@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Britain's economy is very patchy at present. I understand that the Bank of England has identified that London's economy is strong, Aberdeen's economy is strong, Leeds and Manchester are keeping their heads above water but the rural economy is still struggling badly.
That's not great news for a government that is dependent on support from rural constituencies and perhaps goes a long way to explaining UKIP's success: if you live in an area with no Labour presence and where social democracy has been intellectually vanquished, if you want to protest against the government's handling of the economy, you need to turn to a new party.
Even in a full out boom there are always some areas doing poorly but I think that you are right and these features are more pronounced than normal at this stage. I would say Edinburgh and Dundee are both fairly depressed. Edinburgh is clearly feeling the effects of the banking redundancies with more to come. Private schools are feeling the pinch and restaurants rarely need a reservation. Traffic is down despite the insanity of the trams closing a lot of the roads.
Dundee is in the process of losing more skilled jobs from the NCR who used to be a major employer in the town but no longer. The University and Life Sciences have done well in recent years but do not seem to be big enough employers to set off the jobs lost elsewhere.
When I have visited Aberdeen it has had a very prosperous feel but then it nearly always does.
if you live in an area with no Labour presence and where social democracy has been intellectually vanquished, if you want to protest against the government's handling of the economy, you need to turn to a new party.
Doesn't explain UKIP's strong showing in South Shields though....??
I see the OECD agree with me that Osborne has got his macroeconomic policy right:
Continuing weakness of euro area trading partners, slow real income growth and necessary public and private sector deleveraging are generating strong headwinds for the economy. Growth is expected to pick up gradually through 2013 and 2014 as gross fixed investment and exports gain momentum. Inflation expectations are above the inflation target, but inflation is projected to decelerate owing to persistent economic slack. .. The pace of fiscal consolidation of about 1% of GDP per year in both 2013 and 2014 is appropriate and should be implemented as planned while letting automatic stabilisers operate in the event growth disappoints.
The Eurozone on the other hand... they are now predicting a 0.6% GDP fall this year in the Eurozone as a whole.
I see the OECD agree with me that Osborne has got his macroeconomic policy right:
I'm sure there must be sighs of relief at their HQ that they have your approval. ;-)
The OECD are based in Paris, Mr. Brooke.
I suspect they are just buttering up George Osborne in the hope that he will allocate them a prime property in central London where all their staff can move to avoid the excesses of Hollande's tax regime.
Re your comments on aid yesterday ( couldn't reply owing to technical difficulties ).
I have a lot of sympathy with your view that it's easy to carp from the sidelines, those in the hot seat have to take decisions and that inevitably means messy compromises from time to time. Anyone sensible will understand that a degree of leeway is essential. However, to govern is to chose, and my main issues with UK foreign aid are the wrong choices are being made imo.
There appears a bit of a mind set in our governing class that we must dabble in everything, a relic I feel from our Imperial past. It always seems strange to me that we wish to forget other nations have their own politicians and it is primarily their job to get their nations out of poverty and not ours. I'm all for targeted help in countries which which to move in the same direction we do but blanket money showering and dressed up bungs I still think are actually counter productive. Hence my approach that we should focus on putting our own house in order rather than doing a bodge job in someone else's.
[Just lost my original considered reply by pushing the wrong button. grrrr,]
Much of the problem with foreign aid is that it is invisible to the public and expenditure is not directly justified to the taxpayer. So the public feels disengaged and inclined to oppose it.
Compare this to the public engagement and support achieved by the BBC for its aid efforts, Comic Relief and Help the Children.
I realise that you might accuse me of trying to revive the woolly 'Big Society' brief, but there is a clear opportunity for the government to win support for its aid activities by closer and more visible involvement with the UK voluntary sector and the wider public. Such engagement would also encourage closer scrutiny of projects and better evaluation of cost benefits.
That is why I like Charles's proposals on matching or double matching public donations for popular projects. This would involve a tricky job of promoting a government initiative through the media and safeguards would need to be put in place to avoid such activity becoming politically partisan. I am sure though this is possible: the National Lottery being an example of a generally successful apolitical implementation.
We can't let the whole shebang become a luvvie-fest though and the broader interests of the stakeholders in government aid (FCO, Trade etc) would need to be balanced. But a substantial effort could be made by the government to bring a least a substantial part of the aid spend further into the public domain.
After all much of foreign aid is PR for Britain. Why can't the direction of positive communication be both inward and outward?
Well foreign aid is a bit of PR but it's as much for home consumption ( politicians ) as abroad. Setting priorities is clearly the key and for me these are :
Disaster relief ( unpredictably predictable - it happens every year but you just don't know what or where )
Health programmes
Environment
I was going to add Education but I think we're often hypocrites on the issue. I'd say Education should be a number one or two priority. But as soon as we get doctors or engineers trained up in a target country we tend to let them emigrate to places like us so it's not quite a zero sum game but we get a diminishing bang for our buck. I'm for it if people stay and build their country against it if it's just a ticket to leave.
The opportunity for Medical Education and Training is much bigger than aid provision though. I see it as a industry with global trade potential and would look at privatising the main NHS teaching hospitals as a first step to creating the export base, Linking medical training services commercially to pharmaceutical and medical R&D would be a next step. With the right levels of investment (and I mean real returnable investment not the Gordonian variety) then the UK could become a global leader in the sector or at least second to the US.
If France has very low mortgage debt then the personal debt is somewhere else - suggesting credit cards to me. Not good.
French banks. Well capitalised. But stuffed to the gunnels with shitty government debt and exposed heavily to GIPSIs. They're gonna need every last E0.01! When the EZ government bond market breaks the French banks will be among the first to go.
If France has very low mortgage debt then the personal debt is somewhere else - suggesting credit cards to me. Not good.
French banks. Well capitalised. But stuffed to the gunnels with shitty government debt and exposed heavily to GIPSIs. They're gonna need every last E0.01! When the EZ government bond market breaks the French banks will be among the first to go.
Actually, I'm turning much more positive on the periphery and much more negative on the core (France in particular, but also Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland). I think the structural changes in Ireland and Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal, Greece and Italy) are beginning to bear fruit. I am seeing the same kind of interest in Spanish property at the moment that we saw in Florida property 18 months ago. If that overhang can be reduced somewhat, then we might see the economy come back remarkably quickly.
Looking at the data and the anecdotes referred to here this afternoon I am even more bemused that the OECD forecast actually reduced the UK GDP prediction for the year, albeit by only 0.1%. Clearly they were not looking at the SWIFT index.
I frankly wonder if there is some politics in this. Given the much worse downgrades in the EZ was it too much to bear having the UK going in the opposite direction. I still think their forecast is going to look pretty silly all too soon.
Exactly my conclusion, David.
The OECD knocked 0.1% off the UK growth forecast for 2013 purely to wipe the smug smile off George's face and to allow their economists to continue to get preferential bookings at the best Parisian restaurants.
Even Ed Conway was struck by contrition in his reports from Paris today.
@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Time for a guest post?
I'd be cautious. I'm not predicting that Labour's 2015 performance can be forecast exactly from either methodology.
There's another set of local elections, and probably plenty more by-elections. Labour are unlikely to lie exactly on whatever regression lines are ultimately generated.
The Tories significantly outperformed swingback in 2010 (most likely due to Brown's corpse impression in the TV debates.)
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Luckily for them, under FPTP, they can afford to do so, and still walk into office...
Looking at the data and the anecdotes referred to here this afternoon I am even more bemused that the OECD forecast actually reduced the UK GDP prediction for the year, albeit by only 0.1%. Clearly they were not looking at the SWIFT index.
I frankly wonder if there is some politics in this. Given the much worse downgrades in the EZ was it too much to bear having the UK going in the opposite direction. I still think their forecast is going to look pretty silly all too soon.
Exactly my conclusion, David.
The OECD knocked 0.1% off the UK growth forecast for 2013 purely to wipe the smug smile off George's face and to allow their economists to continue to get preferential bookings at the best Parisian restaurants.
Even Ed Conway was struck by contrition in his reports from Paris today.
Even as a bit of a fan I have to say that smug smile is a bit of a problem...
the softness of the party’s positive polling in historical context becomes more deeply worrying when we look at our leadership polling in historical context. And no, before you start, this is not an agitation for a challenge to Miliband, which would be of no help whatsoever to Labour. But the worryingly low polling he is experiencing is not a help either and we should not pretend otherwise.
For those who still cling to the 1992 comparison, it is important to note from this graph at Political Betting that his personal polling is again closer to Foot’s than Kinnock’s. While we might note that Thatcher managed to win from a similarly poor position, she was unique among recent leaders to manage that trick and, as Dan Hodges pointed out a while back, Miliband is not Margaret Thatcher.
@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Time for a guest post?
I'd be cautious. I'm not predicting that Labour's 2015 performance can be forecast exactly from either methodology.
There's another set of local elections, and probably plenty more by-elections. Labour are unlikely to lie exactly on whatever regression lines are ultimately generated.
The Tories significantly outperformed swingback in 2010 (most likely due to Brown's corpse impression in the TV debates.)
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Luckily for them, under FPTP, they can afford to do so, and still walk into office...
If Ed is PM in 2015 despite loding the popular vote, he can at least say honestly that he voted for AV even if he won thanks to FPTP. That must take some of the heat off, no?
Combined with all the bilateral deals done with various tax shelters around the world over the last few years and the rather less than subtle efforts of Margaret Hodge we should see a situation develop where multinationals no longer think it is ok to hide profits from tax and exploit the countries in which they operate.
These sorts of developments are going to be essential to keep social democracy going in the west. We can no longer afford to let these companies get away with taking advantage and simply expecting everyone else to pay more.
the softness of the party’s positive polling in historical context becomes more deeply worrying when we look at our leadership polling in historical context. And no, before you start, this is not an agitation for a challenge to Miliband, which would be of no help whatsoever to Labour. But the worryingly low polling he is experiencing is not a help either and we should not pretend otherwise.
For those who still cling to the 1992 comparison, it is important to note from this graph at Political Betting that his personal polling is again closer to Foot’s than Kinnock’s. While we might note that Thatcher managed to win from a similarly poor position, she was unique among recent leaders to manage that trick and, as Dan Hodges pointed out a while back, Miliband is not Margaret Thatcher.
If Ed is PM in 2015 despite loding the popular vote, he can at least say honestly that he voted for AV even if he won thanks to FPTP. That must take some of the heat off, no?
AV, FPTP and even some "PR" systems don't prevent wrong-winner elections. Only a system in which the Popular Vote is prime determinant of the outcome can do so.
The LDs would be in a fairly strong position if it pans out like I think. They could refuse to go into coalition with Labour unless the blatant (wrong-winner) unfairness of the system is addressed, which basically means getting rid of FPTP. I don't think the defenders of FPTP (Tories) would have anywhere to hide.
"We will support to the death the system that has just robbed us of victory!"
@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Time for a guest post?
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Strange call.
If we assume that Labour outpoll 2010 by a point or two, and the Tories lose a point or two (both cautious assumptions) there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.
Only something like Con 35 Lab 33, or damn near, would do it. More than possible, but surely too precise to call it as "likely".
Of course, a result like that would comfortably see Miliband in No 10, possibly with a majority.
@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Time for a guest post?
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Strange call.
If we assume that Labour outpoll 2010 by a point or two, and the Tories lose a point or two (both cautious assumptions) there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.
Only something like Con 35 Lab 33, or damn near, would do it. More than possible, but surely too precise to call it as "likely".
Of course, a result like that would comfortably see Miliband in No 10, possibly with a majority.
And then when the Mail started screaming about the injustice of the result lots of us could say:
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
@Rod - Your local election results suggests that even in a best case scenario for Labour the Tories remain the largest party in a Hung Parliament, and in the worst-case scenario for Labour the Tories could form a majority (particularly if the Lib Dems do poorly).
Time for a guest post?
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Strange call.
If we assume that Labour outpoll 2010 by a point or two, and the Tories lose a point or two (both cautious assumptions) there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.
Only something like Con 35 Lab 33, or damn near, would do it. More than possible, but surely too precise to call it as "likely".
Of course, a result like that would comfortably see Miliband in No 10, possibly with a majority.
And then when the Mail started screaming about the injustice of the result lots of us could say:
Told you!
Lol.
Yep, and if Labour have a majority, they can say only FPTP offers stable Government, the country shouldn't be run by backroom deals and horse trading blah de feckin blah. See how the Tory media likes them apples...
I think comparing Labour/EdMs lead in the polls against anyone in the last 30 years is barking up the wrong tree.
The conditions are not the same. EdM is up against a one term Govt without a majority. Everyone since Thatcher in 79 has been up against a Government that won anything from a omfortable majority to a lansdslide, so surely they needed a bigger lead at this point than EdM will.
Sorry if it seems I am telling people who are far more knowledgable about politics than me what to do, but from my betting experience this seems like trying to price up a total goals in a relegation battle by taking the average goals scored by these teams in their last 4 matches when those games have been against the top 4 sides in the league.
Surely the Elections of the 60s and 70s are more relevant?
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
Combined with all the bilateral deals done with various tax shelters around the world over the last few years and the rather less than subtle efforts of Margaret Hodge we should see a situation develop where multinationals no longer think it is ok to hide profits from tax and exploit the countries in which they operate.
These sorts of developments are going to be essential to keep social democracy going in the west. We can no longer afford to let these companies get away with taking advantage and simply expecting everyone else to pay more.
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
I've given you the answer. There was only about a 30% a priori chance, given the 2010 result, that Labour would win the PV in 2015.
And Ed Miliband hasn't improved Labour's odds.
a 2% swing, like Kinnock (twice) or Hague achieved would see the Tories comfortably win the PV. A Howard (2005) swing would still see the Tories win by 1%.
Tim Yeo: humans may not be to blame for global warming Humans may not be responsible for global warming, according to Tim Yeo, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change.
"Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?"
It's perfectly conceivable that both parties could poll more than in 2010, with the Tories still winning the popular vote.
Of course. But unlikely.
Point is, for the Tories to win the popular vote we surely need a result like Con mid 30s, Lab low 30s. We're currently averaging Con high 20s, Lab mid / high 30s.
I just can't see where so many extra Tory votes will come from, and where so many Labour votes will evaporate to.
Where do you see the value in the betting markets?
I'm currently quite red on tory maj, moderately green on NOM & very green Lab Maj. Been gradually reducing exposure on Tory Maj.
Are you thinking NOM is the value at 6/4?
Barring left-field events, we're heading for NOM again...
It's been looking that way for the last two-and-a-half years at least and it's hard to see where the game changer is going to come from. UKIP does not look to be it.
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
I've given you the answer.
Have you? So do you think it's "very likely" that Labour poll less than 2010, or the Tories more?
If neither, you're left with a fairly narrow set of result permutations, certainly too narrow to call it "very likely".
I'm not sure it is unlikely - if the UKIP surge subsides, it might even be the most probable outcome. Labour's performance at the local elections was pretty shocking for this stage of the electoral cycle.
To answer your other question, the extra Tory votes would be coming from the Lib Dem collapse.
Tim Yeo: humans may not be to blame for global warming Humans may not be responsible for global warming, according to Tim Yeo, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change.
Even Climate Change extremists (whose profiting very nicely out of it is pure coincidence) wibble and wobble under this regime.
The Science has always been clear that it is very likely that humans have been responsible for global warming, but it is not absolutely certain.
There's a tail of that distribution where the net radiative effect is close to zero.
There are large uncertainties, but being open about them is not the same as wibbling or wobbling. Why do you pretend it is some sort of revelation? The figure I link to is from 2007.
"Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?"
It's perfectly conceivable that both parties could poll more than in 2010, with the Tories still winning the popular vote.
For that to happen, Cameron will have to buck one of the longest trends in politics - that a sitting PM never increases their vote share (the only exception being a snap election in the first half of a parliament, and that option is gone now).
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened.
So provided Cameron remains leader, I cannot see the tories polling more in 2015 than they did in 2010. That would require him to pull off a feat that eluded Blair and Thatcher, Churchill, or Atlee etc, etc.
I would have thought if anyone's place is in doubt it's Bell's.
17 hundreds and a batting average of over 45. Nah !
Bell is also the most elegant batsman England have had since at least the time Vaughan was at his peak and arguably since Gower. He is a delight to watch which makes it all the more annoying when he keeps getting out in stupid ways!
I think Compton has been found a bit short for test cricket and having had a taste should return to the County game to tighten his technique and find more scoring shots. Asking Root to open is asking quite a lot but I think it is the best option.
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
I've given you the answer.
Have you? So do you think it's "very likely" that Labour poll less than 2010, or the Tories more?
If neither, you're left with a fairly narrow set of result permutations, certainly too narrow to call it "very likely".
Don't be absurd. Labour were 7.3% behind the Tories in 2010. There's a lot of ground into which they can advance without over-taking the Tories in 2015.
Rod has told you about the changes at previous elections which have not been big enough to bridge such a gap. What about that is difficult to understand?
"For that to happen, Cameron will have to buck one of the longest trends in politics - that a sitting PM never increases their vote share (the only exception being a snap election in the first half of a parliament, and that option is gone now).
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened."
I think Cameron has an excellent chance of bucking that trend simply because he's in coalition with the Lib Dems, which in itself is highly unusual.
It's a great mistake to assume that something won't happen just because it usually doesn't. A better comparison might be with Merkel in Germany.
"Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?"
It's perfectly conceivable that both parties could poll more than in 2010, with the Tories still winning the popular vote.
For that to happen, Cameron will have to buck one of the longest trends in politics - that a sitting PM never increases their vote share (the only exception being a snap election in the first half of a parliament, and that option is gone now).
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened.
So provided Cameron remains leader, I cannot see the tories polling more in 2015 than they did in 2010. That would require him to pull off a feat that eluded Blair and Thatcher, Churchill, or Atlee etc, etc.
Stephen Harper has done it in Canada in two elections running.
I think comparing Labour/EdMs lead in the polls against anyone in the last 30 years is barking up the wrong tree.
The conditions are not the same. EdM is up against a one term Govt without a majority. Everyone since Thatcher in 79 has been up against a Government that won anything from a omfortable majority to a lansdslide, so surely they needed a bigger lead at this point than EdM will.
Sorry if it seems I am telling people who are far more knowledgable about politics than me what to do, but from my betting experience this seems like trying to price up a total goals in a relegation battle by taking the average goals scored by these teams in their last 4 matches when those games have been against the top 4 sides in the league.
Surely the Elections of the 60s and 70s are more relevant?
I think the basic problem is that there isn't enough data for history to be a good guide - it's like conducting an opinion poll with a sample of 10. Every single one of these elections has been unusual in a different way, and 2015 will be too.
The currently unusual situation is that in a way we've not really resolved the last election. Labour lost but nobody really won. The usual pattern is that X sweeps to power, does good things and then cocks stuff up, and then the electorate reacts against them. But this time the Government has squeaked home with no overall majority and hasn't really done all that much, so people have mostly been set in their 2010 voting mindset, except for switching anti-Tory LibDems, until UKIP came along and rocked the boats.
So we've had a Labour lead that by historical standards isn't large, but also by historical standards has been quite stable. It's not obvious that that's going to change, because it's not the frothy midterm stuff that we usually see.
I've added another graph, this shows the lead the Leader of the Opposition has over the Prime Minister in net satisfaction ratings two years before an election with Mori.
I think comparing Labour/EdMs lead in the polls against anyone in the last 30 years is barking up the wrong tree.
The conditions are not the same. EdM is up against a one term Govt without a majority. Everyone since Thatcher in 79 has been up against a Government that won anything from a omfortable majority to a lansdslide, so surely they needed a bigger lead at this point than EdM will.
Sorry if it seems I am telling people who are far more knowledgable about politics than me what to do, but from my betting experience this seems like trying to price up a total goals in a relegation battle by taking the average goals scored by these teams in their last 4 matches when those games have been against the top 4 sides in the league.
Surely the Elections of the 60s and 70s are more relevant?
I think the basic problem is that there isn't enough data for history to be a good guide - it's like conducting an opinion poll with a sample of 10. Every single one of these elections has been unusual in a different way, and 2015 will be too.
The currently unusual situation is that in a way we've not really resolved the last election. Labour lost but nobody really won. The usual pattern is that X sweeps to power, does good things and then cocks stuff up, and then the electorate reacts against them. But this time the Government has squeaked home with no overall majority and hasn't really done all that much, so people have mostly been set in their 2010 voting mindset, except for switching anti-Tory LibDems, until UKIP came along and rocked the boats.
So we've had a Labour lead that by historical standards isn't large, but also by historical standards has been quite stable. It's not obvious that that's going to change, because it's not the frothy midterm stuff that we usually see.
Nick, there's a clear decline taking place in Labour's poll rating this year;
I think comparing Labour/EdMs lead in the polls against anyone in the last 30 years is barking up the wrong tree.
The conditions are not the same. EdM is up against a one term Govt without a majority. Everyone since Thatcher in 79 has been up against a Government that won anything from a omfortable majority to a lansdslide, so surely they needed a bigger lead at this point than EdM will.
Sorry if it seems I am telling people who are far more knowledgable about politics than me what to do, but from my betting experience this seems like trying to price up a total goals in a relegation battle by taking the average goals scored by these teams in their last 4 matches when those games have been against the top 4 sides in the league.
Surely the Elections of the 60s and 70s are more relevant?
I think the basic problem is that there isn't enough data for history to be a good guide - it's like conducting an opinion poll with a sample of 10. Every single one of these elections has been unusual in a different way, and 2015 will be too.
The currently unusual situation is that in a way we've not really resolved the last election. Labour lost but nobody really won. The usual pattern is that X sweeps to power, does good things and then cocks stuff up, and then the electorate reacts against them. But this time the Government has squeaked home with no overall majority and hasn't really done all that much, so people have mostly been set in their 2010 voting mindset, except for switching anti-Tory LibDems, until UKIP came along and rocked the boats.
So we've had a Labour lead that by historical standards isn't large, but also by historical standards has been quite stable. It's not obvious that that's going to change, because it's not the frothy midterm stuff that we usually see.
I suppose the nearest post-war parallels are 1950-1 and 1974 (2). In both those elections the "old" opposition "almost" won, and finished it off next time. Oct 74 wasn't a lot different from Feb, though, although the Lib vote dropped a bit, and of course it collapsed in 1951. However, neither of those were five years after the first one, and the opposition party wasn't in as good a state as Labour appears to be now.
For Kingston & Surbiton, read Surbiton more and Kingston less. K&S, Westminster, the City, Hammersmith, Richmond - juicy income stream for the Mansion Tax.
Mostly paid by foreigners with dodgy money. Someone paying cash of £2m don't mind paying £20k.
if only the world would do static single data point analysis like you tim the world would be a simpler place.
Yeah, strange after all these "savings" the govt is spending more than Brown did and deficit reduction has stalled isnt it. And yet you fall for every one of them.
Feel free to explain how the £900 million is calculated.
Is "stalled" the new buzzword now that the deficit continues to come down ?
What next - deficit cutting "decelerated" ? "lost momentum" ? " stuck at the same rate of decline" ? "Reducing in % terms (of the original deficit)".
If you are looking for an apt description can I suggest "desperate" ?
if only the world would do static single data point analysis like you tim the world would be a simpler place.
Yeah, strange after all these "savings" the govt is spending more than Brown did and deficit reduction has stalled isnt it. And yet you fall for every one of them.
Feel free to explain how the £900 million is calculated.
Is "stalled" the new buzzword now that the deficit continues to come down ?
What next - deficit cutting "decelerated" ? "lost momentum" ? " stuck at the same rate of decline" ? "Reducing in % terms (of the original deficit)".
If you are looking for an apt description can I suggest "desperate" ?
Not my description
OBR estimates that deficit reduction will stall for three years
Now lets see how you get to £900 million
(Clue, you take one Gordon Brown, cross it with one George Osborne and then make up a figure)
Next time you post anything on this site that is positive about the Govt and its economic strategy or more specifically George Osborne, could you post it in bold capital letters so that I will remember to pay attention to it.
"Last year’s budget deficit revised down thanks to income tax payments
Public sector net borrowing in 2012-13 has been revised down by £1.4 billion this month to £119.5 billion, excluding transfers related to Royal Mail and the Asset Purchase Facility. This reflects unexpectedly strong income tax receipts.
Financial bonuses may have fallen by less than we expected and fewer people than we thought may have pushed income into 2013-14 to take advantage of the cut in the highest income tax rate to 45p."
Next time you post anything on this site that is positive about the Govt and its economic strategy or more specifically George Osborne, could you post it in bold capital letters so that I will remember to pay attention to it.
Send some fur coats to hell that day too - they will need them.
'there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.'
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Do you agree that it's likely that the Tories will poll less than 2010, and Labour more?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
I've given you the answer.
Have you? So do you think it's "very likely" that Labour poll less than 2010, or the Tories more?
If neither, you're left with a fairly narrow set of result permutations, certainly too narrow to call it "very likely".
Don't be absurd. Labour were 7.3% behind the Tories in 2010. There's a lot of ground into which they can advance without over-taking the Tories in 2015.
Rod has told you about the changes at previous elections which have not been big enough to bridge such a gap. What about that is difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand.
Con mid 30s / Lab low 30s is possible. I just don't agree that it's "very likely", given current polling and trends.
"For that to happen, Cameron will have to buck one of the longest trends in politics - that a sitting PM never increases their vote share (the only exception being a snap election in the first half of a parliament, and that option is gone now).
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened."
I think Cameron has an excellent chance of bucking that trend simply because he's in coalition with the Lib Dems
I did think that immediately after 2010. But not now, no way.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
That surely makes a nonsense of UKIP polling 15% and getting no seats? What % are they likely to get in Scotland?
On-topic, it will be tempting for those not well-disposed toward Ed Miliband and Labour to look at the above and have a jolly good gloat as indeed some were after last night's ComRes poll.
The strange thing was those who were claiming the UKIP surge would run back to the Tories were the very people who claimed UKIP were more of a threat to Labour than the Conservatives.
To be honest, I don't know what's going to happen in May 2015 - I doubt any of the current leaders (including Nigel Farage) can approach the election with huge optimism. It may be that the election campaign and debates will be of even greater significance with far more volatility and churn than in some previous contests.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
That surely makes a nonsense of UKIP polling 15% and getting no seats? What % are they likely to get in Scotland?
2%?
Nowhere near 2%, the Scottish subsample of the last poll I remember looking at had a single Scottish Ukipper ! Of course that increases their standard deviation of the vote...
On-topic, it will be tempting for those not well-disposed toward Ed Miliband and Labour to look at the above and have a jolly good gloat as indeed some were after last night's ComRes poll.
The strange thing was those who were claiming the UKIP surge would run back to the Tories were the very people who claimed UKIP were more of a threat to Labour than the Conservatives.
To be honest, I don't know what's going to happen in May 2015 - I doubt any of the current leaders (including Nigel Farage) can approach the election with huge optimism. It may be that the election campaign and debates will be of even greater significance with far more volatility and churn than in some previous contests.
There has to be at least a fair chance that UKIP will come third in terms of popular vote in May 2015, yet will fail to pick up a single seat.
I wonder if Farage was a fan of proportional representation when he was a member of the Conservative Party?
Some sense from a Tory and a Lib Dem on immigration
Prime Minister David Cameron has said he wants to see net migration fall to the "tens of thousands" by 2015, but because overseas students were counted as immigrants under international rules, Mr Cable said their number was "easily translated into a flood of immigrants".
He added: "When, last week, the number declines, this is a great triumph for immigration control, which is quite absurd and unfortunately is seriously distorting the debate on sensible university policy and, indeed, sensible immigration policy
Mr Johnson said: "I looked at the recent figures for foreign students coming to this country and I do not regard what seemed to me to be a reduction in those numbers as necessarily a positive economic indicator.
"I think we need to push higher education as a great, great international export and we need to be even more open in our dealings with other HE institutions around the world."
The latest available figures show a rise in the number of university students, not a fall. The distinction lies in a drop in other HE institutions. That doesn't have the same resonance.
The whole point in looking for more robust models is that 'current polling and trends' are demonstrably unreliable indicators...
By "more robust models", you mean a foundationalist approach, whereby politics observes strict mathematical rules.
Unfortunately, the real social world doesn't work like that. No matter how impressive your spreadsheets are, you will always be nailing jelly to a wall.
I wonder if Farage was a fan of proportional representation when he was a member of the Conservative Party?
The amusing thing is that the intersection of the sets 'UKIP supporters' and 'Supporters of new-fangled foreign-sounding voting systems' is vanishingly small. There wasn't much enthusiasm for AV in Great Yarmouth or Thanet.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
That surely makes a nonsense of UKIP polling 15% and getting no seats? What % are they likely to get in Scotland?
2%?
Nowhere near 2%, the Scottish subsample of the last poll I remember looking at had a single Scottish Ukipper ! Of course that increases their standard deviation of the vote...
Actually, if UKIP gets 13-15% (i.e. 15-17% in England) then it is not only possible, but actually quite likely, that they will not get a single seat.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
That surely makes a nonsense of UKIP polling 15% and getting no seats? What % are they likely to get in Scotland?
2%?
Nowhere near 2%, the Scottish subsample of the last poll I remember looking at had a single Scottish Ukipper ! Of course that increases their standard deviation of the vote...
So people saying UKIP will struggle to win a couple of seats even if they poll 15% are ignoring the fact that the 15% will be almost wholly concentrated in England arent they? Wouldnt that be like polling 18-19% for most parties?
I feel sure you know what Govt policy is, what you seem unable to do is look at anything with a dispassionate eye. There are things that I agree with and things that I disagree with wrt Govt policy, but I am able to distinguish one from the other and will post accordingly.
I suspect they will get a lot less than in England, but would not hazard a figure. It's already pretty crowded up there with four parties battling it out.
I'd like the polling companies to conduct England only polls. That is where the seat changes will, for the most part, make an important impact as to whether or not there be a change in government.
That surely makes a nonsense of UKIP polling 15% and getting no seats? What % are they likely to get in Scotland?
On-topic, it will be tempting for those not well-disposed toward Ed Miliband and Labour to look at the above and have a jolly good gloat as indeed some were after last night's ComRes poll.
The strange thing was those who were claiming the UKIP surge would run back to the Tories were the very people who claimed UKIP were more of a threat to Labour than the Conservatives.
To be honest, I don't know what's going to happen in May 2015 - I doubt any of the current leaders (including Nigel Farage) can approach the election with huge optimism. It may be that the election campaign and debates will be of even greater significance with far more volatility and churn than in some previous contests.
There has to be at least a fair chance that UKIP will come third in terms of popular vote in May 2015, yet will fail to pick up a single seat.
I wonder if Farage was a fan of proportional representation when he was a member of the Conservative Party?
If that does turn out to be the case, I imagine Farage will have all sorts of fun with our political system in the media because the other consequence of UKIP coming third is that its quite likely that as it is so quaintly put "LibLabCon" could well fail to poll 50% of the whole electorate. In which case I'm quite sure Farage will be questioning the validity of the three establishment parties Parliamentary mandate (particularly for England).
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
Some sense from a Tory and a Lib Dem on immigration
Prime Minister David Cameron has said he wants to see net migration fall to the "tens of thousands" by 2015, but because overseas students were counted as immigrants under international rules, Mr Cable said their number was "easily translated into a flood of immigrants".
He added: "When, last week, the number declines, this is a great triumph for immigration control, which is quite absurd and unfortunately is seriously distorting the debate on sensible university policy and, indeed, sensible immigration policy
Mr Johnson said: "I looked at the recent figures for foreign students coming to this country and I do not regard what seemed to me to be a reduction in those numbers as necessarily a positive economic indicator.
"I think we need to push higher education as a great, great international export and we need to be even more open in our dealings with other HE institutions around the world."
The latest available figures show a rise in the number of university students, not a fall. The distinction lies in a drop in other HE institutions. That doesn't have the same resonance.
Oh I realise that but it still has the same economic impact. Stopping tourists from coming because you don't like where they choose to visit still costs the same in lost revenues as if they go somewhere you approve of. And of course it's benefitting Australia and co, all for a pledge Dave didn't understand when he made it.
One of the principal "costs" associated with turning away potential students is the reputational cost as a country and the damage it might do to the reputation of our leading institutions and their ability to continue the very valuable work that they do.
Additionally, I challenge the "same economic impact". Not all immigrants are equal in their earning and spending capacity and how much they can contribute to the country - hence the longstanding rules about migrants including Australia's and now our points systems. That may not correlate exactly with the sort of institution of which they are a student, but there will be a sizable correlation since one of the biggest falls was in the English-language colleges category.
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I was basing it on 2% in Scotland and that may be a bit high
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I was basing it on 2% in Scotland and that may be a bit high
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
We shall indeed: I fear that 2015 will be to UKIP was what 1983 was for the Alliance. An incredible achievement in terms of vote share, but a terrible performance as far as seats. Let's not forget, the Alliance got more than 25% of the vote, and just 23 seats. If you eliminate the seats where the Liberals were already incumbent, then they got just 10 or so. (And most of these were like Plymouth Devonport, where there was an incumbent Labour MP who had defected to the SDP.)
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
@tim I think for the avoidance of doubt, It is fair to say that I will only agree with you about 5% of the time. You see, I do have a dispassionate eye when it comes to politics. For example, you were spot on when it came to twitter "identification" of the terrorist activity last week.
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I was basing it on 2% in Scotland and that may be a bit high
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
We shall indeed: I fear that 2015 will be to UKIP was what 1983 was for the Alliance. An incredible achievement in terms of vote share, but a terrible performance as far as seats. Let's not forget, the Alliance got more than 25% of the vote, and just 23 seats. If you eliminate the seats where the Liberals were already incumbent, then they got just 10 or so. (And most of these were like Plymouth Devonport, where there was an incumbent Labour MP who had defected to the SDP.)
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I'll eat my hat if UKIP polls anywhere near 5% in Scotland.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22628484
I thought it was quite good actually...
Time for a guest post?
Dundee is in the process of losing more skilled jobs from the NCR who used to be a major employer in the town but no longer. The University and Life Sciences have done well in recent years but do not seem to be big enough employers to set off the jobs lost elsewhere.
When I have visited Aberdeen it has had a very prosperous feel but then it nearly always does.
Doesn't explain UKIP's strong showing in South Shields though....??
Yes we seem mostly to be violently agreeing.
If France has very low mortgage debt then the personal debt is somewhere else - suggesting credit cards to me. Not good.
French banks. Well capitalised. But stuffed to the gunnels with shitty government debt and exposed heavily to GIPSIs. They're gonna need every last E0.01! When the EZ government bond market breaks the French banks will be among the first to go.
Is this approach being dropped due to the 'events' of the parliament (coalition, rise of UKIP)?
The OECD knocked 0.1% off the UK growth forecast for 2013 purely to wipe the smug smile off George's face and to allow their economists to continue to get preferential bookings at the best Parisian restaurants.
Even Ed Conway was struck by contrition in his reports from Paris today.
There's another set of local elections, and probably plenty more by-elections. Labour are unlikely to lie exactly on whatever regression lines are ultimately generated.
The Tories significantly outperformed swingback in 2010 (most likely due to Brown's corpse impression in the TV debates.)
But, all that said, it seems rather likely to me that Labour will lose the PV in 2015.
Luckily for them, under FPTP, they can afford to do so, and still walk into office...
"Nick Compton and the vicissitudes of Test cricket
Last month the England opener was named one of Wisden's cricketers of the year. Now he could even miss the Ashes series":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/29/nick-compton-england-the-spin#ixzz2UhB9VTv2
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_05_28_13.html
If Ed is PM in 2015 despite loding the popular vote, he can at least say honestly that he voted for AV even if he won thanks to FPTP. That must take some of the heat off, no?
Combined with all the bilateral deals done with various tax shelters around the world over the last few years and the rather less than subtle efforts of Margaret Hodge we should see a situation develop where multinationals no longer think it is ok to hide profits from tax and exploit the countries in which they operate.
These sorts of developments are going to be essential to keep social democracy going in the west. We can no longer afford to let these companies get away with taking advantage and simply expecting everyone else to pay more.
If he OECD wiped the smug smile off George's face, this post on labour-uncut will most certainly transfer it to TSE's mug.
The LDs would be in a fairly strong position if it pans out like I think. They could refuse to go into coalition with Labour unless the blatant (wrong-winner) unfairness of the system is addressed, which basically means getting rid of FPTP. I don't think the defenders of FPTP (Tories) would have anywhere to hide.
"We will support to the death the system that has just robbed us of victory!"
Nah...
If we assume that Labour outpoll 2010 by a point or two, and the Tories lose a point or two (both cautious assumptions) there's not actually much scope for the Tories to win the PV.
Only something like Con 35 Lab 33, or damn near, would do it. More than possible, but surely too precise to call it as "likely".
Of course, a result like that would comfortably see Miliband in No 10, possibly with a majority.
Told you!
Put it another way:- if the swing to the Opposition in 7 out of the last 10 elections is replicated, the Tories will win the Popular Vote. (or in 13 out of the last 17)
So, plenty of "scope", actually...
Yep, and if Labour have a majority, they can say only FPTP offers stable Government, the country shouldn't be run by backroom deals and horse trading blah de feckin blah. See how the Tory media likes them apples...
Where do you see the value in the betting markets?
I'm currently quite red on tory maj, moderately green on NOM & very green Lab Maj. Been gradually reducing exposure on Tory Maj.
Are you thinking NOM is the value at 6/4?
The conditions are not the same. EdM is up against a one term Govt without a majority. Everyone since Thatcher in 79 has been up against a Government that won anything from a omfortable majority to a lansdslide, so surely they needed a bigger lead at this point than EdM will.
Sorry if it seems I am telling people who are far more knowledgable about politics than me what to do, but from my betting experience this seems like trying to price up a total goals in a relegation battle by taking the average goals scored by these teams in their last 4 matches when those games have been against the top 4 sides in the league.
Surely the Elections of the 60s and 70s are more relevant?
If so, then there's a relatively narrow band of permutations of results that will produce a Tory lead in the PV.
Not saying it won't happen. Just that it isn't "likely", especially given current polling and trends.
It's perfectly conceivable that both parties could poll more than in 2010, with the Tories still winning the popular vote.
And Ed Miliband hasn't improved Labour's odds.
a 2% swing, like Kinnock (twice) or Hague achieved would see the Tories comfortably win the PV. A Howard (2005) swing would still see the Tories win by 1%.
It looks very likely to me.
The next election still looks very fluid to me.
Humans may not be responsible for global warming, according to Tim Yeo, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10086694/Tim-Yeo-humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming.html
Even Climate Change extremists (whose profiting very nicely out of it is pure coincidence) wibble and wobble under this regime.
The graph showing the very clear *direction* of UKIP support (regardless of the actual numbers) seems to suggest yougov may have a problem.
Point is, for the Tories to win the popular vote we surely need a result like Con mid 30s, Lab low 30s. We're currently averaging Con high 20s, Lab mid / high 30s.
I just can't see where so many extra Tory votes will come from, and where so many Labour votes will evaporate to.
If neither, you're left with a fairly narrow set of result permutations, certainly too narrow to call it "very likely".
"Of course. But unlikely."
I'm not sure it is unlikely - if the UKIP surge subsides, it might even be the most probable outcome. Labour's performance at the local elections was pretty shocking for this stage of the electoral cycle.
To answer your other question, the extra Tory votes would be coming from the Lib Dem collapse.
There's a tail of that distribution where the net radiative effect is close to zero.
There are large uncertainties, but being open about them is not the same as wibbling or wobbling. Why do you pretend it is some sort of revelation? The figure I link to is from 2007.
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened.
So provided Cameron remains leader, I cannot see the tories polling more in 2015 than they did in 2010. That would require him to pull off a feat that eluded Blair and Thatcher, Churchill, or Atlee etc, etc.
I think Compton has been found a bit short for test cricket and having had a taste should return to the County game to tighten his technique and find more scoring shots. Asking Root to open is asking quite a lot but I think it is the best option.
Rod has told you about the changes at previous elections which have not been big enough to bridge such a gap. What about that is difficult to understand?
I think you have to go back more than a century for that to have happened."
I think Cameron has an excellent chance of bucking that trend simply because he's in coalition with the Lib Dems, which in itself is highly unusual.
It's a great mistake to assume that something won't happen just because it usually doesn't. A better comparison might be with Merkel in Germany.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
@Sun_Politics: Chancellor announces new laws to stop £900million scam by some utility firms - charging small firms for work, then claiming back tax
The currently unusual situation is that in a way we've not really resolved the last election. Labour lost but nobody really won. The usual pattern is that X sweeps to power, does good things and then cocks stuff up, and then the electorate reacts against them. But this time the Government has squeaked home with no overall majority and hasn't really done all that much, so people have mostly been set in their 2010 voting mindset, except for switching anti-Tory LibDems, until UKIP came along and rocked the boats.
So we've had a Labour lead that by historical standards isn't large, but also by historical standards has been quite stable. It's not obvious that that's going to change, because it's not the frothy midterm stuff that we usually see.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/29/londoners-buy-kensington-and-chelsea/
I've added another graph, this shows the lead the Leader of the Opposition has over the Prime Minister in net satisfaction ratings two years before an election with Mori.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
At the minute that isn't translating to a direct Lab to Coalition swingback, because of UKIP.
However, I would guess that as we get nearer the election it will become more and more apparent that swingback started in 2013.
However, neither of those were five years after the first one, and the opposition party wasn't in as good a state as Labour appears to be now.
Turnover = Costs + Profit
Revenue Costs are chargeable against tax. For Capital Expenditure, even though Depreciation is not allowable, companies get capital allowances.
So what exactly is new here ? Why wouldn't utility companies have claimed CA before ?
There must be something else.
and let us not forget the Tories have closed the gap with Labour to zero once already in this parliament...
Mostly paid by foreigners with dodgy money. Someone paying cash of £2m don't mind paying £20k.
Do you ever visit http://eztv.it/ ? If not, there are some great old TV shows on there.
What next - deficit cutting "decelerated" ? "lost momentum" ? " stuck at the same rate of decline" ? "Reducing in % terms (of the original deficit)".
If you are looking for an apt description can I suggest "desperate" ?
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/?s=stalled
"Search for: stalled
Unfortunately we could not find any results matching your search."
"Search for: stall
Unfortunately we could not find any results matching your search."
nuff said.
Next time you post anything on this site that is positive about the Govt and its economic strategy or more specifically George Osborne, could you post it in bold capital letters so that I will remember to pay attention to it.
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/last-years-budget-deficit-revised-down-thanks-to-income-tax-payments/
"Last year’s budget deficit revised down thanks to income tax payments
Public sector net borrowing in 2012-13 has been revised down by £1.4 billion this month to £119.5 billion, excluding transfers related to Royal Mail and the Asset Purchase Facility. This reflects unexpectedly strong income tax receipts.
Financial bonuses may have fallen by less than we expected and fewer people than we thought may have pushed income into 2013-14 to take advantage of the cut in the highest income tax rate to 45p."
Con mid 30s / Lab low 30s is possible. I just don't agree that it's "very likely", given current polling and trends.
If that's your best at a positive, I withdraw my request. It is a criticism of Govt strategy.
2%?
On-topic, it will be tempting for those not well-disposed toward Ed Miliband and Labour to look at the above and have a jolly good gloat as indeed some were after last night's ComRes poll.
The strange thing was those who were claiming the UKIP surge would run back to the Tories were the very people who claimed UKIP were more of a threat to Labour than the Conservatives.
To be honest, I don't know what's going to happen in May 2015 - I doubt any of the current leaders (including Nigel Farage) can approach the election with huge optimism. It may be that the election campaign and debates will be of even greater significance with far more volatility and churn than in some previous contests.
I wonder if Farage was a fan of proportional representation when he was a member of the Conservative Party?
Unfortunately, the real social world doesn't work like that. No matter how impressive your spreadsheets are, you will always be nailing jelly to a wall.
I feel sure you know what Govt policy is, what you seem unable to do is look at anything with a dispassionate eye. There are things that I agree with and things that I disagree with wrt Govt policy, but I am able to distinguish one from the other and will post accordingly.
It's already pretty crowded up there with four parties battling it out.
Additionally, I challenge the "same economic impact". Not all immigrants are equal in their earning and spending capacity and how much they can contribute to the country - hence the longstanding rules about migrants including Australia's and now our points systems. That may not correlate exactly with the sort of institution of which they are a student, but there will be a sizable correlation since one of the biggest falls was in the English-language colleges category.
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
I think for the avoidance of doubt, It is fair to say that I will only agree with you about 5% of the time. You see, I do have a dispassionate eye when it comes to politics. For example, you were spot on when it came to twitter "identification" of the terrorist activity last week.
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
Never has a truer word been said.