Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : November 27th 2014

2

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Darth Meerkat (@DarthMeerkat)
    27/11/2014 20:27
    Daily Telegraph letter of the year! pic.twitter.com/cWfWQwera7
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    Why should they apologise for unintentional offence?

    Tragic though this death [3 years ago...] was, the MP represents a fishing community, and at election time, it's not unreasonable to expect literature to feature fishing boats, and perhaps even nets! The world doesn't stop turning just for one man's death.

    The MP is being childish and unreasonable, and should STFU, and get on with her grief, hopefully reaching closure eventually. Why she felt the need to make political hay with this is beyond me...
    Because we are social animals and, as a general rule, try to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
    You need your bumps feeling if you'd think any party would consciously and publicly do that.

    This unfortunate woman clearly isn't thinking straight...
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    To cut net non EU immigration to say 10 000 would require either mass emmigration or draconian measures:

    Ending of of all non EU student visas, including postgrads

    Ending of inward migration of spouses.

    Ending of asylum applications with all current asylum seekers to be deported.

    Ending of skilled immigration of skilled personnel such as Doctors and Nurses from Asia.

    Is this a rough approximation of UKIP policy? Or is UKIP not going to be able to do much either?
    I have no idea of what UKIP plans are.

    I was just offended by the hypocrisy we were being treated to be Big John.
    I think that Cameron was foolish to promise something undeliverable, but also wondering what UKIP would do to cut non EU immigration. We know that it will be a points system, but what would get points?
    I am slightly confused as to why you keep asking me

    I am not a supporter of any party, perhaps you should ask Isam or one of the other Ukippers.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    isam said:


    Wont stop anyone earning £1.25 an hour in Eastern Europe coming over, and will create a two tier society, but what the hell?

    Out of touch

    Where are they going to live? How are they going to be able to cope with the cost of living?
    Same places and same way they do now I would think
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    To cut net non EU immigration to say 10 000 would require either mass emmigration or draconian measures:

    Ending of of all non EU student visas, including postgrads

    Ending of inward migration of spouses.

    Ending of asylum applications with all current asylum seekers to be deported.

    Ending of skilled immigration of skilled personnel such as Doctors and Nurses from Asia.

    Is this a rough approximation of UKIP policy? Or is UKIP not going to be able to do much either?
    I have no idea of what UKIP plans are.

    I was just offended by the hypocrisy we were being treated to be Big John.
    I think that Cameron was foolish to promise something undeliverable, but also wondering what UKIP would do to cut non EU immigration. We know that it will be a points system, but what would get points?
    I am slightly confused as to why you keep asking me

    I am not a supporter of any party, perhaps you should ask Isam or one of the other Ukippers.
    Leave me out of it!
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Same places and same way they do now I would think

    The only reason that some can live where they do now is because the state is subsidising them through tax credits and housing benefit etc.

    You can take that as gospel.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    So a woman has seen her husband die tragically and you say ''The MP is being childish and unreasonable, and should STFU''.

    Why don't you just STFU - preferably somewhere else.
  • Floater said:



    Thats fair, even fairer is how can we trust any party on anything?

    They all lie.

    Voters have unrealistic expectations and politicians make unrealistic promises. It's a vicious circle and everyone should share the blame.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited November 2014


    I also find it frankly unbelievable that a Parliamentary candidate in the same constituency would not have known that the sitting MP had lost her husband in this way. Like I said before this is a case where ignorance is really no defence. They should have known better and the fact that they didn't and even try to make a point off the back of a supposed apology just makes matters worse.

    Cobblers.

    If an MP's hubby happened to have died in a plane crash 3 years ago, I take it no-one could mention the new International airport proposed to be built in the constituency.

    Or if they happened to have died in a train crash 3 years ago, no-one could mention the HS2 planned to gouge through the constituency?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    To cut net non EU immigration to say 10 000 would require either mass emmigration or draconian measures:

    Ending of of all non EU student visas, including postgrads

    Ending of inward migration of spouses.

    Ending of asylum applications with all current asylum seekers to be deported.

    Ending of skilled immigration of skilled personnel such as Doctors and Nurses from Asia.

    Is this a rough approximation of UKIP policy? Or is UKIP not going to be able to do much either?
    I have no idea of what UKIP plans are.

    I was just offended by the hypocrisy we were being treated to be Big John.
    I think that Cameron was foolish to promise something undeliverable, but also wondering what UKIP would do to cut non EU immigration. We know that it will be a points system, but what would get points?
    I am slightly confused as to why you keep asking me

    I am not a supporter of any party, perhaps you should ask Isam or one of the other Ukippers.
    It was intended as a generic question to PB kippers. No offence intended.

    My point is that cutting immigration is not easy, but the voters deserve the truth. Are we going to close our universities to non EU students? Deport asylum seekers without a hearing? Ban UK citizens from marrying non EU spouses? Etc
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Same places and same way they do now I would think

    The only reason that some can live where they do now is because the state is subsidising them through tax credits and housing benefit etc.

    You can take that as gospel.

    Oh well that settles it then

    People living in Eastern Europe can only survive on minimum wage when they come to Britain if they are topped up with benefits, you heard it here first
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Ninoinoz said:

    Re: UKIP 'Mosque' Tweet.

    I strolled past Westminster Cathedral about a month ago and there were flagpoles outside, one displaying the Vatican City flag.

    None of the news reports displaying a picture of the Cathedral shows that.

    Curious, especially after events in Strood.

    Mark Reckless was married there, incidentally.

    Next time we're at DD we should swap stories about Napoli, Sorrento e la Circumvesuviana!

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    Well Labour promised just 14,000 immigrants from the accession countries in 2004. After a good start the policy has failed. Given the large increase in jobs its hard to see how it could have succeeded. Unemployment is getting down to the levels which are likely to be considered 'normal' or 'natural' . If jobs continue to be created then we will have to find the workers from somewhere.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    By STEVE HAWKES, Deputy Political Editor Published: 12 hrs ago
    DAVID Cameron was left humiliated today as devastating figures show immigration from around the world has soared above levels seen in 2010.

    Sun must be Lab sock puppets
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited November 2014
    @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%
  • Isn't the UKIP fishing boat thing an old story from two weeks ago?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Tonights YG LAB 317 CON 278 LD 24 EICIPM
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    No benefits for 2 years.

    Cant restrict immigration whilst in EU

    Its called global capitalism I think
    Labour can't do that without also restricting benefits for the same 2 years to British people. Is that what Labour are proposing?

    If not they're lying too.

    Both parties can, if they want to, restrict immigration from outside the EU. Absolutely nothing to stop them doing so.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Oh well that settles it then

    People living in Eastern Europe can only survive on minimum wage when they come to Britain if they are topped up with benefits, you heard it here first

    It's certainly true of a reasonable percentage.

  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371

    Tonights YG LAB 317 CON 278 LD 24 EICIPM

    SWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINGBACK!!!!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    The thing I find bizarre about the immigration debate is that the reason so many people from the EU are coming here is because, relatively, the UK is doing better than other EU countries. So the increase in immigration is a sign of economic success which is something to be celebrated.

    And yet it isn't.
  • @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
  • Romford, Greater London is in Essex :)
  • An immigrant asks the immigration question on QT :)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
    I thought this weeks leads had bee 5,5,4,1,-1 have they not?

    Surely that would be 2.8%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited November 2014
    RodCrosby said:


    I also find it frankly unbelievable that a Parliamentary candidate in the same constituency would not have known that the sitting MP had lost her husband in this way. Like I said before this is a case where ignorance is really no defence. They should have known better and the fact that they didn't and even try to make a point off the back of a supposed apology just makes matters worse.

    Cobblers.

    If an MP's hubby happened to have died in a plane crash 3 years ago, I take it no-one could mention the new International airport proposed to be built in the constituency.

    Or if they happened to have died in a train crash 3 years ago, no-one could mention the HS2 planned to gouge through the constituency?
    Surely it's because the specific images and phrasing immediately bring to mind the backstory of the poor woman in a way which is more than just 'it happens to be about a related industry'. The points that UKIP want to make are perfectly able to be made while avoiding a scenario as occurred. That you take that to mean people are saying the issue cannot be mentioned at all is a highly extreme interpretation to take, akin to bizarre conspiracy theories of dark forces out to stop the truth speakers from having their say, which practically makes the local party heroes for daring to speak out on this issue even as the elites try to stop them with emotive arguments.

    Bizarre. It costs them nothing to adjust, except in the mind of whiners. Gods, I think that must only be the 6-7th time I've ever been driven to frustration by unreasonableness on here.
  • @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
    I thought this weeks leads had bee 5,5,4,1,-1 have they not?

    Surely that would be 2.8%

    @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
    I thought this weeks leads had bee 5,5,4,1,-1 have they not?

    Surely that would be 2.8%
    Ah, but we look at the sample sizes for each poll, tot up the aggregate for each party and the total weighted samples, then calculate party-wise percentages.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2014
    Cyclefree said:

    The thing I find bizarre about the immigration debate is that the reason so many people from the EU are coming here is because, relatively, the UK is doing better than other EU countries. So the increase in immigration is a sign of economic success which is something to be celebrated.

    And yet it isn't.

    If you look at the figures for non EU migration to EU countries there is no obvious correlation with economic success. For example Italy has had a stagnant economy for over a decade, but has attracted a very large population of migrants from Asia and Africa.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited November 2014
    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects

    Asfordby (Melton) result:

    CON - 54.3% (+16.2)
    LAB - 26.4% (-7.7)
    UKIP - 19.3% (+19.3)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Chuka being as useless as usual on QT. Gove impressive.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Vote us out in 5 years time if we dont get immigration down to tens of thousands.

    Why did Dave say that?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
    I thought this weeks leads had bee 5,5,4,1,-1 have they not?

    Surely that would be 2.8%

    @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied on 31%:

    CON 31%, LAB 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%, GRN 6%

    Will there be crossover in this weekend's ELBOW?

    Before tonight's YouGov, Lab were 2.3% in the lead across the five polls so far this week. Last weekend the lead in ELBOW was 0.5%.
    I thought this weeks leads had bee 5,5,4,1,-1 have they not?

    Surely that would be 2.8%
    Ah, but we look at the sample sizes for each poll, tot up the aggregate for each party and the total weighted samples, then calculate party-wise percentages.
    Ah ok thanks Sunil
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects

    Asfordby (Melton) result:

    CON - 54.3% (+16.2)
    LAB - 26.4% (-7.7)
    UKIP - 19.3% (+19.3)

    Rutland and Melton is a very safe Tory seat, but does not bode well for Labour in nearby marginals like Loughborough.
  • No chance of Mark Pritchard defecting to UKIP judging by his twitter feed tonight
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Vote us out in 5 years time if we dont get immigration down to tens of thousands.

    Why did Dave say that?

    Because these levels of immigration are a massive pressure on our society, especially when the government is desperately short of money.

    If the electorate vote him out, they need a superior alternative.

    Well Clegg is part of the government so far from exempt, while net migration was over 400,000 a year when Miliband was in the Labour hierarchy.

    So where do people go, BJO?


  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    Vote us out in 5 years time if we dont get immigration down to tens of thousands.

    Why did Dave say that?

    Because these levels of immigration are a massive pressure on our society, especially when the government is desperately short of money.

    If the electorate vote him out, they need a superior alternative.

    Well Clegg is part of the government so far from exempt, while net migration was over 400,000 a year when Miliband was in the Labour hierarchy.

    So where do people go, BJO?


    No idea where do the voters go?

    GE2015 looks like being fascinating doesn't it
  • Omnium said:

    Snippet of Ed on BBC news. He seems to be getting worse at appearing likeable rather than better. Really odd that somehow his team aren't changing that.

    Scotland settlement seems stupid to me - I want the Scots gone now, even though I think that's a tragedy for the UK - but it's pointless trying to patch up the Union.

    As I have mentioned before, Alec Salmond has opened a can of worms that can not be closed.

    You may not like it, but, and a very big BUT!, peoples expectations of governance in England has changed. There are now many questions on why Westminster must control the entire UK.

    There is now a requirement for an English Assembly (No, there is no such thing as a Scottish Government, Alec Salmond unilaterally changed the name from the Scottish Assembly, unfortunately this has become common usage but has no basis in law), how this Assembly evolves, how the English cities and regions decentralise power from Westminster is going to be interesting. The questions are now on the table.

    Unfortunately, it looks like the Westminster Bubble will be burst before some settlement is reached
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RodCrosby said:

    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    Why should they apologise for unintentional offence?

    Tragic though this death [3 years ago...] was, the MP represents a fishing community, and at election time, it's not unreasonable to expect literature to feature fishing boats, and perhaps even nets! The world doesn't stop turning just for one man's death.

    The MP is being childish and unreasonable, and should STFU, and get on with her grief, hopefully reaching closure eventually. Why she felt the need to make political hay with this is beyond me...
    Because we are social animals and, as a general rule, try to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
    You need your bumps feeling if you'd think any party would consciously and publicly do that.

    This unfortunate woman clearly isn't thinking straight...
    It's simple: they made an error. She complained.

    They made a mealy mouthed "apology" and continued to distribute the offending article.

    The first line is forgiveable. The second unacceptable in the circumstances.
  • From the Times

    Tory figures are wooing the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman to run as a Conservative candidate for mayor of London.

    The former Newsnight anchorman has been approached for the role after Mr Paxman labelled himself a one-nation Tory early in the year.

    Tory MPs believe that he could be a great successor to Boris Johnson when the current mayor stands down in 2016. An approach by a senior party figure has the backing of the Commons tea rooms, but not Conservative HQ.

    Mr Paxman is mulling the option and, while it is not likely, he has not ruled it out. But that has not stopped the excitement among Tory MPs.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    Vote us out in 5 years time if we dont get immigration down to tens of thousands.

    Why did Dave say that?

    Because these levels of immigration are a massive pressure on our society, especially when the government is desperately short of money.

    If the electorate vote him out, they need a superior alternative.

    Well Clegg is part of the government so far from exempt, while net migration was over 400,000 a year when Miliband was in the Labour hierarchy.

    So where do people go, BJO?


    Your 400,000 figure is incorrect BTW according to ONS numbers quoted here

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793
  • "Did you threaten to run for Mayor?" (repeat 14 x)

    :)
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    lol

    Boris to chair the newsnight mayoral debate...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    No chance of Mark Pritchard defecting to UKIP judging by his twitter feed tonight

    Pig Dog Pelican behaviour?
  • Ninoinoz said:

    Re: UKIP 'Mosque' Tweet.

    I strolled past Westminster Cathedral about a month ago and there were flagpoles outside, one displaying the Vatican City flag.

    None of the news reports displaying a picture of the Cathedral shows that.

    Curious, especially after events in Strood.

    Mark Reckless was married there, incidentally.

    His parents were immigrants I believe.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    Cyclefree said:

    Floater said:

    So if you remove EU numbers completely.

    Net migration is still 168,000

    Tory promise in tatters

    Sure is, what will Labour promise?
    No benefits for 2 years.

    Cant restrict immigration whilst in EU

    Its called global capitalism I think
    Labour can't do that without also restricting benefits for the same 2 years to British people. Is that what Labour are proposing?

    If not they're lying too.

    Both parties can, if they want to, restrict immigration from outside the EU. Absolutely nothing to stop them doing so.
    But that's both unfair and racist.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    David Cameron to tell EU: cut all tax credits to migrants

    Prime minister to announce that EU membership is dependent on measure affecting more than 300,000 EU migrants in UK

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/david-cameron-european-union-immigration

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Socrates said:

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.

    Won't do them much good if they can't afford food or rent though, will it?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    But in his speech Cameron is not expected to call for the right to apply a temporary emergency brake on free movement of workers if a country is being overwhelmed by EU migrants. The absence will disappoint Eurosceptics who have become doubtful that fiscal disincentives will be enough, and will prompt the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, to argue that Britain will only regain control of its borders if it leaves the EU.

    The emergency brake was supposed to be the weak option with a points system a strong one. Those were the things proposed a couple of months back. Now he's not even doing the weak option. Even though the "fundamental principles" of free movement of services and capital are stopped by the French, we're not allowed to erode on the one that matters to us. Cameron is a political pygmy. He has to do what he's told by Angela Merkel.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Socrates said:

    David Cameron to tell EU: cut all tax credits to migrants

    Prime minister to announce that EU membership is dependent on measure affecting more than 300,000 EU migrants in UK

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/david-cameron-european-union-immigration

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.
    A two tier society, how pleasant
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    Chuka being as useless as usual on QT. Gove impressive.

    Well you would say that wouldn't you.

    Gove must be doing better than when he was made to a sound an utter nitwit on PM last week. Ah, but sorry, that would just be BBC bias.

    I do wonder if Tory HQ just has some random generator that just comes out with a message at 10xx every Thursday:

    Chuka/Balls/Harperson being as useless as usual. Blah blah blah. It's uncanny. Can't you do better?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Chuka/Balls/Harperson being as useless as usual. Blah blah blah. It's uncanny. Can't you do better?

    You should be directing the question at them.

    In fairness, Chuka has improved after his terrible start.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    Socrates said:

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.

    Won't do them much good if they can't afford food or rent though, will it?
    From The Guardian

    "Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    chestnut said:

    Socrates said:

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.

    Won't do them much good if they can't afford food or rent though, will it?
    Of course they'll be able to afford rent and food. They live eight to a flat and eat the cheap stuff from Polish supermarkets. They'll just earn four times what they get back home rather than six times. And the difference is even smaller once you include the in-kind benefits in health and education.

    No 10 floated a strong option and a weak option. They're now going for an option weaker than the weak one. Because Angela Merkel said so. The British aren't allowed to decide for themselves.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    I have to agree with Charles here much though I don't normally, I started my working life on trawlers. I lost many people I grew up with in fishing accidents. There are many photos from stock you could use to depict the fishing industry without using one of the specific instruments that caused his death. Those winches are lethal and were one of the first things I was warned about on my first trip out.

    Want to link to the fishing industry then use a photo of a trawler at sea or one unloading fish at the docks. A netting winch is a strange photo to use and in this context I have to suspect an amount of deliberation behind its selection

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    From The Guardian

    "Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit

    Thanks for that.

    What about those with families?

    You know...the ones that get tax credits.


  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Also, more than 85% of EU immigrants won't even be affected. You stay here long enough - is it even a year you have to wait? - and you'll still get the benefits.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Socrates said:

    Of course they'll be able to afford rent and food. They live eight to a flat and eat the cheap stuff from Polish supermarkets. They'll just earn four times what they get back home rather than six times. And the difference is even smaller once you include the in-kind benefits in health and education.

    No 10 floated a strong option and a weak option. They're now going for an option weaker than the weak one. Because Angela Merkel said so. The British aren't allowed to decide for themselves.

    Tax Credits are largely paid to FAMILIES.

    Not single people.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    From The Guardian

    "Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit

    Thanks for that.

    What about those with families?

    You know...the ones that get tax credits.


    Smart arse comment alert

    Night x
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Socrates said:

    But in his speech Cameron is not expected to call for the right to apply a temporary emergency brake on free movement of workers if a country is being overwhelmed by EU migrants. The absence will disappoint Eurosceptics who have become doubtful that fiscal disincentives will be enough, and will prompt the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, to argue that Britain will only regain control of its borders if it leaves the EU.

    The emergency brake was supposed to be the weak option with a points system a strong one. Those were the things proposed a couple of months back. Now he's not even doing the weak option. Even though the "fundamental principles" of free movement of services and capital are stopped by the French, we're not allowed to erode on the one that matters to us. Cameron is a political pygmy. He has to do what he's told by Angela Merkel.

    You are being told what to write by your well oiled prejudice. The Conservatives are offering a referendum in 2017 after the results of all this negotiation. This is clearly something merkel is telling him to do.
    How many hundreds of thousands of Brits live and work in the EU?
    How many reports say that immigrants pay more in than they take out? How many jobs have been created since 2010? What is the actual record number of people currently in emplyment. What is the current falling percentage of unemployment?

    And in passing can you tell us what the Kippers' most admired world statesman thinks of the falling oil price?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    Also, more than 85% of EU immigrants won't even be affected. You stay here long enough - is it even a year you have to wait? - and you'll still get the benefits.

    It is children that need school places - not single males.
    It is families that most receive tax credits and child benefits - not single males.
    It is women that most use the NHS - not single males.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    ZenPagan said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    I have to agree with Charles here much though I don't normally, I started my working life on trawlers. I lost many people I grew up with in fishing accidents. There are many photos from stock you could use to depict the fishing industry without using one of the specific instruments that caused his death. Those winches are lethal and were one of the first things I was warned about on my first trip out.

    Want to link to the fishing industry then use a photo of a trawler at sea or one unloading fish at the docks. A netting winch is a strange photo to use and in this context I have to suspect an amount of deliberation behind its selection

    Anyone who did that deliberately would be twisted, and much as I have a low opinion of politicians, I really would like to believe this is an unfortunate coincidence. And ultimately the indignation is almost as bad as the original error.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Socrates said:

    But in his speech Cameron is not expected to call for the right to apply a temporary emergency brake on free movement of workers if a country is being overwhelmed by EU migrants. The absence will disappoint Eurosceptics who have become doubtful that fiscal disincentives will be enough, and will prompt the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, to argue that Britain will only regain control of its borders if it leaves the EU.

    The emergency brake was supposed to be the weak option with a points system a strong one. Those were the things proposed a couple of months back. Now he's not even doing the weak option. Even though the "fundamental principles" of free movement of services and capital are stopped by the French, we're not allowed to erode on the one that matters to us. Cameron is a political pygmy. He has to do what he's told by Angela Merkel.

    And, she in turn does as she's told by the SPD.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Hillingdon apparently a recount 20 votes between Lab and Con
  • Edin_Rokz said:


    There is now a requirement for an English Assembly (No, there is no such thing as a Scottish Government, Alec Salmond unilaterally changed the name from the Scottish Assembly, unfortunately this has become common usage but has no basis in law)

    That's almost as good as your insistence that George Galloway was pro independence & an admirer of Salmond.

    'The government was established in 1999 as the Scottish Executive under section 44(1) of the Scotland Act 1998.[2] In September 2007, under the Minority SNP Government, it was rebranded to the Scottish Government, with its legal title remaining the Scottish Executive.[3] It was formally renamed in law at the beginning of July 2012, when section 12(1) of the Scotland Act 2012 came into force.'

    http://tinyurl.com/27e4lug
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Smart arse comment alert

    Night x

    Aw, bless.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Already some interesting local election results. Some excellent Tory performances so far
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Norman Baker seems to be talking sense re Facebook and terrorism
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    How do you withdraw a newspaper?
    I'm assuming this is a freebie "newspaper" that gets handed out over a period of time rather than a daily. If so you just pulp whatever you have left in stock.

    If they carry on handing it out now they know it cause offence that's just churlish
    A 'newspaper' style publication suggests to me that it would have been a single distribution, because the information would be time sensitive. There is no indication that this could have been 'withdrawn' in any meaningful sense.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    Socrates said:

    Brilliant. So after being told by the German Chancellor that he can't do a points system or an emergency brake, he's making a big stand on some minor benefits issue he's agreed already behind the scenes. Meanwhile all the EU immigrants will continue to get free healthcare and free education for their kids. God, Dave is pathetic.

    Won't do them much good if they can't afford food or rent though, will it?
    Of course they'll be able to afford rent and food. They live eight to a flat and eat the cheap stuff from Polish supermarkets. They'll just earn four times what they get back home rather than six times. And the difference is even smaller once you include the in-kind benefits in health and education.

    No 10 floated a strong option and a weak option. They're now going for an option weaker than the weak one. Because Angela Merkel said so. The British aren't allowed to decide for themselves.
    The good news is that the Conservatives and Labour are both down to 31%. With any luck, they'll both fall below 30%.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Smart arse comment alert

    Night x

    Aw, bless.
    Another!

    Night night! x
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,391
    Dadge said:



    But that's both unfair and racist.

    If we assume that "EU" and "non-EU" are not races distinct from each other, then no, it isn't racist.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    But in his speech Cameron is not expected to call for the right to apply a temporary emergency brake on free movement of workers if a country is being overwhelmed by EU migrants. The absence will disappoint Eurosceptics who have become doubtful that fiscal disincentives will be enough, and will prompt the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, to argue that Britain will only regain control of its borders if it leaves the EU.

    The emergency brake was supposed to be the weak option with a points system a strong one. Those were the things proposed a couple of months back. Now he's not even doing the weak option. Even though the "fundamental principles" of free movement of services and capital are stopped by the French, we're not allowed to erode on the one that matters to us. Cameron is a political pygmy. He has to do what he's told by Angela Merkel.

    You are being told what to write by your well oiled prejudice. The Conservatives are offering a referendum in 2017 after the results of all this negotiation. This is clearly something merkel is telling him to do.
    How many hundreds of thousands of Brits live and work in the EU?
    How many reports say that immigrants pay more in than they take out? How many jobs have been created since 2010? What is the actual record number of people currently in emplyment. What is the current falling percentage of unemployment?

    And in passing can you tell us what the Kippers' most admired world statesman thinks of the falling oil price?
    And your flailing and trying to change the subject because of your party's ineptness. They've gone backwards on immigration and they've gone backwards on what they'd proposed to do about it. Cameron has to hang on the say-so of Angela Merkel before he makes policy proposals. It's pathetic.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited November 2014
    Hillingdon is Labour hold

    Lab 950 Con 929 UKIP 468 TUSC 40 Lib Dem 37
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    chestnut said:

    Socrates said:

    Also, more than 85% of EU immigrants won't even be affected. You stay here long enough - is it even a year you have to wait? - and you'll still get the benefits.

    It is children that need school places - not single males.
    It is families that most receive tax credits and child benefits - not single males.
    It is women that most use the NHS - not single males.
    I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Someone needs to tell Amanda Platell to go easy on the Botox.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    Norman Baker seems to be talking sense re Facebook and terrorism

    Hmmm

    I agree with Gove too.. Sit on the fence sometimes "I don't know" is the answer
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I've always found Chuka Umunna so unlikeable. I previously thought if he was elected Labour leader it would be the death of them, although there was that poll a while back saying (bizarrely) that he was the most popular choice with the public.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Someone needs to ask Cameron how much, in his view, EU immigration will be reduced by removing these benefits. Won't an enterprising journalist worth his or her salt do this?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Tonight's YouGov represents a 20 point drop in support for the three established parties compared to 2010.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    chestnut said:

    Socrates said:

    Of course they'll be able to afford rent and food. They live eight to a flat and eat the cheap stuff from Polish supermarkets. They'll just earn four times what they get back home rather than six times. And the difference is even smaller once you include the in-kind benefits in health and education.

    No 10 floated a strong option and a weak option. They're now going for an option weaker than the weak one. Because Angela Merkel said so. The British aren't allowed to decide for themselves.

    Tax Credits are largely paid to FAMILIES.

    Not single people.

    You think that many poles are single people without families. Come walk around slough and listen to the polish talking mothers and fathers taking their children to school in the morning. According to the census 1 in 10 of slough are poles. Less than 1 in 10 of the parents I see as I go to work are poles.

    The polish are damn hard working people that put many of our own to shame. Pretending however that all or even the majority of poles are single people who have no claim on tax credits or taking places in schools is disingenuous at best.

    The fact of the matter is for the average briton you do not become a tax contributor on average till you earn around 36k. It is suggested this figure is much lower on eu immigrants because they come here single, stay single and return to their homeland after a few years.

    This may be true but I would like to see some study to back this up because from what I am seeing in slough the poles are coming in single, finding mates and raising children here and not going back home.

    This by the way something I see anything wrong with personally but if we are to have a grown up discussion we need hard facts. Maybe the points system could be a net contributor needs to earn on average 36K

    Therefore we will accept all people of all nationalites who earn £X * percentage chance of being a full time immigrant for the nationality that gives a figure that is a positive.

    For example if a pole is 60% long term likely to settle they would need to earn

    36000 * 0.60 or 21600 to get a permission to reside.

    This to me seems the fair way of doing it if each nationality was assessed for their long term inclination to settle and we keep the benefits system as it is.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited November 2014

    From the Times

    Tory figures are wooing the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman .... Mr Paxman labelled himself a one-nation Tory ... Tory MPs believe .... An approach by a senior party figure .... backing of the Commons tea rooms ... not Conservative HQ ... excitement among Tory MPs.

    So a non story even before you get to Paxo saying to The Times .... “I shouldn’t bother, if I were you.”

    But they did; it hardly enhances Coates' reputation does it? Do you just have to collect the labels off Cornflake packets to become a political editor these days?

    (with no trace of irony the article concludes with Paxman saying ... ''Look, Newsnight is made by 13-year-olds''
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    It's like dealing with dumb and dumber.



  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I also note that the Romanians and Bulgarians claiming new NI numbers in the last year is over 130,000. That's more than double the number MigrationWatch said would come here each year and were accused of scaremongering for saying.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Bottom line. Even Juncker said publicly he didn't mind Britain having a sort of 'associate membership' -albeit that free movement of peoples was not on the table, but still. Cameron didn't and doesn't want it. A eurosceptic doesn't belong in Cameron's Conservatives. A euro-doubter doesn't belong in Cameron's Conservatives. Anyone who isn't a foam flecked wild eyed eurofanatic doesn't belong in Cameron's Conservatives.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    AndyJS said:

    Tonight's YouGov represents a 20 point drop in support for the three established parties compared to 2010.

    UKIP are up 14 points and the Greens 5.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Oxfordshire The Leys Lab hold

    Lab 879 UKIP 168 Con 77 Green 57 Lib Dem 30 TUSC 27
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    It's like dealing with dumb and dumber.



    Nice

    You don't have to insult everyone who disagrees with you

    Are you sure single people cant get Working Tax Credit?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    When MigrationWatch suggested 50,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could come here each year, we got this from IPPR:

    Sarah Mulley, of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank said that although it was "very difficult to predict migration flows with any degree of confidence in these circumstances" the estimates put forward by Migration Watch "look high".

    Ms Mulley looks pretty silly now...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    On topic -I haven't had hot squash for ages!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour have held a ward by just 21 votes over the Tories situated in the safe Labour seat of Hayes & Harlington.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Mail saying Cameron WILL call for a cap, so maybe he won't by a pygmy, after all. Let's see tomorrow.

    Mr Cameron is expected to seize on the figures to bolster his call for a way to cap the number of people who can move to Britain from other European Union countries.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2851521/Cameron-s-pledge-cut-net-migration-lies-tatters-figure-soars-260-000.html
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I think a moment of silence is warranted for one of the last 3 SDP councilors left.
    Ray Allerston was literally a piece of living history.

    Now only 2 left to remind people that there was once something called the SDP.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Oxford Blackbird Leys Lab hold

    Lab 609 UKIP 91 Con 27 Green 21 TUSC 13 Lib Dem 11

    Oxford Northfield Brook Lab hold

    Lab 401 Con 65 Green 50 TUSC 34 Lib Dem 18
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689

    ZenPagan said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Ill-judged" would be the generous way to describe this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30030478

    "A Conservative MP is demanding a public apology over a UKIP newspaper which she said intentionally referred to her husband's death.
    South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray's husband Neil, 57, was killed in 2011 when his clothes became caught in a netting winch on his fishing boat.
    The UKIP newspaper shows a netting winch saying Ms Murray's "support at home evaporates".
    UKIP said it would not withdraw the newspaper and had not meant to offend."

    That's extraordinary.

    I can understand the mistake happening - probably just someone using a nice photo and no one thought.

    But when she complains, why the heck don't you apologise and withdraw the paper. I know there's a cost implication, but people would think that's the decent thing to do.

    I mean, fighting a widow who is claiming that you are deliberately bringing up her late husband's death.

    Any Kippers want to explain / justify the refusal to withdraw?
    I have to agree with Charles here much though I don't normally, I started my working life on trawlers. I lost many people I grew up with in fishing accidents. There are many photos from stock you could use to depict the fishing industry without using one of the specific instruments that caused his death. Those winches are lethal and were one of the first things I was warned about on my first trip out.

    Want to link to the fishing industry then use a photo of a trawler at sea or one unloading fish at the docks. A netting winch is a strange photo to use and in this context I have to suspect an amount of deliberation behind its selection

    Anyone who did that deliberately would be twisted, and much as I have a low opinion of politicians, I really would like to believe this is an unfortunate coincidence. And ultimately the indignation is almost as bad as the original error.
    All I can say then is you have a significantly different view of politicians than I have. I fully believe that most would happily lie cheat or steal to get their seat. And I do not distinguish between people of any party here.

    Politicians want to go into power because largely they believe they know best how people should organise their lives and wish to impose that belief on people. Frankly I fear too many of them also believe the end justifies the means.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    AndyJS said:

    Labour have held a ward by just 21 votes over the Tories situated in the safe Labour seat of Hayes & Harlington.

    You have to compare it with past elections in the same council seat, it was a close result last time.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Britain Elects @britainelects · 2m 2 minutes ago
    Two recounts in East Yorkshire, both between the Conservatives and UKIP.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Speedy said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour have held a ward by just 21 votes over the Tories situated in the safe Labour seat of Hayes & Harlington.

    You have to compare it with past elections in the same council seat, it was a close result last time.
    Yep , it elected 2 Labour and 1 Conservative councillor in May
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Speedy said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour have held a ward by just 21 votes over the Tories situated in the safe Labour seat of Hayes & Harlington.

    You have to compare it with past elections in the same council seat, it was a close result last time.
    Yes, it means Labour aren't making much progress in that area compared to 6 months ago.
This discussion has been closed.