven't done the sums.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, what in your opinion would a referendum on a ratified treaty achieve?
They have to re-fuck all the good works
the Toriesthe coalition achieved in the last four years...He should just say that he is dispensing with the notion of long term forecasting because events change the world.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/The-Scandals-of-Brazilian-Candidate-Aecio-Neves-20141015-0004.html
"Among the several controversial scandals in which his name was mentioned, one involves a helicopter belonging to Neves' company, Agropecuaria Limeira, filled with 4.5 tons of cocaine, and seized by the Federal Police of Espiritu Santo, in the south east of the country last year.
The helicopter belonged to congressman Gustavo Perella, son of the senator and former president of the soccer team Cruzerio, Zeze Perella, both close political allies of Neves, also former governor of the region.
Yet the helicopter case could only be the tip of the iceberg. The attorney's office of Minas Gerais is investigating the possible illegal allocation of contracts to the company Agropecuaria Limeira, while Neves was governing this state. These contracts include the purchase of the property Guara, where the helicopter was seized. The airport where the helicopter landed is suspected to have been built with public funds in 2010 – the last year of Neves' mandate at the head of Minas Gerais, according to Pulzo.com, on a property belonging to a Neves' great uncle."
I don't call that a "hope in humanity" if Brazil's version of Berlusconi gets elected.
Eta What a remarkable error to have slipped through the subs:
"Its key target had been to unseat John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, but Ukip's Nick Farage could only muster third place."
If you misunderstood it to mean that he'd give us a referendum even if it had already been ratified by every EU state, then you must have thought he promised a referendum on our membership of the EU.
He didn't do that then. But he has now.
I'm surprised you make no mention of the "swingback" factor which has been shown to be benefit most incumbent governments over the past 30-40 years and is one of the planks of Stephen Fisher's and other forecasting models.
As things stand, what are your own expectations of the outcome next May?
It would be good if OGH were to organise a poll, say at each month end between now and the GE to track the collective wisdom of the PB.com community as regards their expectation of the GE result.
But where this government has truly failed is in changing the "cos I'm worth it, don't put it off, put it on" mentality.
This country is living beyond its means even more than it was doing in 2010 and yet Cameron peddles lies about "paying down Britain's debts" and makes promises of future tax cuts.
It might be a two term job fixing the mess but its a two term job this government isn't interested in - what Cameron and Osborne are interested in is spending whatever money they deem appropriate and leaving someone else to sort out the mess.
The promises about Lisbon were made in the context of the "election that never was" - i.e. there was a realistic chance of an election prior to ratification
Many commentators have forgotten that a lot of banks were nationalised, and so were their debts.
But he wanted people to think there was more substance to his promise than there was hence the phraseology 'cast iron guarantee' etc.
My view on most likely outcome would be a continuation of the current coalition.
Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that very few people who voted Tory in 2010 have a rational reason to change their vote. Similarly, I doubt they will have won many new supporters (but some from the cling-to-nurse voters last time round to offset the UKIP slippage). EdM I don't think will appeal to many - with most LibDems reverting back to the the mother short or to NOTA - with his slight gains offset by losses in Scotland.
Dilma ahead with 50.99%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4444
With 96% of votes counted in Brazil's Presidential elections:
Dilma Rousseff - 51.09 %
Aécio Neves - 48.91%
Brazil has dodged a Berlusconi Bullet.
We've won one game in the last 7 PL games... the same as QPR and Sunderland, only Burnley haven't won any.
Ball's majority was about 1,100 IIRC, and there were 1,500 votes cast for UKIP.
Your statement is only true if UKIP hadn't stood and *all* their votes transferred to the Tories, which is probably unlikely.
http://divulga.tse.jus.br/oficial/index.html
The actual debt numbers are the ones used by the chancellor in his Budget speeches, the Treasury, the BoE, the OBR etc and they show that government debt has increased.
Yet Cameron has on multiple occasions claimed to be "paying down Britain's debts".
This can be understood as nothing but an attempt to mislead voters as to this government's fiscal record.
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/form-guide.html?tableView=total
But Cameron didn't expect to win it and so wouldn't have been in a position to offer a referendum.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/14/article-1286627-0A09686D000005DC-494_233x423.jpg
1.93
And I don't think people believed whatever you think I said it was but they believed the overblown impression that Cameron was happy for them to believe.
I believe another Con-LD coalition is unlikely, firstly because both parties have grown to dislike each other, all the more so should Clegg leave the scene as expected and secondly because their potential influence would be greatly reduced were they to lose half their MPs as seems quite possible.
The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
You are quite right about the Morley result.
Because of the strong campaign waged there by Tony Calvert and the fact that the detestable Balls was the Labour MP I think the Conservatives pretty much maxed out their vote in Morley. The UKIP vote there would have had significant number of wwc ex Labour voters disgusted with both Balls and after Rochdale Brown.
Annoying because I reduced some liability on Tory Maj by backing at Ladbrokes for a true 5.0 this morning.
Assuming Pardew is safe and the Ginger Mourinho is firmly established then it just leaves Harry.