Does anyone know of an XHR/JSON API into the IG-Index site? With BC/Sterling hovering around one to three per-cent above £50/barrel I would like to set up a 15-minutes poll so that I can track the "inevitable".
Ed Miliband is the least of Labour’s problems. Its troubles go far deeper than any individual. They are structural and, potentially, fatal. It is certainly easier for Labour MPs, and ultimately more comforting, to concentrate on Miliband’s deficiencies as a leader than the existential crisis facing the left. But until somebody comes up with an answer to the question of what the party is for — in an era of austerity and globalisation — it will be stuck in a death spiral.
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
There is a link between Ed's posturing on Syria and the Crimea (and let's remember, it wasn't principled opposition but a desire to have parliament support his motion rather than the government's that led to the defeat of both).
The vote in the Commons stiffened resistance in Congress. That sapping of confidence on both sides of the Atlantic was a factor in both Putin's aggression in the Crimea and Ukraine more generally and the lack of resolve in the response.
I am not saying that the one is directly responsible for the other, and more than Versailles was directly responsible for WWII, but nor can the consequences be ignored.
And now I must be off for the day.
There is a connection between Syria and Ukraine but not in a way that supports your simplistic analysis. Some folks were determined to undermine US-Russian cooperation in defusing the Syrian situation and ending of the isolation of Iran.
I think the Labour party is now so infested with luvvies and champagne socialists that even a no brainer policy like raising some tax from people in £2 million pound houses causes many influential supporters to grumble ( as it may affect them) .
In a way that is a ridiculous state for a working person's party to get itself into.
Does anyone know of an XHR/JSON API into the IG-Index site? With BC/Sterling hovering around one to three per-cent above £50/barrel I would like to set up a 15-minutes poll so that I can track the "inevitable".
Wishful thinking. I know one or two libdems and they are either in denial or suddenly they have lost interest in politics and don't want to talk about it - especially anything to do with UKIP.
Flash PB poll please: What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech? A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover. B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse. C. Meh. Nothing changes.
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.
Sorry Nick what you've just written above is wishful nonsense. Ed Miliband is a dead man walking, nothing you or Labour do before the election will make him live again.
Ed's decency,honesty and integrity will shine through in the end-no secret deals with Murdoch and Dacre either.
@volcanopete Come on pete, This is a man who betrayed his brother with a well aimed union knife in the back. I know what shines through and it ain't decency,honesty and integrity; quite the opposite in fact.
For the love of...
Of all the critisicsms aimed at Ed Miliband running for the Labour party top job with his brother, his brother that had a golden opportunity with Purnell's resignation to get rid of calamity Brown at the top of the shop and who bottled it, this is oversold and piss weak.
Worse than that. If David had bothered to fight for the lower preferences of some of his PLP colleagues he would have won. But he didnt. Worst leadership campaign ever.
I think you're forgetting Michael Portillo's leadership campaign in 2001.
I think you are both forgetting Margaret Thatcher's campaign in 1990, which she inexplicably deputed to a bloke in Scotland trying to run a bank, and a shambolic drunkard. That was surely the worst leadership campaign ever.
Blatter and his inner clique just don't care any more how they are perceived. Their position is unassailable. They are coated in teflon.
It's a remarkable achievement in this age of internet scrutiny, however much it stinks.
Could be time for England and other like minded countries to announce they will boycott any World cup in Qatar and refuse to release players for it from the premier league. Its now or never
Whilst it certainly looks as though the by-election will be an easy UKIP win, I think that the Ashcroft poll overstates the likely winning margin. To see why, take a look at Table 3 of the full poll details:
There are some very striking figures there, in particular:
1) A remarkable proportion of the Reckless support comes from the C2 and DE groups - about 60% of those saying they'll vote for him, roughly evenly split between C2 and DE. Contrast that with the Tory candidate, only 38% of whose support comes from these groups (24% C2, 14% DE), or Labour (17% C2, 18% DE).
2) An equally striking proportion of the Reckless support comes from 2010 non-voters, who make up 28% of those saying they'll vote for him. The equivalent figure for Kelly Tolhurst is 14%.
3) Finally, look at the certainty to vote figures in Table 1. 61% of respondents say they are 'absolutely certain' to vote (10 on a scale of 1 to 10), and a further 13% 8 or 9 out of 10.
Well, turnout is not going to be that high, so some of those voters aren't actually going to make it to the ballot box or return a postal vote. The most likely sources of non-voters in the by-election are non-voters in 2010, and/or the DE socio-economic group. That suggests the final result won't be quite as good for Mark Reckless as the poll indicates.
Wishful thinking. I know one or two libdems and they are either in denial or suddenly they have lost interest in politics and don't want to talk about it - especially anything to do with UKIP.
I'm sure David Steel was forecasting the events of 2010 ....
Does anyone know of an XHR/JSON API into the IG-Index site? With BC/Sterling hovering around one to three per-cent above £50/barrel I would like to set up a 15-minutes poll so that I can track the "inevitable".
Chahs!
Bet is for year end, I'm not giving up yet (Though I'd probably be on your side right now ^_~)
Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
I think the Labour party is now so infested with luvvies and champagne socialists that even a no brainer policy like raising some tax from people in £2 million pound houses causes many influential supporters to grumble ( as it may affect them) .
In a way that is a ridiculous state for a working person's party to get itself into.
Don't be so ridiculous. Roger's a working man, and sometimes he can barely scrape together the change to pay for his £3 cheese croissant at Maison Bertaux without breaking into a £50.
Blatter and his inner clique just don't care any more how they are perceived. Their position is unassailable. They are coated in teflon.
It's a remarkable achievement in this age of internet scrutiny, however much it stinks.
Could be time for England and other like minded countries to announce they will boycott any World cup in Qatar and refuse to release players for it from the premier league. Its now or never
The clubs would love it because they hate losing players to England and the other national sides anyway. The FA, ie the England team, would not.
Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....
... and why did you leave him for JackW?......
I admire your equanimity in the face of NHS catering ....
Flash PB poll please: What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech? A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover. B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse. C. Meh. Nothing changes.
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.
Sorry Nick what you've just written above is wishful nonsense. Ed Miliband is a dead man walking, nothing you or Labour do before the election will make him live again.
Ed's decency,honesty and integrity will shine through in the end-no secret deals with Murdoch and Dacre either.
@volcanopete Come on pete, This is a man who betrayed his brother with a well aimed union knife in the back. I know what shines through and it ain't decency,honesty and integrity; quite the opposite in fact.
For the love of...
Of all the critisicsms aimed at Ed Miliband running for the Labour party top job with his brother, his brother that had a golden opportunity with Purnell's resignation to get rid of calamity Brown at the top of the shop and who bottled it, this is oversold and piss weak.
Worse than that. If David had bothered to fight for the lower preferences of some of his PLP colleagues he would have won. But he didnt. Worst leadership campaign ever.
I think you're forgetting Michael Portillo's leadership campaign in 2001.
I think you are both forgetting Margaret Thatcher's campaign in 1990, which she inexplicably deputed to a bloke in Scotland trying to run a bank, and a shambolic drunkard. That was surely the worst leadership campaign ever.
That was before my time, I wasn't even a teenager when Lady Thatcher was deposed.
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
Yeah but London NMRing in Syria can give Russia the space it needs to invade Ukraine.
Russia had not previously reintegrated Crimea, even when Crimea voted to do so in 1994, because Ukraine was a friendly nation, when the US overthrew the elected government and installed a hostile one that changed and the Crimean request accepted. Intended Western actions in Syria merely confirmed that the West could not be trusted and was dangerous, especially coming on the back of Libya where anarchy reigned and international law ignored.
And of course it is "totally different" from the Kosovo precedent.
Actually they are right. In Kosovo foreign air forces bombed civilian targets outside the province. Russian air forces have not bombed anyone. After NATO illegally occupied Kosovo there was ethnic cleansing of Serbs and non-Albanians. There has been no such ethnic cleansing in Crimea.
I guess that afterwards Tony Blair then invented some justification to act so that made it ok. A bit like FIFA investigating itself.
@faisalislam: Also I'm intrigued by the statistical basis of "zero tax" at the top... That fact has yet to blast its harpoon on to the comet of reality
In last month’s Polling Observatory we noted remarkable stability in the polls despite a hugely eventful political month. This month we find the opposite pattern. A relatively subdued political month has been accompanied by one of the largest shifts in opinion we have observed since the beginning of this parliament. Labour’s vote share, at 31.6%, is down 2.8 points in just a month, erasing nearly all of the fragile lead over the Conservatives that the party have been clinging to over the past six months. This plunge in support is among the largest shifts in opinion we have recorded since 2010
Musing on yesterdays BBC parliament broadcast of the close 1964 general election and our own Coalition today it's noteworthy how close the nation came to a near tie.
The actual result was :
Lab 317 .. Con 304 (including Speaker) .. Libs 9.
A few Conservative holds here and there and perhaps a few extra Liberals with a result of :
Lab 309 .. Con 309 .. Lib 12
would have seen interesting times. A Con/Lib Coalition running through to 1968/9 ?? .... who knows but certainly the political landscape would have been considerably different.
Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
Whilst it certainly looks as though the by-election will be an easy UKIP win, I think that the Ashcroft poll overstates the likely winning margin. To see why, take a look at Table 3 of the full poll details:
There are some very striking figures there, in particular:
1) A remarkable proportion of the Reckless support comes from the C2 and DE groups - about 60% of those saying they'll vote for him, roughly evenly split between C2 and DE. Contrast that with the Tory candidate, only 38% of whose support comes from these groups (24% C2, 14% DE), or Labour (17% C2, 18% DE).
2) An equally striking proportion of the Reckless support comes from 2010 non-voters, who make up 28% of those saying they'll vote for him. The equivalent figure for Kelly Tolhurst is 14%.
3) Finally, look at the certainty to vote figures in Table 1. 61% of respondents say they are 'absolutely certain' to vote (10 on a scale of 1 to 10), and a further 13% 8 or 9 out of 10.
Well, turnout is not going to be that high, so some of those voters aren't actually going to make it to the ballot box or return a postal vote. The most likely sources of non-voters in the by-election are non-voters in 2010, and/or the DE socio-economic group. That suggests the final result won't be quite as good for Mark Reckless as the poll indicates.
Be very wary of falling into the DNV trap in (2)
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
I think that is already covered. 28 out of 254 Reckless supporters said they voted 'Other' (i.e. not Con/Lab/LD). You might be right that some of those actually voted Conservative, but I've included them as 2010 voters anyway, so it doesn't matter from the point of view of the argument I was making.
Ed Miliband is the least of Labour’s problems. Its troubles go far deeper than any individual. They are structural and, potentially, fatal. It is certainly easier for Labour MPs, and ultimately more comforting, to concentrate on Miliband’s deficiencies as a leader than the existential crisis facing the left. But until somebody comes up with an answer to the question of what the party is for — in an era of austerity and globalisation — it will be stuck in a death spiral.
I agree with much of that article although it ignores the major driving force of the impetus that it recognises. Whilst trade was basically between western countries it was possible for states to make changes increasing the role of the state by modest steps and most countries were on the same road, even if they moved along it at different speeds.
What we are facing now, in Asia, is a completely different proposition, a proposition that challenges the very viability of the welfare state we have become accustomed to. Our political classes face not 5 or 10 years of austerity but a different way of doing business with a much diminished role for the state and a much smaller budget.
It is possible in 20-30 years time, as their population ages and demand a greater share of the new wealth their countries have created the Asian economies will end up somewhere near where western Europe is now. But it is far from certain. And in the interim we need to find a way of paying the bills and buying the imports we want.
What does the left have to say about this world? So far, nothing. The challenge of finding ways of protecting the vulnerable and less successful in our society is going to grow over the next 2-3 decades. But the answers are going to have to be radically different from what Labour has traditionally done.
@faisalislam: Also I'm intrigued by the statistical basis of "zero tax" at the top... That fact has yet to blast its harpoon on to the comet of reality
It's a spectacularly silly line given that the top 1% pay a third of all tax and it's a higher proportion than under the Labour government in which the two Eds were cabinet ministers. Any attempt to fire the harpoons will blast the soundbite into outer space.
Does anyone know of an XHR/JSON API into the IG-Index site? With BC/Sterling hovering around one to three per-cent above £50/barrel I would like to set up a 15-minutes poll so that I can track the "inevitable".
Chahs!
Bet is for year end, I'm not giving up yet (Though I'd probably be on your side right now ^_~)
Winning that bet will be the icing-on-the-cake. I await the cake first (looks at Junior*).
* No bet was placed: The result will have no meaning. Working for Goldmann-Sachs must have been a chore...!
It's a spectacularly silly line given that the top 1% pay a third of all tax and it's a higher proportion than under the Labour government in which the two Eds were cabinet ministers. Any attempt to fire the harpoons will blast the soundbite into outer space.
Ed has failed to fire his harpoons into the comet of electability for 4 years. He has bounced a couple of times, but he finds himself in the wrong place, facing the wrong way, with his batteries running out...
I'd suggest it's because those who are socially conservative in values aren't necessarily the same in their private lives - and actually quite daring/risk takers - they just didn't brag about it as teenagers.
Voting Kipper is quite unacceptable in many circles - but they've garnered a lot of polling votes nevertheless. There's a certain level of exhibitionism in this. I don't mean this as an insult - it's peacocking and fun. I'd be a Kipper if I didn't have my sensible Blue Team head on. And I'd say Yes - and no false recall ;^)
Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA) Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21) Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6) Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!
Musing on yesterdays BBC parliament broadcast of the close 1964 general election and our own Coalition today it's noteworthy how close the nation came to a near tie.
The actual result was :
Lab 317 .. Con 304 (including Speaker) .. Libs 9.
A few Conservative holds here and there and perhaps a few extra Liberals with a result of :
Lab 309 .. Con 309 .. Lib 12
would have seen interesting times. A Con/Lib Coalition running through to 1968/9 ?? .... who knows but certainly the political landscape would have been considerably different.
If just 42 people had voted differently (in Kemptown, Ealing North and Wellingborough) there would have been a hung parliament and possible Con-Lib coalition...
I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
I posted previously that a friend of mine did was doing exactly that in Clacton - UKIP at the bye election and Tory come general election.
Musing on yesterdays BBC parliament broadcast of the close 1964 general election and our own Coalition today it's noteworthy how close the nation came to a near tie.
The actual result was :
Lab 317 .. Con 304 (including Speaker) .. Libs 9.
A few Conservative holds here and there and perhaps a few extra Liberals with a result of :
Lab 309 .. Con 309 .. Lib 12
would have seen interesting times. A Con/Lib Coalition running through to 1968/9 ?? .... who knows but certainly the political landscape would have been considerably different.
If just 42 people had voted differently (in Kemptown, Ealing North and Wellingborough) there would have been a hung parliament and possible Con-Lib coalition...
Quite so and by such fine margins did Harold's pipe and gannex hold sway over Downing Street for six years.
I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
I posted previously that a friend of mine did was doing exactly that in Clacton - UKIP at the bye election and Tory come general election.
Whilst it certainly looks as though the by-election will be an easy UKIP win, I think that the Ashcroft poll overstates the likely winning margin. To see why, take a look at Table 3 of the full poll details:
There are some very striking figures there, in particular:
1) A remarkable proportion of the Reckless support comes from the C2 and DE groups - about 60% of those saying they'll vote for him, roughly evenly split between C2 and DE. Contrast that with the Tory candidate, only 38% of whose support comes from these groups (24% C2, 14% DE), or Labour (17% C2, 18% DE).
2) An equally striking proportion of the Reckless support comes from 2010 non-voters, who make up 28% of those saying they'll vote for him. The equivalent figure for Kelly Tolhurst is 14%.
3) Finally, look at the certainty to vote figures in Table 1. 61% of respondents say they are 'absolutely certain' to vote (10 on a scale of 1 to 10), and a further 13% 8 or 9 out of 10.
Well, turnout is not going to be that high, so some of those voters aren't actually going to make it to the ballot box or return a postal vote. The most likely sources of non-voters in the by-election are non-voters in 2010, and/or the DE socio-economic group. That suggests the final result won't be quite as good for Mark Reckless as the poll indicates.
Be very wary of falling into the DNV trap in (2)
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
There is no DNV trap. Rixhard's position is supported by leading pollsters as psephologists as we saw in the recent Twitter discussion on the subject. With great respect I trust Ben Page CEO of Ipsos-MORI and Dr Rob Ford more than you on issues like this.
There's little doubt that those who didn't vote at GE10 have a lower propensity to vote those who did. I know this also from direct experience from my decades as an activist. After each election the marked register was used to put voted/non voted tabs on the database. The surest predictor that someone wouldn't vote was if they had not voted before.
Why do you think ICM discounts the view of non-voters by 50%. It's based on research and analysis going back over many years..
I do believe that UKIP is having some success in energising non-voters but nothing like on the scale that you suggest.
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
False recall.
I'd be very surprised if it was false recall for something like that. How you voted last time maybe, but first having sex? That's a big and lasting memory.
Even after all these years I vividly remember having to surreptitiously look at the letters on the kitchen table the next morning to find out what her name was and the address of the house.
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
I think that is already covered. 28 out of 254 Reckless supporters said they voted 'Other' (i.e. not Con/Lab/LD). You might be right that some of those actually voted Conservative, but I've included them as 2010 voters anyway, so it doesn't matter from the point of view of the argument I was making.
I also wonder to what extent Kelly Tolhurst is attracting switchers back to the Tories as the campaign progresses and she becomes better known. The Tory candidate in Clacton didn't seem to make any real impact which I'm not sure is true this time. Obviously Kelly's twitter feed will present her in a good light but she does seem to connect well in quite a natural way with the schoolkids and with a whole host of people and businesses she has visited in what looks like quite an energetic campaign. With another week to go that could reasonably chip another couple of percentage points off the lead. One more poll next week without any pre-prompting might be interesting.
O/T - There's a long way to go until May 2015, not least of all Rochester, but I suspect Conservatives can't believe their luck over the last month. Miliband first took aim at Downing Street, and then shot himself in both feet. He was heavily criticised, but totally failed to recover from it. Then Labour engaged in a batch of infighting and, stoked by constant criticism and sniping in the press, the story has refused to die.
If it weren't for UKIP, it's not far off the best of all worlds for the Conservatives: Labour do all the hard work to undermine what little credibility their leader has left, meanwhile making their party look divided, but do precisely nothing about it.
Miliband stays: terminally damaged, with an apathetic shadow cabinet and a highly demoralised party.
'I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying'
Oh diddums,pass the Kleenex.
There are certain jobs where you need to be able to take insults ,criticism (however unfair) and sniping. Whilst I do not like the modern media obsession with personality or tittle tattle I do think that a potential Prime Minister should be able to take pretty much anything thrown at him and not complain (or complain by proxy) about being 'bullied' . A PM after all, has the final say on whether nuclear warheads are launched .They need to be made of stern stuff
Not sure anyone would take seriously Putin or even Obama if they complained of being bullied
Musing on yesterdays BBC parliament broadcast of the close 1964 general election and our own Coalition today it's noteworthy how close the nation came to a near tie.
The actual result was :
Lab 317 .. Con 304 (including Speaker) .. Libs 9.
A few Conservative holds here and there and perhaps a few extra Liberals with a result of :
Lab 309 .. Con 309 .. Lib 12
would have seen interesting times. A Con/Lib Coalition running through to 1968/9 ?? .... who knows but certainly the political landscape would have been considerably different.
If just 42 people had voted differently (in Kemptown, Ealing North and Wellingborough) there would have been a hung parliament and possible Con-Lib coalition...
Quite so and by such fine margins did Harold's pipe and gannex hold sway over Downing Street for six years.
Unlikely. Lab-Lib much more likely then; Libs were seen as the non-socialist left-ish alterntive. After 13 years the Tories were getting tired and a bit scandal-prone..
Zero rate tax at the top is a massive and blatant lie.
I imagine he's basing it on his personal experience of easily avoiding IHT
Tax is for the proles.
I am pretty sure the Blairs' have arranged their tax affairs to ensure only others need pay their "fair share".
Do not the [MODERATED] Blairs' have all property in a "Trust-fund"*. Having Oirish passports may help as well.
Did any of them work for JPMorgan? Red-Princes....
* Just like the Fenian Edward - never killed no-one, no siree - Kennedy. Property-taxes are not for the Oirish elite (c.f. Cavuto in 2007/8 when exposing the "Dhimmicrap" lies**).
A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.
' It is individual voters' economic circumstances that matter, not the headline aggregate figures, so the question is: whose real wages are rising and whose are not?'
So apart from the energy freeze what is Ed offering,a 5% across the board wage increase?
Is he going to continue with the tax freeze on fuel?
Is he going to continue with the council tax freeze?
Sharma has just posted 200 in the India-SL ODI. That's his second time, which is remarkable as it's only the fourth time the feat has been accomplished. Still 4 overs to go...
A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.
Ed has had as many relaunches as Gordon, but has managed to alienate core supporters on PB which even the great Brown couldn't achieve. What a guy, and smoke me a kipper for breakfast.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Some do most don't . Meanwhile the Tory led government has massively increased the tax take from tax avoidance schemes and even introduced legislation this year to claw back a load of taxes re tax avoidance schemes -Labour sat on their hands during their tenure
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
There is a link between Ed's posturing on Syria and the Crimea (and let's remember, it wasn't principled opposition but a desire to have parliament support his motion rather than the government's that led to the defeat of both).
The vote in the Commons stiffened resistance in Congress. That sapping of confidence on both sides of the Atlantic was a factor in both Putin's aggression in the Crimea and Ukraine more generally and the lack of resolve in the response.
I am not saying that the one is directly responsible for the other, and more than Versailles was directly responsible for WWII, but nor can the consequences be ignored.
And now I must be off for the day.
There is really no excuse for being so dreadfully misinformed.
If anyone here has links to the Saudi Gov't, can you ask them to stop production till 1st January ?
See that Brent Crude has just bounced up a bit from $80 - do you have a lot riding on this?
It is a Wee-tedious-Timmy type bet: £50-evens. In itself it has no value as the loser pays towards Junior's site-management fund.
The proposition was posited by me last New Year: Pulpie took the offer (and added the end-of-year stipulation). I refused a bet with Junior but I would like to receive an acceptance that - even if I lose - my thinking was more sharper then his...!
Whilst it certainly looks as though the by-election will be an easy UKIP win, I think that the Ashcroft poll overstates the likely winning margin. To see why, take a look at Table 3 of the full poll details:
There are some very striking figures there, in particular:
1) A remarkable proportion of the Reckless support comes from the C2 and DE groups - about 60% of those saying they'll vote for him, roughly evenly split between C2 and DE. Contrast that with the Tory candidate, only 38% of whose support comes from these groups (24% C2, 14% DE), or Labour (17% C2, 18% DE).
2) An equally striking proportion of the Reckless support comes from 2010 non-voters, who make up 28% of those saying they'll vote for him. The equivalent figure for Kelly Tolhurst is 14%.
3) Finally, look at the certainty to vote figures in Table 1. 61% of respondents say they are 'absolutely certain' to vote (10 on a scale of 1 to 10), and a further 13% 8 or 9 out of 10.
Well, turnout is not going to be that high, so some of those voters aren't actually going to make it to the ballot box or return a postal vote. The most likely sources of non-voters in the by-election are non-voters in 2010, and/or the DE socio-economic group. That suggests the final result won't be quite as good for Mark Reckless as the poll indicates.
Be very wary of falling into the DNV trap in (2)
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
There is no DNV trap. Rixhard's position is supported by leading pollsters as psephologists as we saw in the recent Twitter discussion on the subject. With great respect I trust Ben Page CEO of Ipsos-MORI and Dr Rob Ford more than you on issues like this.
There's little doubt that those who didn't vote at GE10 have a lower propensity to vote those who did. I know this also from direct experience from my decades as an activist. After each election the marked register was used to put voted/non voted tabs on the database. The surest predictor that someone wouldn't vote was if they had not voted before.
Why do you think ICM discounts the view of non-voters by 50%. It's based on research and analysis going back over many years..
I do believe that UKIP is having some success in energising non-voters but nothing like on the scale that you suggest.
I'm not suggesting that though am I? Did you read what I wrote?
I don't agree that 'others' in this particular case are DNV
I am saying people who say they voted Ukip are more likely to have misremembered voting for Reckless as a Tory and saying 'Ukip' than not voting at all
And just to demonstrate that they have a sense of humour they point out that the settlement of the tax avoidance claim made against them by the UK government had the effect of reducing their direct tax bill for the latest year.
I said the other day on here this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and inexcusable. We need to find ways of charging multinationals at least another £10-15bn a year for the privilege of trading in the UK.
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
There is a link between Ed's posturing on Syria and the Crimea (and let's remember, it wasn't principled opposition but a desire to have parliament support his motion rather than the government's that led to the defeat of both).
The vote in the Commons stiffened resistance in Congress. That sapping of confidence on both sides of the Atlantic was a factor in both Putin's aggression in the Crimea and Ukraine more generally and the lack of resolve in the response.
I am not saying that the one is directly responsible for the other, and more than Versailles was directly responsible for WWII, but nor can the consequences be ignored.
And now I must be off for the day.
There is really no excuse for being so dreadfully misinformed.
You mean like FalseFlag's belief that the Crimea voted to be part of Russia in 1994? I swear he has a tactic of posting so much nonsense that those interested in facts get tired of tearing his lies apart and let him go unchallenged.
'When François Hollande came to power in France, Miliband hailed the new president as someone who understood ‘that something can be done’. Two-and-a-half years on, unemployment in France is up to 10.5 per cent, only 12 per cent of voters approve of what Hollande is doing and the economy is flatlining. Most damningly of all for Miliband, Hollande has had to abandon socialism and appoint a reformist prime minister, Manuel Valls, who is overseeing €40 billion of tax cuts for business, paid for by €50 billion of cuts in public spending. So much for Miliband’s claim that Hollande would prove that ‘it doesn’t have to be this way’.
Comments
You could choose which side to back.
But the bookies let you bet on say Chelsea Winning the league, Champs League, FA Cup and or League Cup this season.
So whilst it might be a related contingency on one level, they do let you bet on it.
Does anyone know of an XHR/JSON API into the IG-Index site? With BC/Sterling hovering around one to three per-cent above £50/barrel I would like to set up a 15-minutes poll so that I can track the "inevitable".
Chahs!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9368672/its-not-just-ed-miliband-labours-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/03/the-whys-behind-the-ukraine-crisis/
The British public had no desire to invade another country on behalf of IS and their Christian beheading ways.
In a way that is a ridiculous state for a working person's party to get itself into.
Intergalactic (slight embellishment ) frogger!!!
http://www.ig.com/uk/apis
It's a remarkable achievement in this age of internet scrutiny, however much it stinks.
In the eternal words of David Steele - go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!
Oops. That's worked out well...
Whilst it certainly looks as though the by-election will be an easy UKIP win, I think that the Ashcroft poll overstates the likely winning margin. To see why, take a look at Table 3 of the full poll details:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Rochester-Strood-poll-Nov-14-Full-tables.pdf
There are some very striking figures there, in particular:
1) A remarkable proportion of the Reckless support comes from the C2 and DE groups - about 60% of those saying they'll vote for him, roughly evenly split between C2 and DE. Contrast that with the Tory candidate, only 38% of whose support comes from these groups (24% C2, 14% DE), or Labour (17% C2, 18% DE).
2) An equally striking proportion of the Reckless support comes from 2010 non-voters, who make up 28% of those saying they'll vote for him. The equivalent figure for Kelly Tolhurst is 14%.
3) Finally, look at the certainty to vote figures in Table 1. 61% of respondents say they are 'absolutely certain' to vote (10 on a scale of 1 to 10), and a further 13% 8 or 9 out of 10.
Well, turnout is not going to be that high, so some of those voters aren't actually going to make it to the ballot box or return a postal vote. The most likely sources of non-voters in the by-election are non-voters in 2010, and/or the DE socio-economic group. That suggests the final result won't be quite as good for Mark Reckless as the poll indicates.
Probably, possibly, perhaps .... er ....
If anyone here has links to the Saudi Gov't, can you ask them to stop production till 1st January ?
Conservatives @Conservatives
Coming up shortly: @Ed_Miliband's big "relaunch" speech.
RT this graphic so he doesn't forget anything important...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2UMl61IcAAxUgD.png
And of course it is "totally different" from the Kosovo precedent.
Actually they are right.
In Kosovo foreign air forces bombed civilian targets outside the province. Russian air forces have not bombed anyone.
After NATO illegally occupied Kosovo there was ethnic cleansing of Serbs and non-Albanians. There has been no such ethnic cleansing in Crimea.
I guess that afterwards Tony Blair then invented some justification to act so that made it ok. A bit like FIFA investigating itself.
@faisalislam: Also I'm intrigued by the statistical basis of "zero tax" at the top... That fact has yet to blast its harpoon on to the comet of reality
In last month’s Polling Observatory we noted remarkable stability in the polls despite a hugely eventful political month. This month we find the opposite pattern. A relatively subdued political month has been accompanied by one of the largest shifts in opinion we have observed since the beginning of this parliament. Labour’s vote share, at 31.6%, is down 2.8 points in just a month, erasing nearly all of the fragile lead over the Conservatives that the party have been clinging to over the past six months. This plunge in support is among the largest shifts in opinion we have recorded since 2010
The actual result was :
Lab 317 .. Con 304 (including Speaker) .. Libs 9.
A few Conservative holds here and there and perhaps a few extra Liberals with a result of :
Lab 309 .. Con 309 .. Lib 12
would have seen interesting times. A Con/Lib Coalition running through to 1968/9 ?? .... who knows but certainly the political landscape would have been considerably different.
PS Isn't the JL penguin just perfect?
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
On Al-Beebs front-page: Is Ed on X-Factor?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30025957
[IMG := news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78950000/jpg/_78950223_milispeech.jpg ]
Doing a Whitney...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wTlc1Z3cs
He should get a proper job.
* Shyte copy: But - hey - it is the t'internet!
What we are facing now, in Asia, is a completely different proposition, a proposition that challenges the very viability of the welfare state we have become accustomed to. Our political classes face not 5 or 10 years of austerity but a different way of doing business with a much diminished role for the state and a much smaller budget.
It is possible in 20-30 years time, as their population ages and demand a greater share of the new wealth their countries have created the Asian economies will end up somewhere near where western Europe is now. But it is far from certain. And in the interim we need to find a way of paying the bills and buying the imports we want.
What does the left have to say about this world? So far, nothing. The challenge of finding ways of protecting the vulnerable and less successful in our society is going to grow over the next 2-3 decades. But the answers are going to have to be radically different from what Labour has traditionally done.
I imagine they'd be a hoot
* No bet was placed: The result will have no meaning. Working for Goldmann-Sachs must have been a chore...!
Voting Kipper is quite unacceptable in many circles - but they've garnered a lot of polling votes nevertheless. There's a certain level of exhibitionism in this. I don't mean this as an insult - it's peacocking and fun. I'd be a Kipper if I didn't have my sensible Blue Team head on. And I'd say Yes - and no false recall ;^)
Obviously she is not alone in her thinking.
Sounds as if he's getting desperate, and trying to shore up the Firewall figure, whatever that might be now. 27,26,25%?
There's little doubt that those who didn't vote at GE10 have a lower propensity to vote those who did. I know this also from direct experience from my decades as an activist. After each election the marked register was used to put voted/non voted tabs on the database. The surest predictor that someone wouldn't vote was if they had not voted before.
Why do you think ICM discounts the view of non-voters by 50%. It's based on research and analysis going back over many years..
I do believe that UKIP is having some success in energising non-voters but nothing like on the scale that you suggest.
I am pretty sure the Blairs have arranged their tax affairs to ensure only others need pay their "fair share".
I hid in the bathroom when his parents came back early from The Pirates of Penzance...
'I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying'
Oh diddums,pass the Kleenex.
"Zero rate tax is a blatant lie" is a blatant lie
What I'm pretty sure of is that Mark Fox, Starbucks UK CEO, is paying around an eighth more income tax than he would have pre-2010
Not sure anyone would take seriously Putin or even Obama if they complained of being bullied
Have a think about what other revenues they contribute directly or indirectly, through such things as staff salaries, and supply purchase.
Did any of them work for JPMorgan? Red-Princes....
* Just like the Fenian Edward - never killed no-one, no siree - Kennedy. Property-taxes are not for the Oirish elite (c.f. Cavuto in 2007/8 when exposing the "Dhimmicrap" lies**).
**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McolzELI_dU
I think it's a good sanity checker - be an idealist if you want to - but know the facts.
' It is individual voters' economic circumstances that matter, not the headline aggregate figures, so the question is: whose real wages are rising and whose are not?'
So apart from the energy freeze what is Ed offering,a 5% across the board wage increase?
Is he going to continue with the tax freeze on fuel?
Is he going to continue with the council tax freeze?
Is he going to cut VAT?
Is he going to freeze NI contributions?
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1177583.ece
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Ed has had as many relaunches as Gordon, but has managed to alienate core supporters on PB which even the great Brown couldn't achieve. What a guy, and smoke me a kipper for breakfast.
'Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?'
Why did Labour do nothing about this scandal for 13 years?
How big was his tax cut when top rate was reduced from 50% to 45% in the were all in it together Omnishambles
Me too, and I'm off to Cheltenham with it. Happy days!
250 in sight! http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-sri-lanka-2014-15/engine/match/792295.html
An Ed Govt will tackle this scandal
Looks like he's been up all night.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
The proposition was posited by me last New Year: Pulpie took the offer (and added the end-of-year stipulation). I refused a bet with Junior but I would like to receive an acceptance that - even if I lose - my thinking was more sharper then his...!
I don't agree that 'others' in this particular case are DNV
I am saying people who say they voted Ukip are more likely to have misremembered voting for Reckless as a Tory and saying 'Ukip' than not voting at all
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10525215/Vodafone-defends-zero-corporation-tax-bill.html
And just to demonstrate that they have a sense of humour they point out that the settlement of the tax avoidance claim made against them by the UK government had the effect of reducing their direct tax bill for the latest year.
I said the other day on here this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and inexcusable. We need to find ways of charging multinationals at least another £10-15bn a year for the privilege of trading in the UK.
What is there to disagree with?
'When François Hollande came to power in France, Miliband hailed the new president as someone who understood ‘that something can be done’. Two-and-a-half years on, unemployment in France is up to 10.5 per cent, only 12 per cent of voters approve of what Hollande is doing and the economy is flatlining.
Most damningly of all for Miliband, Hollande has had to abandon socialism and appoint a reformist prime minister, Manuel Valls, who is overseeing €40 billion of tax cuts for business, paid for by €50 billion of cuts in public spending. So much for Miliband’s claim that Hollande would prove that ‘it doesn’t have to be this way’.