Rochester & Strood betting is going to be like the recent Pakistan - Australia test match.
I bet you could have got tremendous "value" backing Australia on days, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 right till they were crushed by 346 runs.
Well, I certainly thought at lunch that, although they’d lose, they’d last longer than they did!
Closer to topic, although I note what happened in Wales, why on earth is a “Mansion Tax” proposed, instead of a couple of new Council Tax bands? Treasury could always recoup the extra from Kensington & Chelsea etc.
Interesting. He cites the Mansion Tax. This is yet another example of why all elections come down to individuals asking themselves how they will be better or worse off (which includes services like the NHS).
I 'feel' the media have become notably more hostile to EdM since the Mansion Tax surfaced. I said at the time he was shooting the very people he needs onside. There are a lot of important people in the media who even if they don't yet have £2m properties, don't want to think that they might get hammered.
It's the stupidest piece of electoral suicide since Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Ah yes. People are greedy. If that's true, it's astonishing left-wing politics in any shape or form has lasted this long...
Oh that's easy - the essence of left-wing politics is 'do as I say, not as I do'.
Nah, people vote based on what maximises the return to themselves. It just depends on what they value the most.
- Pocket book voters - People who get a sense of superiority for voting left even if it may not be in their economic interest - PALS voters - Rebellion voters
Personally I vote moderate Tory because I value a long term, stable, progressive and open society built around a commonality of interests. Economically I'd be a lot better off voting for a hard core, low tax party. But I reckon Cameron has the balance about right.
How do you know "quite a lot of 2010 non voters turned out for ukip at the Euros?"
Like all parties who have been around for a while, we have records of who's voted going back for 20 years. There are lots of people who didn't vote in 2010, did vote in the Euros, and canvassed as UKIP. Obviously I can't prove it, but I assume they voted UKIP.
Incidentally, there's an interesting poll in the Times Red Box briefing. Asked who people MIGHT vote for EVER, they get Lab 39, Con 38, UKIP 20, LibDems 17. Those who say "NEVER" are Con 53, Lab 51, LibDems 70, UKIP 65. The detailed breakdown shows the expected - LDs more likely to switch to Lab, UKIP more likely to switch to Cons.
The Con/Lab figures broadly confirm the current polls though they suggest quite a low ceiling on people who would even think about voting for them. The LibDem figure is quite good in showing a poll of considerers double their current rating, though it also shows them as the most unpopular party. UKIP appears to be near its ceiling. The poll adds:
"Of those currently saying they would vote Conservative, 71 per cent are definites; for Labour, it's 69 per cent; for the Lib Dems 61 per cent; and for Ukip it's 70 per cent."
Would an exit poll in R & S including a "how did you vote in 2010" question not be the single most interesting poll that could be conducted between now and the GE? If there's any rich lords out there.
On topic, I've been working for some time on a rule of thumb that the Lib Dem defectors will break 3:1 in Labour's favour over the Conservatives (of course, some will go to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens as well, but in most seats in England & Wales this is the vital split). I haven't seen any reason to abandon this rule of thumb yet.
Labour risk losing some of their so-called core voters to UKIP and some to the Greens, but their biggest danger is of losing some to Don't Vote.
They aren't going to lose many to the Conservatives. Thoughtful Conservatives should fret about this.
How do you know "quite a lot of 2010 non voters turned out for ukip at the Euros?"
Like all parties who have been around for a while, we have records of who's voted going back for 20 years. There are lots of people who didn't vote in 2010, did vote in the Euros, and canvassed as UKIP. Obviously I can't prove it, but I assume they voted UKIP.
Incidentally, there's an interesting poll in the Times Red Box briefing. Asked who people MIGHT vote for EVER, they get Lab 39, Con 38, UKIP 20, LibDems 17. Those who say "NEVER" are Con 53, Lab 51, LibDems 70, UKIP 65. The detailed breakdown shows the expected - LDs more likely to switch to Lab, UKIP more likely to switch to Cons.
The Con/Lab figures broadly confirm the current polls though they suggest quite a low ceiling on people who would even think about voting for them. The LibDem figure is quite good in showing a poll of considerers double their current rating, though it also shows them as the most unpopular party. UKIP appears to be near its ceiling. The poll adds:
"Of those currently saying they would vote Conservative, 71 per cent are definites; for Labour, it's 69 per cent; for the Lib Dems 61 per cent; and for Ukip it's 70 per cent."
Actually my point was that the people Mike is classifying as DNV are almost certainly not all DNV, and very likely most of them are not DNV, so we agree that DNV are less likely to vote, but Mike is still wrong
How do you know "quite a lot of 2010 non voters turned out for ukip at the Euros?"
Like all parties who have been around for a while, we have records of who's voted going back for 20 years. There are lots of people who didn't vote in 2010, did vote in the Euros, and canvassed as UKIP. Obviously I can't prove it, but I assume they voted UKIP.
Incidentally, there's an interesting poll in the Times Red Box briefing. Asked who people MIGHT vote for EVER, they get Lab 39, Con 38, UKIP 20, LibDems 17. Those who say "NEVER" are Con 53, Lab 51, LibDems 70, UKIP 65. The detailed breakdown shows the expected - LDs more likely to switch to Lab, UKIP more likely to switch to Cons.
The Con/Lab figures broadly confirm the current polls though they suggest quite a low ceiling on people who would even think about voting for them. The LibDem figure is quite good in showing a poll of considerers double their current rating, though it also shows them as the most unpopular party. UKIP appears to be near its ceiling. The poll adds:
"Of those currently saying they would vote Conservative, 71 per cent are definites; for Labour, it's 69 per cent; for the Lib Dems 61 per cent; and for Ukip it's 70 per cent."
Actually my point was that the people Mike is classifying as DNV are almost certainly not all DNV, and very likely most of them are not DNV, so we agree that DNV are less likely to vote, but Mike is still wrong
Mike made two points in his original post:
"Just 56% of the Mark Reckless support is from those who voted for parties that were on the ballot at GE10. That compares with 85.2% for the CON candidate. A complication is that 42 people told the pollster that they voted UKIP last time when, as we all know, the party did not contest the seat. Clearly some of them might have lived elsewhere but my guess is that some of their memory of what they did or did not do four years ago is based on their current voting intention."
You have fixated on the "42 UKIP voters" problem, where I agree with you. In the first half of the paragraph, Mike was making a wider point about UKIP's support being based on non-voters, which is an altogether stronger point (though like Peter the Punter, I'm now not expecting anything other than UKIP taking this seat without any further alarm or disturbance).
On topic, I've been working for some time on a rule of thumb that the Lib Dem defectors will break 3:1 in Labour's favour over the Conservatives (of course, some will go to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens as well, but in most seats in England & Wales this is the vital split). I haven't seen any reason to abandon this rule of thumb yet.
Entertaining but not profitable race, yesterday. Post-race will probably be up tomorrow. Won't do an Early Thoughts for Brazil, as it starts in about four days.
Ahem:
"Early Thoughts from Brazil" is/maybe/will-be/should-be an eponymous brand of the 'FluffyThoughts&Me corporation (yet to be incorporated). Negotiations between London and Sao Paulo are on-going. Any attempt to usurp, denigrate or give prominence may result in useless responses.
Felix..One would have expected the three mp's who donned the T shirts to have at least checked the "made in"..label and then the price tag...45 quid... How out of touch can they be...and how out of touch can their advisers be..and they want to run the country...sheesh.
On topic, I've been working for some time on a rule of thumb that the Lib Dem defectors will break 3:1 in Labour's favour over the Conservatives (of course, some will go to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens as well, but in most seats in England & Wales this is the vital split). I haven't seen any reason to abandon this rule of thumb yet.
Labour risk losing some of their so-called core voters to UKIP and some to the Greens, but their biggest danger is of losing some to Don't Vote.
They aren't going to lose many to the Conservatives. Thoughtful Conservatives should fret about this.
On topic, I've been working for some time on a rule of thumb that the Lib Dem defectors will break 3:1 in Labour's favour over the Conservatives (of course, some will go to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens as well, but in most seats in England & Wales this is the vital split). I haven't seen any reason to abandon this rule of thumb yet.
It will vary from constituency to constituency quite considerably. It's intended as a rule of thumb, not a law of nature. We won't get constituency polls in every seat - not even Lord Ashcroft's munificence runs that far.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
I once paid £145 for a t-shirt (was at a Rolling Stones gig, I may have been very very drunk)
A few of my t-shirts and hoodies cost north of £45.
I guess this confirms my membership of the cosmopolitan metropolitan elite.
Mr. Eagles, you great big ponce. £145 for a t-shirt?! I shall write to the Flat Cap Elders and demand your immediate expulsion from the sacred brotherhood of Yorkshiremen.
Bloody hell, man. Even if I were loaded I wouldn't fritter away that much on a bloody t-shirt.
Mr. Eagles, you great big ponce. £145 for a t-shirt?! I shall write to the Flat Cap Elders and demand your immediate expulsion from the sacred brotherhood of Yorkshiremen.
Bloody hell, man. Even if I were loaded I wouldn't fritter away that much on a bloody t-shirt.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
I once paid £145 for a t-shirt (was at a Rolling Stones gig, I may have been very very drunk)
A few of my t-shirts and hoodies cost north of £45.
I guess this confirms my membership of the cosmopolitan metropolitan elite.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
I once paid £145 for a t-shirt (was at a Rolling Stones gig, I may have been very very drunk)
A few of my t-shirts and hoodies cost north of £45.
I guess this confirms my membership of the cosmopolitan metropolitan elite.
I'd say it confirms you don't know what value is unless someone tells you
From some threads ago (looking for something): Mr. Jessop, if someone is reasonably offended then, in addition to just saying 'that's offensive/I am offended' they'll have some intelligent grounds for being offended and can use those grounds to make a reasoned argument.
Ah, that's why they sacked Gove and put Morgan in at Education, she is being much more effective at driving votes to UKIP, the idiocy of the Tories at the moment is really depressing for someone looking for reasons not to switch their vote.
It's the stupidest piece of electoral suicide since Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
That's wildly overstated. I agree some in the media might feel affected […] but it's a London issue.
Thus spake a Labour candidate I was going to put the word 'London' in my post but assumed it didn't need spelling out.
Despite the Beeb's half-move to Manchester, the media is massively London-centric, at least in terms of the important people that EdM should have kept on board. I'm not referring here simply to journos of print and tv variety, but filmmakers, writers, actors, soap stars … the list of once potential Labour luvvies who have been shafted by this most stupid of all policies is a long, long, one. And it will cost Labour dear. You do NOT bite the hand that feeds ...
How much of "Don't Know" is shy Kipper that doesn't want to be publically associated with an unfashionable party ?
What makes you think UKIP is unfashionable? I would have thought the reverse is true! Certainly on here UKIP supporters are lacking neither self confidence nor moral certitude.....
I think they're popular with people who don't normally vote: the 'I don't care for that lot' brigade. This was borne out by Mike's analysis of polling in R&S yesterday. Getting those malcontents actually to vote, when they don't normally, will be a very different matter.
Mikes analysis of R&S polling yesterday was deeply deeply flawed
There is no reason to assume people saying they voted for Ukip in 2010, when there was no Ukip candidate, were non voters... Mike is relying on that assumption to justify his assertion that Ukips lead is 'flaky'
I think it is certain that many such people voted in 2010 and misremembered who for, than thought they voted when they didn't even go to the polling station
The fact that they are saying they voted Ukip, and Ukips candidate stood in 2010 for another party makes that even more likely
Considering one of Mike's favourite hobby horses is that, in Westminster elections, people vote for individuals, not parties (LibDem wishful thinking, perhaps), it is strange that it's slipped his mind, especially in a by-election contest.
Yes - I wonder if the false recall is one of two things:
1) They voted for Reckless last time or 2) They voted UKIP at the euros and are mixing their elections up.
I wonder if (2) affects polling in general and not just the euros confusing people's recall, council elections may do the same?
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
How do you know "quite a lot of 2010 non voters turned out for ukip at the Euros?"
"Of those currently saying they would vote Conservative, 71 per cent are definites; for Labour, it's 69 per cent; for the Lib Dems 61 per cent; and for Ukip it's 70 per cent."
Actually my point was that the people Mike is classifying as DNV are almost certainly not all DNV, and very likely most of them are not DNV, so we agree that DNV are less likely to vote, but Mike is still wrong
Mike made two points in his original post:
"Just 56% of the Mark Reckless support is from those who voted for parties that were on the ballot at GE10. That compares with 85.2% for the CON candidate. A complication is that 42 people told the pollster that they voted UKIP last time when, as we all know, the party did not contest the seat. Clearly some of them might have lived elsewhere but my guess is that some of their memory of what they did or did not do four years ago is based on their current voting intention."
You have fixated on the "42 UKIP voters" problem, where I agree with you. In the first half of the paragraph, Mike was making a wider point about UKIP's support being based on non-voters, which is an altogether stronger point (though like Peter the Punter, I'm now not expecting anything other than UKIP taking this seat without any further alarm or disturbance).
The point is that 77% of the Mark Reckless support is from those who said they voted in 2010, and therefore not flaky non voters...the 56% figure Mike quotes is very misleading.
I don't care, it hasn't cost me any money, I said ukip in Rochester from the start and nothing I have seen here or anywhere else has made me blink... Just for future reference I personally wouldn't assume people who said they voted were DNV. You are free to ignore my advice as you wish, it's only my opinion
BBC moron Mark Easton (same chap who described white flight as a sign of prosperity and good things) manages to write a piece on English devolution without including mention of an English Parliament (save once as a criticism of English votes for English laws): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29850286
He seems keen to refer to what constitutional experts desire but accidentally forgets to refer to what the people want.
BBC moron Mark Easton (same chap who described white flight as a sign of prosperity and good things) manages to write a piece on English devolution without including mention of an English Parliament (save once as a criticism of English votes for English laws): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29850286
He seems keen to refer to what constitutional experts desire but accidentally forgets to refer to what the people want.
Same old biased BBC. An English parliament is the most popular option for voters, yet he doesn't mention it as a model. Muppet.
Mr. Eagles, you great big ponce. £145 for a t-shirt?! I shall write to the Flat Cap Elders and demand your immediate expulsion from the sacred brotherhood of Yorkshiremen.
Bloody hell, man. Even if I were loaded I wouldn't fritter away that much on a bloody t-shirt.
It was part of the Forty Licks Tour in 2003.
It was the iconic tongue image, done very well.
That is still bloody ridiculous. I have loads of concert bought T-Shirts - Springsteen (I have a complete European Tour collection going back to the early 80s) and the Eagles the most recent ones and never had to pay more than £30.
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
The last two paragraphs of that article are dismally predictable.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Mr. Socrates, not only the most desired model, it's the direct equivalent of the Scottish Parliament. If a husband remarks to his wife that he wants a car like next door have, and she offers him a motorbike, a pogo stick and a hot air balloon, he won't be very impressed.
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
The last two paragraphs of that article are dismally predictable.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Labour hate this - with a passion. The sunlight on this expense will be painful for anyone who wants to protect or enhance any sort of government spending.
I like the idea of the tax summary statement. The Government should also add a personalised spending summary as well, so that so many of the angriest voters could see how much they are in fact cosseted.
Manufacturing PMI at three-month high of 53.2 Growth acceleration led by domestic demand, as new export order decline Price pressures remain relatively subdued
Labour have gone through a bad patch with attacks being made on Ed Miliband for various reasons. e.g the conference speech errors, lack of leadership in Scotland. Perhaps Ed is not very good at the party management stuff and cannot get his team all working in the same direction. Ed cannot run the Labour party from Westminster and through a clique of people who he has worked with during his time with the Labour party. The older generation of Labour politicians with the experience seem to be moving on and some of these are those that can motivate the grassroots to get out to win an election.
If Ed is showing these leadership weaknesses now, it is only going to get harder for him, if he became PM. Perhaps he should have a good think about whether he can cope with managing the party, as well as a government. Opposition is quite difficult at the moment, due to the coalition. In some ways, UKIP have helped, because they have split the right of centre vote. Without UKIP, it is quite possible the Tories would have a significant poll lead.
Labour can win the 2015 election, but if they are going to do so, then they have to start working more effectively as a team and to start talking about the type of politics they would follow in government. e.g fairness to the many in dealing with UK debt; sensible robust relationship with other EU governments, without empty threats of running away; building 100,000 social housing units per year, making the United Kingdom more democratic with an elected House of Lords, more devolution away from Westminster to all parts of the UK.
The danger for Labour is that Ed Miliband just continues to be an academic politician type, who thinks more about the process and forgets about the people he needs to achieve his plans. He is going to have to start energising his team and to get out there to explain their plans for May 2015 onwards. They will not have many in the media who are going to help them, partly because of Labour plans on media regulation. So they are going to have to think about other ways to publicise their campaign work.
Mr. Socrates, not only the most desired model, it's the direct equivalent of the Scottish Parliament. If a husband remarks to his wife that he wants a car like next door have, and she offers him a motorbike, a pogo stick and a hot air balloon, he won't be very impressed.
What I find particularly annoying is how extra powers for cities - different and more minor powers to the ones given to Scotland - is referred to as "devolution within England". It's like saying the next door neighbours have a new car, but we'd prefer just to get new covers for select parts of the car. The worst bit is when Ed Miliband refers to "the nations and regions of Britain", showing he doesn't even consider England to be a nation.
Do Labour's plans for regional devolution even entail elected assemblies? Or is it just to qunagos?
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
The last two paragraphs of that article are dismally predictable.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Won't this show that EU immigrants don't claim much in benefits, and so make Cameron's tough stance / red line seem a bit pointless?
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Of course: feminism is a political ideology. Anyone can subscribe to any political ideology.
Would Labour agree to a Westminster coalition with the SNP next year in exchange for another Indyref?
SNP: How can a party that is (still) committed to breaking-up the UK with a straight face enter into a UK government?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Lord knows... Seems a bit of a hostage to fortune to pigeon hole yourself as any kind of ist to me.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Reminds me of the ELIZA programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) of years gone by, you say something to a press secretary and you get back the same words with "hard working families" or "tax cuts for millionaires" inserted into it, depending on which party they represent.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Don't trouble your pretty little head worrying about stuff like that..
Mr. Socrates, doesn't matter whether it'd be elected or quangocracy, England is not the plaything or possession of an empty-headed fool like Miliband. It's our land, not something to be carved up for the party political advantage of an occupational fratricidal union glove-puppet.
Miss Anne, there was an odd moment on Twitter (no rarity, I know) a few weeks ago, when someone insisted, in a 'positive' way, that I was a feminist, despite my stating I wasn't. The reasoning was that I was against bigotry/anti-women prejudice and therefore was a feminist.
That's not my view (I *am* against bigotry, but I don't think that equates to feminism and dislike having terms thrust upon me) but decided to just leave it. Oddly, the chap insisting it was so is a writer on Doctor Who, I believe.
Of course, if I were a naughty writer I would've provoked a Twitterstorm and gotten some much needed (albeit bad) publicity. Bah.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Don't trouble your pretty little head worrying about stuff like that..
It's the stupidest piece of electoral suicide since Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
That's wildly overstated. I agree some in the media might feel affected […] but it's a London issue.
Thus spake a Labour candidate I was going to put the word 'London' in my post but assumed it didn't need spelling out.
Despite the Beeb's half-move to Manchester, the media is massively London-centric, at least in terms of the important people that EdM should have kept on board. I'm not referring here simply to journos of print and tv variety, but filmmakers, writers, actors, soap stars … the list of once potential Labour luvvies who have been shafted by this most stupid of all policies is a long, long, one. And it will cost Labour dear. You do NOT bite the hand that feeds ...
What a surprise. The luvvies want higher taxes. Just not on them.
How many on this board call for higher taxes and how many have actually voluntarily paid more? The Treasury will happily take you cheque. Unfortunately I suspect most lefties would be like Tony Benn and Millipede Senior given half the chance. Only the proles and little people need to worry about paying taxes.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
A male acquiantance of mine (friend of a son’s, actually) signed up for Women’s Studies at Uni. The lecturer tried to get him thrown off, and then, IIRC either failed him or gave him the lowest possible pass. Again IIRC it knocked his degree down from a 2:1 to a Desmond!
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Don't trouble your pretty little head worrying about stuff like that..
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Don't trouble your pretty little head worrying about stuff like that..
According to that, UKIP, Greens, SNP & PC are on a combined 9 Seats.
Really? I mean really?
Any poll that has Labour ahead by only 2% IN NORTH ENGLAND should be taken with a very large dose of salt. ( And Populus, unlike other pollsters still weight the UKIP vote DOWN by 45% and the Lib Dem vote UP by 30% . (they also weight UP the Tories and weigh DOWN Labour No doubt they have their reasons for doing so.))
The lack of SNP seats is because they score Scotland as
20 - Tories 30 - Labour 39 - SNP
Values which would mean the SNP would rack up a lot of second places.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
Can any man, really, be a feminist?
Don't trouble your pretty little head worrying about stuff like that..
Yes I understand that, although I think there is a threshold where is merges into the pissed_off_voter_that_wants_some_blood_on_the_floors_effect ;-)
I imagine it must interlink with the speakers credibility as well somewhere, if you think someone is talking complete b****cks, hearing it multiple times probably won't either convince you, or make you very happy.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
If a "feminist" looks like Ed Milliband, Harriet Harman or Nick Clegg.... well, excuse me if I don't want to look like one.
Mr. Socrates, not only the most desired model, it's the direct equivalent of the Scottish Parliament. If a husband remarks to his wife that he wants a car like next door have, and she offers him a motorbike, a pogo stick and a hot air balloon, he won't be very impressed.
What I find particularly annoying is how extra powers for cities - different and more minor powers to the ones given to Scotland - is referred to as "devolution within England". It's like saying the next door neighbours have a new car, but we'd prefer just to get new covers for select parts of the car. The worst bit is when Ed Miliband refers to "the nations and regions of Britain", showing he doesn't even consider England to be a nation.
Do Labour's plans for regional devolution even entail elected assemblies? Or is it just to qunagos?
Labours plans will be to use their votes in the large cities to control as much of the surrounding region as possible. Witness what they did in Wales, Scotland (oops!) and County Durham.
Is it just me or were the worst things about t-shirtgate last week just how styleless the things were, how Clegg/Miliband/Harman were tied for how dire it made each of them look and at £45 each who in the real world pays that for a f****** t-shirt!
That and Marf's have made me laugh more at cartoons than for a long time.
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
The feminist t shirts would only really have worked properly if people you wouldn't think we're feminists wore them... Doesn't surprise me at all that Clegg and Miliband are feminists. If Vinnie Jones and 50 cent wore them it might work better
If a "feminist" looks like Ed Milliband, Harriet Harman or Nick Clegg.... well, excuse me if I don't want to look like one.
Yeah it seems like they're converting to the preached!
Mr. Eagles, you great big ponce. £145 for a t-shirt?! I shall write to the Flat Cap Elders and demand your immediate expulsion from the sacred brotherhood of Yorkshiremen.
Bloody hell, man. Even if I were loaded I wouldn't fritter away that much on a bloody t-shirt.
It was part of the Forty Licks Tour in 2003.
It was the iconic tongue image, done very well.
That is still bloody ridiculous. I have loads of concert bought T-Shirts - Springsteen (I have a complete European Tour collection going back to the early 80s) and the Eagles the most recent ones and never had to pay more than £30.
I've got all those Springsteen shirts, plus one from Hammersmith in 1975. They are about ten sizes too small now.
Mr. Socrates, not only the most desired model, it's the direct equivalent of the Scottish Parliament. If a husband remarks to his wife that he wants a car like next door have, and she offers him a motorbike, a pogo stick and a hot air balloon, he won't be very impressed.
What I find particularly annoying is how extra powers for cities - different and more minor powers to the ones given to Scotland - is referred to as "devolution within England". It's like saying the next door neighbours have a new car, but we'd prefer just to get new covers for select parts of the car. The worst bit is when Ed Miliband refers to "the nations and regions of Britain", showing he doesn't even consider England to be a nation.
Do Labour's plans for regional devolution even entail elected assemblies? Or is it just to qunagos?
Labours plans will be to use their votes in the large cities to control as much of the surrounding region as possible. Witness what they did in Wales, Scotland (oops!) and County Durham.
On an earlier post it was noted that 3 Labour Wards were moved into Exeter to make it a safe Labour seat. Another example.
The latest I've heard is that the Mayor of London might get control of suburban commuter lines. How on Earth is it right that railways in Essex and Surrey get controlled by someone that the people of Essex and Surrey don't get to vote for?
You can also tell by the design of the regions that northern cities like Manchester and Liverpool get grouped in with the broader left-leaning regions. But in the south, where the broader region is right-leaning, London gets carved off.
SCOTLAND has won the first ever Daily Mash Git of the Year award.
The small, cold, northern European hell-hole beat off stiff competition from rival gits including Russian maniac Vladimir Putin and Anyone Who Lives in a Converted Barn.
Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: ”All sensible people would agree that Scotland has been a massive pain in the arse this year, not least to itself.
”’Git’ almost seems inadequate, but if we’d used anything stronger someone probably would have reported us on Facebook.
Total welfare in England 163,031k Total spent on JSA 3,692k Total spent on Oldies circa 130,000k
State pension is a separate bucket, so your oldies number is wrong.
I am using official Govt statistics not Osbournes gimmick
State pensions, pensions credit, winter fuel allowance tv licences, attendance allowance DLA etc all included in the £163 BN "welfare budget" Oldies account for 80% of the bill JSA for 1.8% of the total "Benefit Expenditure by Country"
The personal tax statements are a great idea shoddily implemented for political reasons, which is no surprise for a chancellor for whom everything he touches turns to mould.
Some of the categories highlighted are cherry picked for political reasons - the EU and aid budgets for example, which are so small as to be inconsequential in an analysis such as this.
Leaving non state pension welfare as one lump some is tediously predictable, is blatantly intended to stoke resentment and doesn't inform at all, but instead begs further analysis.
Then there is the issue that the statements are part baked - they ignore VAT, as if that doesn't matter (except it does, it's proportionately a large part of the low paid's outgoings) and the analysis is inconsistent with other updated breakdowns of government spending, although not that far off the differences will call the integrity of the whole exercise into question.
And worst of all, the statement leaves out the benefit of all that government spending on the individual involved - from the provision of education and health (which should be valued at market rate), to tax credits and pension payments received. Without it 50% of the taxpayers will remain very much in the dark (intended of course) about the fact they're net recipients of this government activity.
Fortunately, most of these statements will rightly end up in the bin. As with the coalition's early transparency exercises which lost impetus after initial publication, the light shone proves the vast majority of government expenditure goes on mundane stuff taxpayers expect it to.
Total welfare in England 163,031k Total spent on JSA 3,692k Total spent on Oldies circa 130,000k
State pension is a separate bucket, so your oldies number is wrong.
I am using official Govt statistics not Osbournes gimmick
State pensions, pensions credit, winter fuel allowance tv licences, attendance allowance DLA etc all included in the £163 BN "welfare budget" Oldies account for 80% of the bill JSA for 1.8% of the total "Benefit Expenditure by Country"
Total welfare in England 163,031k Total spent on JSA 3,692k Total spent on Oldies circa 130,000k
State pension is a separate bucket, so your oldies number is wrong.
I am using official Govt statistics not Osbournes gimmick
State pensions, pensions credit, winter fuel allowance tv licences, attendance allowance DLA etc all included in the £163 BN "welfare budget" Oldies account for 80% of the bill JSA for 1.8% of the total "Benefit Expenditure by Country"
So in order to counter the fact that these slips show a huge amount being spent on welfare, you are adding in an amount not included to claim that it's mostly spent on older people.
Richard Nabavi is entirely correct that Labourites fail the Turing test these days.
Simon Danczuk channels Chesterton's The Secret People in The Telegraph:
"To many in the Metropolitan bubbles this is all quaint talk, as the working classes to them are an invisible people, an all but extinct tribe. But there’s a lot more of them than they realise and they won’t be beaten down and ignored forever."
On topic, I've been working for some time on a rule of thumb that the Lib Dem defectors will break 3:1 in Labour's favour over the Conservatives (of course, some will go to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens as well, but in most seats in England & Wales this is the vital split). I haven't seen any reason to abandon this rule of thumb yet.
According to that, UKIP, Greens, SNP & PC are on a combined 9 Seats.
Really? I mean really?
General statistical point, not arguing about these in particular. If you have a poll with a lot of results (whether it's a lot of subsamples or a lot of seats), one or two of them will be surprising due entirely to random distribution. It's a fundamental mistake to pick on that as showing something significant, unless it's confirmed by a further poll in the same place.
Comments
Closer to topic, although I note what happened in Wales, why on earth is a “Mansion Tax” proposed, instead of a couple of new Council Tax bands?
Treasury could always recoup the extra from Kensington & Chelsea etc.
- Pocket book voters
- People who get a sense of superiority for voting left even if it may not be in their economic interest
- PALS voters
- Rebellion voters
Personally I vote moderate Tory because I value a long term, stable, progressive and open society built around a commonality of interests. Economically I'd be a lot better off voting for a hard core, low tax party. But I reckon Cameron has the balance about right.
Labour risk losing some of their so-called core voters to UKIP and some to the Greens, but their biggest danger is of losing some to Don't Vote.
They aren't going to lose many to the Conservatives. Thoughtful Conservatives should fret about this.
"Just 56% of the Mark Reckless support is from those who voted for parties that were on the ballot at GE10. That compares with 85.2% for the CON candidate. A complication is that 42 people told the pollster that they voted UKIP last time when, as we all know, the party did not contest the seat. Clearly some of them might have lived elsewhere but my guess is that some of their memory of what they did or did not do four years ago is based on their current voting intention."
You have fixated on the "42 UKIP voters" problem, where I agree with you. In the first half of the paragraph, Mike was making a wider point about UKIP's support being based on non-voters, which is an altogether stronger point (though like Peter the Punter, I'm now not expecting anything other than UKIP taking this seat without any further alarm or disturbance).
Nuneaton stood out in the Ashcroft polls.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Nuneaton-Full-tables-Oct-14.pdf
More LD-Tory than LD-Lab.
"Early Thoughts from Brazil" is/maybe/will-be/should-be an eponymous brand of the 'FluffyThoughts&Me corporation (yet to be incorporated). Negotiations between London and Sao Paulo are on-going. Any attempt to usurp, denigrate or give prominence may result in useless responses.
:investors-beware:
How out of touch can they be...and how out of touch can their advisers be..and they want to run the country...sheesh.
Con 34 (nc) Lab 35 (+1) LD 9 (+1) UKIP 13 (-2) Greens 4 (-1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OmOnline_Vote_03_11-2014_BPC.pdf
It seems to be now much nearer to 2:1 (range 1.8;1 to 2.5:1) - YG October average was 2.35:1.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/03/richs-monday-morning-view-90/
A few of my t-shirts and hoodies cost north of £45.
I guess this confirms my membership of the cosmopolitan metropolitan elite.
where's malc ?
first your running out of oil and now there's no decent whisky in Scotland.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818146/Japan-s-whisky-best-world-Single-malt-dubbed-work-incredible-genius-takes-title-wake-call-Scottish-industry.html
Bloody hell, man. Even if I were loaded I wouldn't fritter away that much on a bloody t-shirt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29870018
Labour and the Lib Dems remain firmly against any proposal to give us anything approximating equality with Scotland.
It was the iconic tongue image, done very well.
Offence alone is not an argument.
And they wonder why "politics as normal" is despised
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/chris-mcgovern-morgans-uber-pc-agenda-spells-trouble-will-tolerate-boko-haram/
This: http://conservativewoman.co.uk/camerons-tories-are-no-different-to-labour/ on the same site speaks volumes on the Tories problems as well.
Mr. Eagles, attempting to justify the expenditure is only digging deeper the hole of ignominy.
I was going to put the word 'London' in my post but assumed it didn't need spelling out.
Despite the Beeb's half-move to Manchester, the media is massively London-centric, at least in terms of the important people that EdM should have kept on board. I'm not referring here simply to journos of print and tv variety, but filmmakers, writers, actors, soap stars … the list of once potential Labour luvvies who have been shafted by this most stupid of all policies is a long, long, one. And it will cost Labour dear. You do NOT bite the hand that feeds ...
1) They voted for Reckless last time
or
2) They voted UKIP at the euros and are mixing their elections up.
I wonder if (2) affects polling in general and not just the euros confusing people's recall, council elections may do the same?
Being good a repeating our sips,
The distilleries will be still on-line.
But it cannae be fun for them,
In Fukushima's shine,
And EiT postings 8% sublime....
Down in the holes,
Of Glasgae's future depth,
I find a stranger,
A clown so inept!
In the morning,
Another day,
The English will arise....
But is Scotland listening,
On it's final demise?
We will never know...,
Questions unanswered....
Until they make the final cut.
Apols: Pink-Floyd/Rodger Walters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11204213/Voters-to-get-letters-showing-how-much-of-their-money-is-spent-on-benefits.html
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/Voting-Intention-136/
Cruel but unfortunately true, I fear.
LAB 327 CON 277 LD 19 other 27 (ukpr)
EICIPM
I don't care, it hasn't cost me any money, I said ukip in Rochester from the start and nothing I have seen here or anywhere else has made me blink... Just for future reference I personally wouldn't assume people who said they voted were DNV. You are free to ignore my advice as you wish, it's only my opinion
Really? I mean really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29850286
He seems keen to refer to what constitutional experts desire but accidentally forgets to refer to what the people want.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Manufacturing PMI at three-month high of 53.2
Growth acceleration led by domestic demand,
as new export order decline
Price pressures remain relatively subdued
http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/692e914ba9dd4c17a14e5baf0655e79e
If Ed is showing these leadership weaknesses now, it is only going to get harder for him, if he became PM. Perhaps he should have a good think about whether he can cope with managing the party, as well as a government. Opposition is quite difficult at the moment, due to the coalition. In some ways, UKIP have helped, because they have split the right of centre vote. Without UKIP, it is quite possible the Tories would have a significant poll lead.
Labour can win the 2015 election, but if they are going to do so, then they have to start working more effectively as a team and to start talking about the type of politics they would follow in government. e.g fairness to the many in dealing with UK debt; sensible robust relationship with other EU governments, without empty threats of running away; building 100,000 social housing units per year, making the United Kingdom more democratic with an elected House of Lords, more devolution away from Westminster to all parts of the UK.
The danger for Labour is that Ed Miliband just continues to be an academic politician type, who thinks more about the process and forgets about the people he needs to achieve his plans. He is going to have to start energising his team and to get out there to explain their plans for May 2015 onwards. They will not have many in the media who are going to help them, partly because of Labour plans on media regulation. So they are going to have to think about other ways to publicise their campaign work.
Do Labour's plans for regional devolution even entail elected assemblies? Or is it just to qunagos?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
" Growth acceleration led by domestic demand,
as new export order decline"
Another consumer "boom"? That has to be good...doesn't it?
Miss Anne, there was an odd moment on Twitter (no rarity, I know) a few weeks ago, when someone insisted, in a 'positive' way, that I was a feminist, despite my stating I wasn't. The reasoning was that I was against bigotry/anti-women prejudice and therefore was a feminist.
That's not my view (I *am* against bigotry, but I don't think that equates to feminism and dislike having terms thrust upon me) but decided to just leave it. Oddly, the chap insisting it was so is a writer on Doctor Who, I believe.
Of course, if I were a naughty writer I would've provoked a Twitterstorm and gotten some much needed (albeit bad) publicity. Bah.
Index of Labour Switchers (Lib Dem gains minus UKIP losses on 1000 samples)
Brentford and Isleworth +42
Enfield North +20
Hove +20
Brighton Kemptown +16
Hastings and Rye +13
Pudsey +12
Halesowen +2
Gloucester -1
Nuneaton - 13
Corby -13
Fairly sharp geographical distinctions between London, certain bits of the south coast and then the Midlands.
The sampling was pre-conference in the main.
UKIP are wiping out the gains from LD switchers in the Midlands?
How many on this board call for higher taxes and how many have actually voluntarily paid more? The Treasury will happily take you cheque. Unfortunately I suspect most lefties would be like Tony Benn and Millipede Senior given half the chance. Only the proles and little people need to worry about paying taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
From the Guardian live ticker
Total spent on JSA 3,692k
Total spent on Oldies circa 130,000k
The lack of SNP seats is because they score Scotland as
20 - Tories
30 - Labour
39 - SNP
Values which would mean the SNP would rack up a lot of second places.
Or two angels?!
I imagine it must interlink with the speakers credibility as well somewhere, if you think someone is talking complete b****cks, hearing it multiple times probably won't either convince you, or make you very happy.
In Gerrymandering terms it is called 'Cracking' - However it is cracking the suburban vote, not the urban vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Packing_and_cracking
On an earlier post it was noted that 3 Labour Wards were moved into Exeter to make it a safe Labour seat. Another example.
Well, I do have a heavenly body.... (I wish!)
You can also tell by the design of the regions that northern cities like Manchester and Liverpool get grouped in with the broader left-leaning regions. But in the south, where the broader region is right-leaning, London gets carved off.
SCOTLAND has won the first ever Daily Mash Git of the Year award.
The small, cold, northern European hell-hole beat off stiff competition from rival gits including Russian maniac Vladimir Putin and Anyone Who Lives in a Converted Barn.
Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: ”All sensible people would agree that Scotland has been a massive pain in the arse this year, not least to itself.
”’Git’ almost seems inadequate, but if we’d used anything stronger someone probably would have reported us on Facebook.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/scotland-wins-git-of-the-year-2014110392379
State pensions, pensions credit, winter fuel allowance tv licences, attendance allowance DLA etc all included in the £163 BN "welfare budget" Oldies account for 80% of the bill JSA for 1.8% of the total "Benefit Expenditure by Country"
Some of the categories highlighted are cherry picked for political reasons - the EU and aid budgets for example, which are so small as to be inconsequential in an analysis such as this.
Leaving non state pension welfare as one lump some is tediously predictable, is blatantly intended to stoke resentment and doesn't inform at all, but instead begs further analysis.
Then there is the issue that the statements are part baked - they ignore VAT, as if that doesn't matter (except it does, it's proportionately a large part of the low paid's outgoings) and the analysis is inconsistent with other updated breakdowns of government spending, although not that far off the differences will call the integrity of the whole exercise into question.
And worst of all, the statement leaves out the benefit of all that government spending on the individual involved - from the provision of education and health (which should be valued at market rate), to tax credits and pension payments received. Without it 50% of the taxpayers will remain very much in the dark (intended of course) about the fact they're net recipients of this government activity.
Fortunately, most of these statements will rightly end up in the bin. As with the coalition's early transparency exercises which lost impetus after initial publication, the light shone proves the vast majority of government expenditure goes on mundane stuff taxpayers expect it to.
Richard Nabavi is entirely correct that Labourites fail the Turing test these days.
"To many in the Metropolitan bubbles this is all quaint talk, as the working classes to them are an invisible people, an all but extinct tribe. But there’s a lot more of them than they realise and they won’t be beaten down and ignored forever."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11202976/Cheap-immigrant-labour-has-cost-blue-collar-Britain-dear.html
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet.