Mr O'Flynn's interview in the Spectator suggests that UKIP think 20% is a realistic target.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
On current figures (averaging around 16%) that looks unlikely. It involves gaining voters due to the glare of election campaign publicity (and we saw last time that can evaporate as quickly as it happens) and not losing people who either (a) currently give "protest VI" in polls but intend to vote for a mainstream party at the GE and (b) get cold feet during the election campaign.
Most of the pollsters don't include UKIP in their prompts. I'm expecting that to change before April 2015. UKIP got 22% NEV at the 2013 local elections, 18% NEV in 2014.
Throughout the month before the 2014 EU Parliament elections UKIP got constant negative coverage from the national media. They still won the election.
The decline of Con/Lab support is a long term trend.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
See in the Guardian that Polly Toynbee is commenting on Assisted Dying and not the political story of the moment. Has she been demoted, not trusted, is she heartbroken or just enjoying the Tuscan sun?
Must be code for get rid of a political party leader with a terminal disease. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con <60%
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
TGOHF - I'd vote Labour if that was what was on offer. Snowballs / Hell though!
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
An interesting assertion. Just where do you think that 9% is going to go at the election?
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Most of us call that "winning", last time it enabled the Tories to form a government that looks like it will last the full 5 years, with help from the LDs of course. (And if they lose a substantial amount of votes and/or seats I will happily say they "lost" just as Gordon did last time).
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
Take 9 off UKIP, distribute a couple to Labour, the balance to Tories and you get back to the range other pollsters are showing. It's a brave move to predict an election 5 months away on the basis of 1 poll, which is a bit of an outlier, with some votes redistributed at your whim. But hey ho.
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
Does everyone in France have to pay £26? If so, then that is okay according to the EU laws. If not, then it's the bloody French ignoring the rules again!!
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
TGOHF - I'd vote Labour if that was what was on offer. Snowballs / Hell though!
Quite - and that was 20 seconds not 4 years - it's hardly rocket salad innit ?
Re: EdM Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Looking closely at the bigger picture: Immigration = big win for the rich/big business massive lose for minimum wage/working class
Net effect : Negligible
Says it all that you think citing immigrants as net tax contributors, while "natives" are massive claimants is a point that helps your argument... it's the problem!
The parties saying they will be tough on immigrants benefits while allowing mass immigration of economic migrants are 10 years behind the 8 ball.. completely missing the point
I've realised the numbers I reported before were incorrect because the same research unit did the study twice - once in 2013 and once in 2014 - with the same title.
The correct number is that immigration has been a £114bn loss to the UK Treasury over the 16 years. And that's in 2011 prices. In current prices it's £120bn.
(I also note that the £4.4bn number quoted for 2001-2011 EU immigration was also in 2011 prices. Are journalists that report on the public sector so economically illiterate that they can't inflate time series to put them into current prices?)
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
Does everyone in France have to pay £26? If so, then that is okay according to the EU laws. If not, then it's the bloody French ignoring the rules again!!
I think I could have reclaimed it through my E45 or whatever (sprog had chickenpox wasn't even me) - but frankly wasn't worth the hassle and the boy did a good job of diagnosing etc - no queue and no hassle getting appointment - was worth it.
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
Janice Atkinson ? Marta Andreasen ? Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
That shows a lack of knowledge. Nikki Sinclaire has left UKIP and has set up another Party. Andreasen has been sidelined. Atkinson or Evans, sure. I am sure the controlling cabal of British politics will be very keen to get rid of Farage as soon as they can.
My point exactly - it shows a pattern that as women rise they get put down - by Nigel. MA certainly claimed that was the case when she went.
There's definitely a cabal objective to replace Farage. He's got political savvy, and knows when to buy and when to sell. He seized control of the Party from Natrass, who's the prime backer of Nikki Sinclaire's new party. Andreassen was the EU's former accountant, and could have been playing a double game. We'll never know.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
"Concentrated clusters of support". UKIP are increasingly sewing up the eurosceptic vote, the anti-mass immigration vote and the anti-London vote. They need to win back the libertarian vote with a high profile campaign on civil liberties, vowing to bring back habeas corpus, a right to privacy, no government searches without individual warrants, the right to free speech etc. It could also win them friends in the media and the chattering classes.
I'm surprised the consequences of HMG passing powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU hasn't had more media attention.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
No. As we've all been living beyond our means total non-British born have been too - many of them because they've moved from productive years to retirement where they quite rightly benefit from their earlier (and not measured in the study) contribution.
Recent EU immigration - of young, well educated, workers have been net contributors (probably very much like their UK peers, except someone else paid for their education - so almost certainly more "net positive" than their UK peers) as you would expect. If they retire here they will be a drain - and why not, after they have contributed?
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
But you were accessing French health services in exactly the same way as a Frenchman. If they come to the UK to live they have to be able to access healthcare in exactly the same way as a Brit.
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare. Then to get access to the NHS you would at least have to be a taxpayer or in receipt of benefits. That's how it seems to work in Belgium, for example - if you retired early and moved to Belgium you would not be covered by the Belgian healthcare system and would have to arrange your own insurance. (Once you get your UK State Pension, however, you would be covered as Belgians who get benefits are covered, therefore so are any EU citizens who get Social Security benefits).
Re: EdM Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
Ed was perfectly entitled to go for the job. The problem lies not in his own over-inflated idea of his abilities but in the Labour movement's capacity to assess them or prioritise them appropriately.
It might be appropriate to criticise him had he destroyed his brother's career and lost as well but he didn't.
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare.
As I said below - I'm sure some clever clogs could come up with a system to ensure free at point of care for citizens/taxpayers and direct family. Others cared for but must pony up a credit card.
If the a party most vulnerable to the current UKIP surge is Con ,then it follows that if closer to the GE. the UKIP share declines then the main beneficiary will be the CONS. Bad news for Labour whose upward potential is less easy to spot..
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
That's rather unfair considering that women couldn't even be elected to parliament until 1918. On that basis, it took 61 years.
If you reckon on it taking at least 15 years for an MP to ascend to the leadership under the requirements assumed necessary until recently, then it comes down to something closer to 45.
UKIP, as the Anti-Federalist League, was founded in 1991. They're more than halfway through their first 45 years and have had an all-male line-up so far.
You're using the need to stand in parliament as a requirement for the start of dating for the Tories, yet you then start UKIP's period from 15 years before they had a parliamentary party? It's especially hypocritical when you consider that it was down to the Tories that it took so long for women to be elected to parliament.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?
Tory-DUP with Lib Dems and UKIP providing confidence and supply.
Tory+DUP about 304 seats. UKIP with only 5 seats can be ignored. SNP and LibDem might have to be involved somehow. How about Con+Lab grand coalition?
Re: EdM Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
Ed was perfectly entitled to go for the job. The problem lies not in his own over-inflated idea of his abilities but in the Labour movement's capacity to assess them or prioritise them appropriately. It might be appropriate to criticise him had he destroyed his brother's career and lost as well but he didn't.
I may be entitled to do a lot of things but I choose not to do some when I know the consequences will be very bad for a close relative and I am not 90%+ sure that I would be a better choice. It is all a question of judgement.
We need in our Leaders people who have good judgement.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
That bit is the niff naff and trivia.
You have to laugh at how our media gets played by a pro-immigration study conducted by immigrants. Even under their optimistic assumptions:
EEA migrants: £4bn gain non-EEA migrants: £118bn loss
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare.
As I said below - I'm sure some clever clogs could come up with a system to ensure free at point of care for citizens/taxpayers and direct family. Others cared for but must pony up a credit card.
You said "citizens" though, that's very different from "taxpayers". And you are going to have to find a way of including benefit claimants, and excluding foreigner from getting benefits. That's not impossible - as far as I can tell, most EU countries have systems that are not as open to people turning up and freeloading - but no-one really wants to talk about making the qualification method suitable for the world we find ourselves in.
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
No. As we've all been living beyond our means total non-British born have been too - many of them because they've moved from productive years to retirement where they quite rightly benefit from their earlier (and not measured in the study) contribution.
Recent EU immigration - of young, well educated, workers have been net contributors (probably very much like their UK peers, except someone else paid for their education - so almost certainly more "net positive" than their UK peers) as you would expect. If they retire here they will be a drain - and why not, after they have contributed?
Actually the effects of WW1 and WW2 has been to suppress the growth of the 65+ in the population, we are now entering a period where the effects of those events are fading out.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell Those running the Conservative party have lost so many members, they have to get each Cabinet minister down to #rochester 5 times
The EAW is a huge affront to individual liberty. Whether popular or not, UKIP are right to campaign against it for moral reasons. I don't think even the most ardent supporter of the EU can justify what has happened to Mr Symeou.
Every MP voting for this measure knows full well they will be creating more cases like this, where innocent people have their lives wrecked because basic liberal checks on justice have been swept away in the name of European integration.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Ok, so you won't answer my simple, specific questions. Why not?
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
What’s more worrying however is how the mix of occupations – particularly the decline in managerial roles and the rise of low-skilled occupations – is dragging down wage growth. It’s not yet clear whether this is a temporary blip or the start of a new shift in patterns of UK employment
So, if you sack a load of middle management people in the NHS and replace them with extra midwives and nurses is it a good or bad thing that average wages decline?
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
Is it true that the Wings over Zomerzet poll asked a mighty total of 10 (TEN) people for their opinion ?
Which 'poll' is this?
Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland · 16h 16 hours ago Uniquely among the 10 people we polled on, there's a large gender gap between men and women on Jim Murphy. (Women like him much less.)
Based on the latest average polling figures, Prof. Stephen Fisher's weekly projection of 2015 GE seats (with last week's comparatives) shows the following:
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?
It'd be Con Minority on those figures IMHO. I wrote a thread on this over a month ago, tipping it at 10/1, which I'm sure you remember.
Some sort of temporary confidence & supply deal with the Lib Dems for a pet project or two (like local authority PR and a new crack at Lords reform, plus EU referendum vote support, might be possible) so with an effective majority of 6, a government might last for 18 months-2 years.
Hmm. Whilst a realistic (alas) possibility, that's a bit shorter than I'd want, but there we are.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), 10 people does not make a poll.
Shorter than you'd want o_O ?!#
You should be piling on Tories most seats in that case then. (As to whether Labour or Con most seats is value right now, well that is a tricky question - probably Tories but I'd buy Labour at evens.)
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
That is in the sort of range I can imagine. I'd reverse the Conservatives and Labour scores.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
Read your latest blogpost this morning on this. Very good. Those (reversed) seat figures would require Labour to win around 50 seats from the Tories (+40 tory, +8 lib dem and -10 SNP = + 38 seats net) and I just can't see them doing that.
It'd require the whole Tory 40:40 defence strategy to fail 100%. I will write another blog post on this over the next week or so.
About 30 Tory gains is the best Labour can hope for IMHO. And I expect closer to 20.
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
Populus seem very reluctant to believe that people are changing sides. They still have the SNP in the mid 30s and UKIP averaging 11 in the SE.
C2DE :
Populus: Labour 42 UKIP 16 Yougov: Labour 37 UKIP 21
It is their comedy weighting. In fact even though UKIP went up +1 to 14 with Populus it looks like a bang average poll to them for me as they have slipped below 300 in the unweights.
BenM - so is it fair that a Polish home owner can travel to London, get housing benefit and all the rest... but a Aberfan home owner won't get any help to move. Does this explain to you why the British haven't moved from down turned areas but the Poles can?
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.
The self-employed WTC scam. I believe that under UC you will be deemed to be working at at least minimum wage, so if you "earn" £20 a week you will be deemed to only be working 3 hours per week and therefore not qualified for in-work benefits. There's no reason why it can't be brought in earlier. It seems a bit harsh, however, for someone who is genuinely self-employed, going through a bad patch, working day and night to get in new business but not actually getting any chargeable work.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
That is in the sort of range I can imagine. I'd reverse the Conservatives and Labour scores.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
Read your latest blogpost this morning on this. Very good. Those (reversed) seat figures would require Labour to win around 50 seats from the Tories (+40 tory, +8 lib dem and -10 SNP = + 38 seats net) and I just can't see them doing that.
It'd require the whole Tory 40:40 defence strategy to fail 100%. I will write another blog post on this over the next week or so.
About 30 Tory gains is the best Labour can hope for IMHO. And I expect closer to 20.
Sorry, typo: 40 seats needed for Labour for that from the Tories. Not 50.
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
"As Germany does not allow immigration without cause, it is necessary to be either enrolled with a school or university, have a specific job offer that fits the requirements of one of the work permit categories or intend to reunify with close family (spouse or minors) already within Germany (family reunification visa)."
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Normally Labour does not do pretty girls (look what happened to Blair's babes) but prefers the Bessie Braddocks or Abbots. Look how Caroline Flint was treated and her resentment but did not receive the support of the 'sisters'.
the reason just two grumpy MPs apparently actively agitating for the leadership has received so much coverage is that for months journalists have been talking off the record to Labourites who are privately increasingly unhappy – and increasing numbers of them feel this way. Those two MPs, still anonymous, are just the tip of a very big iceberg of misery. Reports of unrest, though, may uncork the tensions in the party and lead to more MPs taking a calculated risk to speak out. Or, they may have the opposite effect and cause the party to band tighter together against what it sees as a hostile press out to get it. We just don’t know yet.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
Sounds good to me, not least because I fancy retiring to Europe myself!
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
Oh bless you you little tribalist TSE!
If Labour are in the lead at the start of April, they'll win regardless of the campaign. People's minds will be made up. Tories need to be in the clear before then.
They may well be though. That's the Tory opprtunity.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.
Except it didn't did it Socrates?
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
Firstly, it depends on whether you only look at the impact on the Treasury, or also look at the effect on house prices, the NHS, school places, infrastructure congestion, community disruption etc.
Secondly, it depends what you mean by "need". It is probable that much of the EU contribution comes from the highly skilled, and that the lowly skilled are a net drain. Thus if we cut out the lowly skilled, we'd get a much bigger net gain.
BenM - so is it fair that a Polish home owner can travel to London, get housing benefit and all the rest... but a Aberfan home owner won't get any help to move. Does this explain to you why the British haven't moved from down turned areas but the Poles can?
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
Oh bless you you little tribalist TSE!
If Labour are in the lead at the start of April, they'll win regardless of the campaign. People's minds will be made up. Tories need to be in the clear before then.
They may well be though. That's the Tory opprtunity.
Last time, half the voters hadn't made up their minds until after the campaign began.
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.
Simplest thing is to make child benefit payable only to children resident with the claimant, housing benefit dependent on a history of NI contributions, and to restrict tax credits to the amount of income tax and NI paid by the recipient.
Comments
Throughout the month before the 2014 EU Parliament elections UKIP got constant negative coverage from the national media. They still won the election.
The decline of Con/Lab support is a long term trend.
Take 9 off UKIP, distribute a couple to Labour, the balance to Tories and you get back to the range other pollsters are showing. It's a brave move to predict an election 5 months away on the basis of 1 poll, which is a bit of an outlier, with some votes redistributed at your whim. But hey ho.
Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=+Justine+Miliband&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
Immigration = big win for the rich/big business
massive lose for minimum wage/working class
Net effect : Negligible
Says it all that you think citing immigrants as net tax contributors, while "natives" are massive claimants is a point that helps your argument... it's the problem!
The parties saying they will be tough on immigrants benefits while allowing mass immigration of economic migrants are 10 years behind the 8 ball.. completely missing the point
The correct number is that immigration has been a £114bn loss to the UK Treasury over the 16 years. And that's in 2011 prices. In current prices it's £120bn.
(I also note that the £4.4bn number quoted for 2001-2011 EU immigration was also in 2011 prices. Are journalists that report on the public sector so economically illiterate that they can't inflate time series to put them into current prices?)
Recent EU immigration - of young, well educated, workers have been net contributors (probably very much like their UK peers, except someone else paid for their education - so almost certainly more "net positive" than their UK peers) as you would expect. If they retire here they will be a drain - and why not, after they have contributed?
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare. Then to get access to the NHS you would at least have to be a taxpayer or in receipt of benefits. That's how it seems to work in Belgium, for example - if you retired early and moved to Belgium you would not be covered by the Belgian healthcare system and would have to arrange your own insurance. (Once you get your UK State Pension, however, you would be covered as Belgians who get benefits are covered, therefore so are any EU citizens who get Social Security benefits).
YouGov: What shld UK do with European Arrest Warrant
Opt-In Cons 63 Lab 63 LibDems 68 Ukip 42
Opt-Out Cons 20 Lab 13 LibDems 18 Ukip 34
As John Rentoul notes, even UKIP voters back opting into the European Arrest Warrant.
It might be appropriate to criticise him had he destroyed his brother's career and lost as well but he didn't.
Bad news for Labour whose upward potential is less easy to spot..
UKIP with only 5 seats can be ignored.
SNP and LibDem might have to be involved somehow.
How about Con+Lab grand coalition?
We need in our Leaders people who have good judgement.
EEA migrants: £4bn gain
non-EEA migrants: £118bn loss
Which is the significant number to report?
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Those running the Conservative party have lost so many members, they have to get each Cabinet minister down to #rochester 5 times
Con/Lab/LD all back opting in, UKIP alone back staying out. So the Conservatives are more likely to lose support than win it.
No sign of any improvement in their share. Electorate not buying the snake oil it seems.
http://www.fairtrials.org/press/after-a-four-year-ordeal-andrew-symeou-is-cleared-by-greek-courts/
The EAW is a huge affront to individual liberty. Whether popular or not, UKIP are right to campaign against it for moral reasons. I don't think even the most ardent supporter of the EU can justify what has happened to Mr Symeou.
Every MP voting for this measure knows full well they will be creating more cases like this, where innocent people have their lives wrecked because basic liberal checks on justice have been swept away in the name of European integration.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
Any takers?
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
Uniquely among the 10 people we polled on, there's a large gender gap between men and women on Jim Murphy. (Women like him much less.)
Con ............ 300 (- 2 seats)
Lab ............. 291 (unchanged)
LibDem ........ 28 (+ 2 seats)
Others ......... 31 (unchanged)
Total .......... 650 seats
Some sort of temporary confidence & supply deal with the Lib Dems for a pet project or two (like local authority PR and a new crack at Lords reform, plus EU referendum vote support, might be possible) so with an effective majority of 6, a government might last for 18 months-2 years.
Hmm. Whilst a realistic (alas) possibility, that's a bit shorter than I'd want, but there we are.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), 10 people does not make a poll.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/carry-on-prime-minister-david-cameron-meets-veterans-starlets/
"EEA immigration is great! It makes up for 4% of the loss from non-EEA immigration! Therefore more immigration is needed!"
todays Populus
You should be piling on Tories most seats in that case then. (As to whether Labour or Con most seats is value right now, well that is a tricky question - probably Tories but I'd buy Labour at evens.)
I think a second election could occur.
Betfair most seats at GE narrowing nicely
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Voting-Intention-Poll-Tables-6-November-2014.pdf
Find top price and I'll beat it for you.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
I think that is the most likely result
It'd require the whole Tory 40:40 defence strategy to fail 100%. I will write another blog post on this over the next week or so.
About 30 Tory gains is the best Labour can hope for IMHO. And I expect closer to 20.
Tricky 'cos there's lots of polls and some are rogue.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/07/audio-shadow-cabinet-minister-warns-labour-is-dying/
C2DE :
Populus: Labour 42 UKIP 16
Yougov: Labour 37 UKIP 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
table 4, using weighted numbers
in: 547, out: 780, undecided: 200, total: 1537
in: 35%
Out: 50%
So if I take out my most likely chance of winning you want the bet?
A superb calculation by George to take the heat off.
"As Germany does not allow immigration without cause, it is necessary to be either enrolled with a school or university, have a specific job offer that fits the requirements of one of the work permit categories or intend to reunify with close family (spouse or minors) already within Germany (family reunification visa)."
https://www.google.com/search?q=stella+creasy&client=firefox-a&hs=OF3&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_Z1cVNn9CoyraZ3PgagL&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=930
Normally they have a quicker turnaround than that.
If Labour are in the lead at the start of April, they'll win regardless of the campaign. People's minds will be made up. Tories need to be in the clear before then.
They may well be though. That's the Tory opprtunity.
Secondly, it depends what you mean by "need". It is probable that much of the EU contribution comes from the highly skilled, and that the lowly skilled are a net drain. Thus if we cut out the lowly skilled, we'd get a much bigger net gain.