Reading the ever excellent Mary Riddell in DT on Labour's policy review and strategy. It appears nobody knows who is actually going to write their manifesto. We have just over 3 months before it needs to be ready. Incredible if true.
Whatever happened to the idiot that wrote the last one?
Another Ed Miliband Ed Balls meme bites the dust..
I dont think the odd month where the AEI exceeds the CPI is going to reverse the overall pinch millions of people have been feeling over the last few years. Oh and inflation as measured by RPI is 2%.
What about the NHS? On healthcare, one party and one politician above all tells the most fibs. Time and time again Labour’s Andy Burnham tells us “the Tories are privatising the NHS”. Most amusingly, back in 2011 Burnham told voters they had “just 72 hours to save the NHS”, presumably before the Tories destroyed it forever. Again, the truth is far away. Privatisation means transferring ownership of the NHS to private control. A minority of individual services are being contracted out to private providers - a policy backed by the last Labour government - but it is just untrue to say this amounts to privatisation. As for the “72 hours” claim, the NHS is still here some 26,000 hours later.
It could be '24 hours to save the NHS' (again) on 6th May.
And why shouldn't Labour persist with these tried & tested lies? They seem to consistently work in getting the party votes, after all.
How long did the Tories give us to save the pound?
Could argue it was the LD's that saved the pound. By agreeing to a Coalition, rather than a case by case Confidence & Supply they enabled a stable government.
Who are all these people that put the NHS 2nd? Above the economy, budget deficit, and cost of living? Are we all really that ill?
Bizarre.
It is always up in my top three issues; but in part because it is my prime source (snip)
It is also totemic of the sort of society we want and the values we hold. Health is the ultimate essential, should everyone be entitled to equal treatment? Should we allow profiteering by private companies? Should we have forties style rationing by queue?
Many Western governments have little state provision of health care but in the UK it is seen as a core and very visible government function. It is why some love it and why some hate it.
That's actually not true. Most western governments do have effective state provision of healthcare, and do it more effectively than we do.
This is a myth once step removed from the 'would you prefer it if we had to pay for healthcare, like they do in the US?" canard. It's not a binary choice.
You've also managed to check 'profiteering by private companies' (tick) and 'everyone should be entitled to equal treatment' (tick)
Well done for getting all the NHS cliches into one post.
Incidentally there were 5 000 more hospital admissions in England last week compared with a year ago. There is a winter crisis looming, even with the extra money.
Which, in your view, are the many Western governments that have little state provision of healthcare? When I say 'provision' I mean funding, not delivery. I actually don't care who delivers healthcare - it's irrelevant. Maximum access that isn't based on the ability to pay is what I'm interested in. And healthcare outcomes.
Your last observation is interesting. Why, in your view, are there so many more hospital admissions this year compared to last?
The issue of provision rather than funding of health is key. Merely funding puts government at arms distance from responsibility. Some people want that sort of accountability.
Hospital admissions are up mostly because last year was significantly more mild weatherwise, and less flu. So far the NHS seems to be coping, but several hospitals have had to declare incidents and move to crisis management. We did in Leicester last Tuesday because of the number of emergencies in A and E.
Perhaps this is where we differ. I don't think provision is key. I'm happy with accountability being limited to the doctors, nurses and hospitals that treat me.
"So, can Labour be reduced to below 32% of the vote...?"
yes. just you wait for their election 'campaign'.
"Reading the ever excellent Mary Riddell in DT on Labour's policy review and strategy. It appears nobody knows who is actually going to write their manifesto. "
F1: just reading through a nice stats page (link below), and Lotus/Williams both scored 325 points over 2013/2014. However, the former had 315 in 2013 and 10 this year, and the latter had 5 in 2013 and 320 this year. Quite the symmetrical reversal of fortunes.
Hugely misleading numbers as that won't be 1.6% for everyone by any stretch. As I will be facing a 2.5% rise in my fares in January that rather puts those figures into perspective.
One or two chipper Tories on here who seem to think the possibility of a fall in petrol prices may yet help them stay in power next May. Perhaps though with 58p of the fuel price taken up with duty and no doubt the oil companies and supermarkets wanting their slice of the pie I suspect the bottom on petrol prices will be higher than many think and that's before the inevitable turn round in oil prices at some point.
As far as deficits and debts are concerned, the truth is most people live quite happily with debt - if you have a mortgage or credit cards that's debt- and don't see why the country can't do the same. The problem only comes when either a) the interest rate for servicing that debt becomes an unsupportable proportion of expenditure or b) people no longer believe you can keep servicing the debt.
I'm not comfortable with a) as it looks as though £50-60 billion which could be spent on many other useful things will have to keep being set aside to support the debt but I'm less worried about b) for all the scare stories from the Conservative side, I see little or no evidence a Miliband Government would be radically different. Yes, some of its cuts might not be where the Tories would like the cuts to be and some of its tax rises would be for people for whom the Tories would like to reduce the tax burden but I can't get very sympathetic for those with extreme wealth and they never seem to be short of people to argue their case.
The problem currently is not the money going out as much as the money not coming in. Raising taxes and cutting spending so the income gets closer to the expenditure (and accepting the debt interest payments) should be the objective - one could simplistically argue raise income (not just from taxes) by £50 billion and cut spending by £50 billion.
Back to the figures - with inflation only at 1%, the deficit reduction is only going to be more painful as we can't rely on ambient inflation to help out.
"It is a religion not a rational thing for many - especially on the left. The NHS has been in 'crisis' since forever. Apart from the fact that it is not. Actually for the most part the NHS is a perfectly functional body that delivers well most of the time. It's a political plaything."
hasn't it been weaponised? Keep it in a state of crisis, keep people afraid, use it as a tool.
Oh....and before any 'burger flipping jobs' comments from our friends on the left:
There were 22.54 million people working full-time, 560,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.25 million people working part-time, 28,000 more than for a year earlier.
Sixteen months ago Labour support stood at an average of 38%, since when it has declined in drips and torrents, first to UKIP and more recently to the Greens as well, to currently stand five points down at 33%.
I don't have any basis on which to predict whether voters recently lost to Labour will come back, as the election campaign possibly concentrates minds on a choice between Labour and the Conservatives. Instead, I will take a brief look at what the probabilities are if we assume that current support levels in the polls will remain the same at polling day.
The latest decline in Labour support came to an end at the end of October, so if we look at all of the sixty-five polls with fieldwork in November and December, we can estimate the probability of Labour support being less than or equal to 32%.
Twenty-three of those polls have put Labour support at 32% or below. This equates to a probability of, um*, 35% that Labour support at current levels is not sufficiently high to remove David Cameron from Downing Street.
So could Labour increase their level of support to give themselves a better chance of making Ed Milliband Prime Minister? If we look at the opinion poll history for this Parliament we can see that Labour support increased in only two distinct periods. The first was in 2010, as Liberal support collapsed in the wake of signing up to Tory austerity and the process of reneging on solemn pledges was bungled. The second was in early 2012 as the Vetogasm bubble deflated and the Omnishambles budget devastated the Government's reputation for competence and killed the "we're all in this together" strategy.
Generalising from this, it would seem that Labour hopes may rest on the occurrence of another catastrophic mistake by one of the other parties. Thus far they have benefited by errors made by the Government parties, Liberal and Conservative, so might they also benefit by a public relations catastrophe emanating from UKIP...?
* A rather different sort of 35% strategy, is it not?
Now the questions under heated discussion at political Christmas parties will be: “how many seats? Where? From whom?”
Wow. Sounds even worse than my work Xmas do.
We're having a Christmas lunch today, and we were told to wear Christmas jumpers. I detest Christmas jumpers and so I'm wearing a cowhide jumper instead (I think TSE would approve).
If they're wrong (and markets agree with them) there's an opportunity to make money.
Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, Mercedes intend to follow the same policy (ie no team orders) next year. Pretty much as expected, but still good to hear. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30501655
Now the questions under heated discussion at political Christmas parties will be: “how many seats? Where? From whom?”
Wow. Sounds even worse than my work Xmas do.
We're having a Christmas lunch today, and we were told to wear Christmas jumpers. I detest Christmas jumpers and so I'm wearing a cowhide jumper instead (I think TSE would approve).
Very wise. If London restaurants had any sense they would ban Christmas jumpers, which should never be worn outside one's own home, and even then I would think twice.
Thus far they have benefited by errors made by the Government parties, Liberal and Conservative, so might they also benefit by a public relations catastrophe emanating from UKIP...?
That I would say depending on the nature of the huge car crash it would require. Despite the best wishes of the metropolitan vote, it won't be because Farage says something politically incorrect about breastfeeding, and its fairly unlikely to be because candidates from rough backgrounds use rough and unfortunate language. It much more likely to be due to an overplayed hand on the policy front, doing something to try and pull in more WWC and scaring off the shire tories, or visa-versa. The most catastrophic challenge to their vote would be either something major happening to Farage, or people somehow getting the impression that UKIP was softening its line on immigration - any attempts at appeasing the media or other parties in this regard would be fatal I believe.
Now the questions under heated discussion at political Christmas parties will be: “how many seats? Where? From whom?”
Wow. Sounds even worse than my work Xmas do.
We're having a Christmas lunch today, and we were told to wear Christmas jumpers. I detest Christmas jumpers and so I'm wearing a cowhide jumper instead (I think TSE would approve).
Very wise. If London restaurants had any sense they would ban Christmas jumpers, which should never be worn outside one's own home, and even then I would think twice.
In Shoreditch it's hard to tell who is wearing them straight, who is wearing them ironically and who is wearing them post-ironically. Hipsters *spits*.
Now the questions under heated discussion at political Christmas parties will be: “how many seats? Where? From whom?”
Wow. Sounds even worse than my work Xmas do.
We're having a Christmas lunch today, and we were told to wear Christmas jumpers. I detest Christmas jumpers and so I'm wearing a cowhide jumper instead (I think TSE would approve).
Very wise. If London restaurants had any sense they would ban Christmas jumpers, which should never be worn outside one's own home, and even then I would think twice.
One of the regulars turned up in my local the other day dressed as a snowman, with a simulated carrot for a nose. Generally considered to be a distinct improvement!
There were 22.54 million people working full-time, 560,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.25 million people working part-time, 28,000 more than for a year earlier.
Mr. Antifrank, I ask this only because I'm procrastinating: post-ironically?
Whereas in postmodern irony something is meant to be cynically mocked and not taken seriously, and in new sincerity something is meant to be taken seriously or "unironically"; post-irony combines these two elements by either (i) having something absurd taken seriously or (ii) be unclear as to whether something is meant to be ironic.
*head explodes*
What a lot of fatuous navel-gazing! Perish the thought people might say what they mean!
What prospect is there of a UKIP mistake puncturing their current support levels, to the benefit of one or several of the other parties? Precious little I think.
At this stage it appears that the spotlight of publicity is only a good thing for UKIP. That will change at some point in the future, but at present it appears either that supporters and potential supporters are more forgiving of UKIP, or that the party can do no wrong in its public appearances.
UKIP's rise in the polls appears to coincide with a number of identifiable events. Starting from a consistent 5% during 2011: In early 2012 the unwind of the Vetogasm took them to 7%. In late 2012 the Rotherham adoption scandal and coincident good performances in by-elections took them to 10%. In mid-2013, after the election bubble had deflated, the floor of UKIP support had risen to 12%. By mid-2014, similarly, now 14%. At present, following the defections of Carswell and Reckless, UKIP support has risen to a sustained level of 16%.
The question appears less to be how far UKIP support will fall as the general election approaches, but how high it will rise as they are once more in the media eye.
And yet, most of these votes will pile up in a series of pointless third places, or distant seconds, and the return of seats will make Liberal seat numbers look unfairly* high. While it is now almost certain that UKIP will poll more votes than the Liberals, it still remains more likely that the Liberals will hold more seats.
Unless, difficult though it is to conceive, things are about to get a whole lot worse for remaining Liberal supporters...(!)
* Though there is very little chance of the Liberals receiving a higher proportion of seats than votes in an odd way they will be seen as beneficiaries of FPTP, rather than a continuing victim, because of the comparison with UKIP and their own performance in 2010.
It's a busy news day. This case was much discussed a few days ago when considering the right of the individual to use their conscience as a basis for not performing employment duties:
There were 22.54 million people working full-time, 560,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.25 million people working part-time, 28,000 more than for a year earlier.
John Rentoul has helpfully tweeted the story on the front page of the Times, about Chilcott, I suspect the main ramification is that it will enrich quite a few in the legal profession.
What prospect is there of a UKIP mistake puncturing their current support levels, to the benefit of one or several of the other parties? Precious little I think.
Short of them being found out as a cover story for kiddy fiddlers (WHICH OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT), I agree - they've had a procession of dirty laundry washed in public and i suspect the bulk of it isn't noticed, and what is as 'they're all as bad as each other'. People who are cross with the traditional parties are going to stay cross, and UKIP is the most popular repository for their votes in England.
Yes indeed. However many of those who spout such wishful garbage sadly have no discernible interest in betting. Hence why Lab most seats remains a stubborn favourite. I wish they would pile in and move the price.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.
Now the questions under heated discussion at political Christmas parties will be: “how many seats? Where? From whom?”
Wow. Sounds even worse than my work Xmas do.
We're having a Christmas lunch today, and we were told to wear Christmas jumpers. I detest Christmas jumpers and so I'm wearing a cowhide jumper instead (I think TSE would approve).
Very wise. If London restaurants had any sense they would ban Christmas jumpers, which should never be worn outside one's own home, and even then I would think twice.
In Shoreditch it's hard to tell who is wearing them straight, who is wearing them ironically and who is wearing them post-ironically. Hipsters *spits*.
As AA Gill said once, about reality shows, there is no button that people press to show that they are watching eg. X-Factor, or any other reality show, ironically. It all goes towards the viewing figures.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
Do they imagine that fracking technology is not improving and reducing costs day on day ?
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
Do they imagine that fracking technology is not improving and reducing costs day on day ?
Not for a few years. The view comes straight from Aberdeen which is fairly close to source.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
How long is a few years?
Will it be after the next indyref?
'Cause I can't see Scotland voting for independence whilst a barrel of oil is cheaper than a printer cartridge.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
How long is a few years?
Will it be after the next indyref?
'Cause I can't see Scotland voting for independence whilst a barrel of oil is cheaper than a printer cartridge.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Stodgy the first Labourite to tell us low inflation is bad news.
And inflation at 1% is irrelevant as one item has risen 2.5%.
First, I'm not a "labourite" whatever that means. Second, the point, which I'm sure you will struggle to grasp, is that an overall rate of 1% masks divergent numbers in different areas. Fuel prices are actually falling but some prices are still rising - if you don't drive a car, for example, the falling fuel price will only benefit you if it is passed through to other products as price reductions.
I simply noted that for all the talk in fuel prices, my fares go up 2.5% from January which is 2.5% extra I have to find all the time.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
It's generally good news but the Devil is in the detail.
One thing that the current oil price shows is that there really is no rush to exploit whatever reserves Britain has that can be obtained by fracking. Surely we want to extract it at a time when we can get the best possible price for it?
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
But the broad effect over 25 million voters is that they see prices rising at 1%, the ones pissed off at their stuff rising on average by 5% will be balanced by those that see prices dropping by 4%. Unless you can make a case that a particular group of swing voters is adversely affected by inflation in a way that the majority isn't...
Stodgy the first Labourite to tell us low inflation is bad news.
And inflation at 1% is irrelevant as one item has risen 2.5%.
First, I'm not a "labourite" whatever that means. Second, the point, which I'm sure you will struggle to grasp, is that an overall rate of 1% masks divergent numbers in different areas. Fuel prices are actually falling but some prices are still rising - if you don't drive a car, for example, the falling fuel price will only benefit you if it is passed through to other products as price reductions.
I simply noted that for all the talk in fuel prices, my fares go up 2.5% from January which is 2.5% extra I have to find all the time.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
It's generally good news but the Devil is in the detail.
Fuel is a small component of a barrel of oil. Petrochemicals are in everything and a low price means low priced other goods. Fuel as such is used to transport everything. Oil and gas is used for power and heating and the energy to make things. Energy and the price of energy is at the heart of everything. I'm sure if you did not want to see any investment or maintenance in the railways or any wage increases for it employees you could get a cheaper rail ticket. Lower inflation means that rail prices are less than they would be and probably will be staying lower longer.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
But the broad effect over 25 million voters is that they see prices rising at 1%, the ones pissed off at their stuff rising on average by 5% will be balanced by those that see prices dropping by 4%. Unless you can make a case that a particular group of swing voters is adversely affected by inflation in a way that the majority isn't...
CPI is 1%. RPI is 2%. We could have a fascinating discussion about which is closer to the true cost of living that voters experience.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
That's a very poor pay rise given the level of debts people need to service. Still the oil price fall should provide some comfort.
Frank - personal debt has been flat since 2006.
In fact earlier in the year Citigroup calculated that private sector debt (gross unconsolidated debts of households and private non-financial firms) had fallen to 187.5% of GDP in Q4 2013, down from a peak of 218.3% GDP in the first quarter of 2009. Household debt as a proportion of income is down to 140 %, the lowest level since the start of 2004.
What prospect is there of a UKIP mistake puncturing their current support levels, to the benefit of one or several of the other parties? Precious little I think.
Short of them being found out as a cover story for kiddy fiddlers (WHICH OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT), I agree - they've had a procession of dirty laundry washed in public and i suspect the bulk of it isn't noticed, and what is as 'they're all as bad as each other'. People who are cross with the traditional parties are going to stay cross, and UKIP is the most popular repository for their votes in England.
UKIP doesn't have to be the popular repository for the not Con/Lab voters though. The Greens could fill that role.
I think the early part of this parliament had UKIP taking support from other small parties, to become the dominant 'other' choice.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
But the broad effect over 25 million voters is that they see prices rising at 1%, the ones pissed off at their stuff rising on average by 5% will be balanced by those that see prices dropping by 4%. Unless you can make a case that a particular group of swing voters is adversely affected by inflation in a way that the majority isn't...
CPI is 1%. RPI is 2%. We could have a fascinating discussion about which is closer to the true cost of living that voters experience.
Your definition of fascinating and mine evidently do not match.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
But the broad effect over 25 million voters is that they see prices rising at 1%, the ones pissed off at their stuff rising on average by 5% will be balanced by those that see prices dropping by 4%. Unless you can make a case that a particular group of swing voters is adversely affected by inflation in a way that the majority isn't...
CPI is 1%. RPI is 2%. We could have a fascinating discussion about which is closer to the true cost of living that voters experience.
Happy the average pay rise for a fulltime job was 2.2% so on either measure people are getting slightly more buying power.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Fuel is a small component of a barrel of oil. Petrochemicals are in everything and a low price means low priced other goods. Fuel as such is used to transport everything. Oil and gas is used for power and heating and the energy to make things. Energy and the price of energy is at the heart of everything. I'm sure if you did not want to see any investment or maintenance in the railways or any wage increases for it employees you could get a cheaper rail ticket. Lower inflation means that rail prices are less than they would be and probably will be staying lower longer.
Indeed and it may be that in time we will see the benefits of a falling oil price spread through the economy though as I recall in 2008, the oil price collapse didn't do us that many favours.
There was going to be an even higher hike in fares (3%) until Boris, in his infinite largesse, decided 2.5% was more suitable. As to the issue of longer-term maintenance and investment, I would argue the economy as a whole benefits from an improved public transport system (including roads).
I'm impressed by the fact that some 12,000 engineers will be spending their Christmas working on the railways - I don't begrudge the 2.5% increase in my fares. I merely point out that the 1% inflation rate trumpeted by some of the Tories on here doesn't tell the whole story.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Sixteen months ago Labour support stood at an average of 38%, since when it has declined in drips and torrents, first to UKIP and more recently to the Greens as well, to currently stand five points down at 33%.
I don't have any basis on which to predict whether voters recently lost to Labour will come back, as the election campaign possibly concentrates minds on a choice between Labour and the Conservatives. Instead, I will take a brief look at what the probabilities are if we assume that current support levels in the polls will remain the same at polling day.
The latest decline in Labour support came to an end at the end of October, so if we look at all of the sixty-five polls with fieldwork in November and December, we can estimate the probability of Labour support being less than or equal to 32%.
Twenty-three of those polls have put Labour support at 32% or below. This equates to a probability of, um*, 35% that Labour support at current levels is not sufficiently high to remove David Cameron from Downing Street.
So could Labour increase their level of support to give themselves a better chance of making Ed Milliband Prime Minister? If we look at the opinion poll history for this Parliament we can see that Labour support increased in only two distinct periods. The first was in 2010, as Liberal support collapsed in the wake of signing up to Tory austerity and the process of reneging on solemn pledges was bungled. The second was in early 2012 as the Vetogasm bubble deflated and the Omnishambles budget devastated the Government's reputation for competence and killed the "we're all in this together" strategy.
Generalising from this, it would seem that Labour hopes may rest on the occurrence of another catastrophic mistake by one of the other parties. Thus far they have benefited by errors made by the Government parties, Liberal and Conservative, so might they also benefit by a public relations catastrophe emanating from UKIP...?
* A rather different sort of 35% strategy, is it not?
In a low turnout election the relative health of the Con/Lab machines would be a factor. I think that favours Labour.
"...With limited campaign resources, a decision has been made to prioritise [Labour] boots on the ground. Party strategists estimate that the Tories will outspend the opposition by a three-to-one ratio, and that Labour will have the equivalent advantage in terms of bodies working in marginal seats."
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Having to spend £25m and waste five years every time someone says something nasty about our troops is going to get old, and expensive very fast. This is particularly the case when
An al-Qaeda training manual found in the North of England some years ago said that people captured by the US or UK should always say they have been tortured. As a society we are very foolish if we do not keep in mind that this is what our opponents seek to claim.
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Why does every single investigation cost so much moolah ?
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
Do they imagine that fracking technology is not improving and reducing costs day on day ?
Fracking companies are, in the main, highly leveraged as they gobbled up subsidies to expand rapidly on the assumption that oil prices would be high forever. There is going to be a reckoning amongst current frackers and that will be banks much more leery about lending to fracking concerns going forward.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
But the broad effect over 25 million voters is that they see prices rising at 1%, the ones pissed off at their stuff rising on average by 5% will be balanced by those that see prices dropping by 4%. Unless you can make a case that a particular group of swing voters is adversely affected by inflation in a way that the majority isn't...
CPI is 1%. RPI is 2%. We could have a fascinating discussion about which is closer to the true cost of living that voters experience.
Your definition of fascinating and mine evidently do not match.
The differences between CPI and RPI and the exclusion or inclusion of rent/mortgage/building maintenance costs is pretty much the most interesting thing you can discuss in economic indicators.
In Game Retail Ltd v Laws the EAT has held that an employment judge erred in failing to take full account of the public nature of Twitter when finding that an employee’s dismissal for posting ‘offensive’ tweets was unfair. The judge did not properly consider whether the employee’s purportedly private use of Twitter was truly private, given that he was followed by a number of other employees.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Optimism about the economic recovery is in freefall despite rising employment and pay levels, an exclusive poll reveals today.
The proportion of people who think the country’s economy will improve over the next year has slumped to the lowest level since July 2013, found pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Cost of production matters.
Operating cashflows at Gazprom and the like barely covered capex at $110 oil.
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
As mentioned yesterday, industry view is that the aim was to drop the price to <$80 which puts 90% of the frackers out of business and then let it recover to around $80 for the next few years without letting the frackers back in.</p>
How long is a few years?
Will it be after the next indyref?
'Cause I can't see Scotland voting for independence whilst a barrel of oil is cheaper than a printer cartridge.
The point you make is an excellent one, both as a broad analogy and probably literally. At $59 its £37.50 for a 159 litre barrel. A HP '56'/'57' printer cartridge pack = RRP £47.90.
In the same but reverse way its a good job that petrol is not the same price as a pint of beer, which is about £28/ gallon.
Mr. Eagles, if the Conservatives retain the economic lead then a faltering economy could be perversely helpful for them [can't risk voting Labour]. It could also work the other way, so an improving economy might make people think returning to the tax and spend ways of Labour are ok again.
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Petrol now down to 112p/litre in Edinburgh, I fill up with 30 litre or so every 2 weeks on average. I save about £6 compared with the beginning of the year. So equivalent to a pint of beer or a lunch time sandwich a week.
Of course if you have a gas guzzler 4 x 4 or a Rolls /Beemer/Jag, you will now probably be buying a couple of extra bottles of Bolly each week.
Er! Which parties traditional supporters will be celebrating more this season? And will they notice or care anyway?
Very nice the bolly is too, I have been doing a good few miles lately so funded a good few bottles. Good old SNP forcing down price of oil.
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Why does every single investigation cost so much moolah ?
Can we not ban the legal profession from them ?
Is this the enquiry in which someone in Phil Shiner's firm withheld key evidence from the tribunal?
Petrol now down to 112p/litre in Edinburgh, I fill up with 30 litre or so every 2 weeks on average. I save about £6 compared with the beginning of the year. So equivalent to a pint of beer or a lunch time sandwich a week.
Of course if you have a gas guzzler 4 x 4 or a Rolls /Beemer/Jag, you will now probably be buying a couple of extra bottles of Bolly each week.
Er! Which parties traditional supporters will be celebrating more this season? And will they notice or care anyway?
So basically its the wrong type of savings then? M'Kay.
I think we have just found the nadir of the left wing poster.
With no other place to go, having lost every single economic argument going, you are down to complaining about the fall in petrol prices supposedly benefitting one group over another?
Seriously? I mean WTF?
Usual sour grapes of the idle left, they not only want you to keep them but to be beggared in the process.
Comments
'So, can Labour be reduced to below 32% of the vote...?'
Yes, if for example Lib Dem support increases around 3 - 5% from its current level.
Nevertheless, the US uses 16m barrels a day of oil, and only produces 10m, so the country is a clear benificiary.
Unlike Russia.
Could argue it was the LD's that saved the pound. By agreeing to a Coalition, rather than a case by case Confidence & Supply they enabled a stable government.
I have no desire for politicians to get involved.
yes. just you wait for their election 'campaign'.
"Reading the ever excellent Mary Riddell in DT on Labour's policy review and strategy. It appears nobody knows who is actually going to write their manifesto. "
see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30037681
Hugely misleading numbers as that won't be 1.6% for everyone by any stretch. As I will be facing a 2.5% rise in my fares in January that rather puts those figures into perspective.
One or two chipper Tories on here who seem to think the possibility of a fall in petrol prices may yet help them stay in power next May. Perhaps though with 58p of the fuel price taken up with duty and no doubt the oil companies and supermarkets wanting their slice of the pie I suspect the bottom on petrol prices will be higher than many think and that's before the inevitable turn round in oil prices at some point.
As far as deficits and debts are concerned, the truth is most people live quite happily with debt - if you have a mortgage or credit cards that's debt- and don't see why the country can't do the same. The problem only comes when either a) the interest rate for servicing that debt becomes an unsupportable proportion of expenditure or b) people no longer believe you can keep servicing the debt.
I'm not comfortable with a) as it looks as though £50-60 billion which could be spent on many other useful things will have to keep being set aside to support the debt but I'm less worried about b) for all the scare stories from the Conservative side, I see little or no evidence a Miliband Government would be radically different. Yes, some of its cuts might not be where the Tories would like the cuts to be and some of its tax rises would be for people for whom the Tories would like to reduce the tax burden but I can't get very sympathetic for those with extreme wealth and they never seem to be short of people to argue their case.
The problem currently is not the money going out as much as the money not coming in. Raising taxes and cutting spending so the income gets closer to the expenditure (and accepting the debt interest payments) should be the objective - one could simplistically argue raise income (not just from taxes) by £50 billion and cut spending by £50 billion.
Back to the figures - with inflation only at 1%, the deficit reduction is only going to be more painful as we can't rely on ambient inflation to help out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30512657
hasn't it been weaponised? Keep it in a state of crisis, keep people afraid, use it as a tool.
I mean, that. That train of thought. Ugh.
Tory wishful thinking I'm afraid.
Pay will exceed inflation from now through to the election.
Pay rises for those in work over a year were above 4% on last mention, while the minimum wage has been lifted by 3%.
These things will stay in the 'cost of living' numbers well into 2015.
Claimant count 900,000 and still dropping at 25,000 a month.
Vacancies 700,000 and still rising at 10,000 a month.
Immigation, and it's side effects, is the one issue that can derail the Tories.
Vote Farage, Get Miliband (plus Salmond and Sturgeon) is the decisive issue.
There were 22.54 million people working full-time, 560,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.25 million people working part-time, 28,000 more than for a year earlier.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2014/statistical-bulletin.html
Sixteen months ago Labour support stood at an average of 38%, since when it has declined in drips and torrents, first to UKIP and more recently to the Greens as well, to currently stand five points down at 33%.
I don't have any basis on which to predict whether voters recently lost to Labour will come back, as the election campaign possibly concentrates minds on a choice between Labour and the Conservatives. Instead, I will take a brief look at what the probabilities are if we assume that current support levels in the polls will remain the same at polling day.
The latest decline in Labour support came to an end at the end of October, so if we look at all of the sixty-five polls with fieldwork in November and December, we can estimate the probability of Labour support being less than or equal to 32%.
Twenty-three of those polls have put Labour support at 32% or below. This equates to a probability of, um*, 35% that Labour support at current levels is not sufficiently high to remove David Cameron from Downing Street.
So could Labour increase their level of support to give themselves a better chance of making Ed Milliband Prime Minister? If we look at the opinion poll history for this Parliament we can see that Labour support increased in only two distinct periods. The first was in 2010, as Liberal support collapsed in the wake of signing up to Tory austerity and the process of reneging on solemn pledges was bungled. The second was in early 2012 as the Vetogasm bubble deflated and the Omnishambles budget devastated the Government's reputation for competence and killed the "we're all in this together" strategy.
Generalising from this, it would seem that Labour hopes may rest on the occurrence of another catastrophic mistake by one of the other parties. Thus far they have benefited by errors made by the Government parties, Liberal and Conservative, so might they also benefit by a public relations catastrophe emanating from UKIP...?
* A rather different sort of 35% strategy, is it not?
And inflation at 1% is irrelevant as one item has risen 2.5%.
I always wonder why we compare employment stats with the previous month, quarter and so on, rather than with the same period last year.
It's all a bit too late for this government though.
If they're wrong (and markets agree with them) there's an opportunity to make money.
Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, Mercedes intend to follow the same policy (ie no team orders) next year. Pretty much as expected, but still good to hear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30501655
Those companies now have the choice : cut capex and allow production to fall, or borrow more, at increasingly high interest rates.
Is that like post-modernism [ie full of itself]?
What a lot of fatuous navel-gazing! Perish the thought people might say what they mean!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-irony
Here's another example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30458480
What prospect is there of a UKIP mistake puncturing their current support levels, to the benefit of one or several of the other parties? Precious little I think.
At this stage it appears that the spotlight of publicity is only a good thing for UKIP. That will change at some point in the future, but at present it appears either that supporters and potential supporters are more forgiving of UKIP, or that the party can do no wrong in its public appearances.
UKIP's rise in the polls appears to coincide with a number of identifiable events. Starting from a consistent 5% during 2011:
In early 2012 the unwind of the Vetogasm took them to 7%.
In late 2012 the Rotherham adoption scandal and coincident good performances in by-elections took them to 10%.
In mid-2013, after the election bubble had deflated, the floor of UKIP support had risen to 12%.
By mid-2014, similarly, now 14%.
At present, following the defections of Carswell and Reckless, UKIP support has risen to a sustained level of 16%.
The question appears less to be how far UKIP support will fall as the general election approaches, but how high it will rise as they are once more in the media eye.
And yet, most of these votes will pile up in a series of pointless third places, or distant seconds, and the return of seats will make Liberal seat numbers look unfairly* high. While it is now almost certain that UKIP will poll more votes than the Liberals, it still remains more likely that the Liberals will hold more seats.
Unless, difficult though it is to conceive, things are about to get a whole lot worse for remaining Liberal supporters...(!)
* Though there is very little chance of the Liberals receiving a higher proportion of seats than votes in an odd way they will be seen as beneficiaries of FPTP, rather than a continuing victim, because of the comparison with UKIP and their own performance in 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30514054
Only excuse is that I’m rather dropping in and out, what with everything else at the moment.
And, as you and BenM say, good news.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5DHYi-IAAAgur2.png:large
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase#In_humour
Yes indeed. However many of those who spout such wishful garbage sadly have no discernible interest in betting. Hence why Lab most seats remains a stubborn favourite. I wish they would pile in and move the price.
Will it be after the next indyref?
'Cause I can't see Scotland voting for independence whilst a barrel of oil is cheaper than a printer cartridge.
(no haven't done the maths but surely must be)
Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told The Sun that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/qatari-government-linked-with-1billion-takeover-of-tottenham-9930307.html
I simply noted that for all the talk in fuel prices, my fares go up 2.5% from January which is 2.5% extra I have to find all the time.
I'm more than happy to accept that inflation is 1% - that doesn't mean ALL prices are rising at 1% - some may be falling 5%, others may be rising 5%. How that affects you depends on your circumstances.
It's generally good news but the Devil is in the detail.
Rubble might be more appropriate though ;-)
Fuel as such is used to transport everything. Oil and gas is used for power and heating and the energy to make things. Energy and the price of energy is at the heart of everything. I'm sure if you did not want to see any investment or maintenance in the railways or any wage increases for it employees you could get a cheaper rail ticket. Lower inflation means that rail prices are less than they would be and probably will be staying lower longer.
That would put an end to the offensive name calling.
http://news.sky.com/story/1393405/british-soldier-torture-claims-lies-inquiry
Allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers by former Iraqi prisoners, are "wholly without foundation" a major investigation has concluded.
The Al-Sweady Inquiry, which has cost the taxpayer £25m and taken five years, found accusations of war crimes were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Household debt as a proportion of income is down to 140 %, the lowest level since the start of 2004.
I think the early part of this parliament had UKIP taking support from other small parties, to become the dominant 'other' choice.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/info-ashe-2013.html
"Man bites dog then dies at One-Stop shop in Cambridge"
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Man-bites-dog-dies-Stop-shop-Cambridge/story-25722681-detail/story.html
It's Spurs, though, so it won't happen.
There was going to be an even higher hike in fares (3%) until Boris, in his infinite largesse, decided 2.5% was more suitable. As to the issue of longer-term maintenance and investment, I would argue the economy as a whole benefits from an improved public transport system (including roads).
I'm impressed by the fact that some 12,000 engineers will be spending their Christmas working on the railways - I don't begrudge the 2.5% increase in my fares. I merely point out that the 1% inflation rate trumpeted by some of the Tories on here doesn't tell the whole story.
"...With limited campaign resources, a decision has been made to prioritise [Labour] boots on the ground. Party strategists estimate that the Tories will outspend the opposition by a three-to-one ratio, and that Labour will have the equivalent advantage in terms of bodies working in marginal seats."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/ed-miliband-labour-local-government-election
Can we not ban the legal profession from them ?
It is really satisfying to type fracking.
Mr. Indigo, indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30513467
Totally unrelated, my football tip of the day
Bournemouth to win tonight against Liverpool 3/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-cup/bournemouth-v-liverpool/winner
Optimism about the economic recovery is in freefall despite rising employment and pay levels, an exclusive poll reveals today.
The proportion of people who think the country’s economy will improve over the next year has slumped to the lowest level since July 2013, found pollsters Ipsos MORI.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/people-still-gloomy-on-economy-despite-good-jobs-figures-poll-shows-9930488.html
In the same but reverse way its a good job that petrol is not the same price as a pint of beer, which is about £28/ gallon.
UK soldiers "mistreated detainees"