politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage joins the minus 20 leader dissatisfaction club

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited December 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage joins the minus 20 leader dissatisfaction club

Worrying trend here for Mr. Farage from @IpsosMORI pic.twitter.com/H2ZErRViIK

Read the full story here


Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2014
    Are these ratings from the leaders party only or across all people surveyed for VI?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    Hello Mr Public...what do you think of this politician.....That isn't Boris is it?...No.....I don't like them then...Good Day...
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    For all that I don't want Farage as UKIP leader, I do find it amusing that Mike has effectively ignored the fact that he was the most popular leader (or more accurately the least worst popular leader) with this pollster for so long whilst repeatedly making comments about how he was the most disliked leader with various other polls.

    Even now all he can claim is that Farage has seen a slip in his satisfaction ratings even though his net satisfaction is still better than any of the other leaders.

    Of course I am one of those who, if asked would be registering as dissatisfied but the paryail reporting of the satisfaction polls is somewhat disappointing.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    The £78m is the total the the Tories have raised over the last few years. Around 25% of it comes from what the Observer described as "hedge fund donors" although they probably mean anyone with any connection to the financial services industry.

    But to claim that is their election warchest is specious: they have plenty of operating costs over the last few years.

    How much, for instance, has the Labour Party raised over the last 4 years? And what proportion of that came from the unions? (That's not necessarily a bad thing, but they are certainly a more cohesive and influential interest group than a bunch of individuals who happen to work in the same industry).

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @Carnyx FPT

    Until 1997, the top rate of stamp duty was 2% (values above £500K).

    So it wasn't really an issue until Brown massively increased the rates. To be even-handed, Osborne also increased the top rates in order to offset any benefits from the reduction in the top rate of income tax to 45%.

    So the reason why the Tories haven't reformed it before now is that it wasn't a problem. I suppose you could complain why it has taken then 4.5 years to do so, but equally it shouldn't have been at the top of the list of priorities
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Mike obviously disappointed that his deputy failed to uphold anti kipper values by mentioning Farage still has the best net ratings on the last thread, and took matters into his own hands!

    Nigel playing the part of the girl with the blackboard in the old bbc testcard I see... V trumptonesque
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Apparently? The Labour party is mainly funded by pressure groups (Unions) apparently. And until recently they did it by recycling "modernization" funds AKA tax payers hard earned cash. Where is the biggest conflict of interest?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    I'm a huge Farage fan, but I think it's time (actually I think it's past time -I have been saying this for a little while) for a presentational change at the top. There is no-one who's instincts I trust in UKIP like Farage's, so I would like him to maintain background control if possible, but there is no doubt a new figurehead is needed -for Nigel's benefit if anything. I still think that person should be Suzanne Evans, who is a fantastic media performer. If they can 'leak' that 'the NEC sat Nigel down' to give the impression of a night of the long knives style affair, that would be a good narrative. I think it would be the making of Nigel too -everyone liked Hague a lot more after he lost the leadership.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,709
    edited December 2014
    If feel sorry for Nigel. The crash in his ratings is probably not his fault. (After all, it's not as if he's been any different lately to how he's been for years.) What's happened is UKIP: weird amorous communications between its members; shady donors flexing their muscles; Neil Hamiliton; candidate resignations over intolerant rants; Messiah projection from his underlings. Nigel is a popular guy, but the antics of his followers are bound to have a tarnishing effect upon him eventually. Nigel could do worse than quit UKIP and form a new party free from the baggage.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    edited December 2014
    imageLabour party funding

    50% trade union donations

    39% Short money, AKA taxpayer's hard earned cash.

    So over a third direct from the taxpayer and another sizeable chunk from the taxpayer in the form of union "modernization" funds how does Mr Clipp feel about that?

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2013/07/12_partydonorsgraphic_x.jpg
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    A few days ago I mentioned the attractions of a combination bet backing UKIP to win between 5% - 10% of the UK vote at 3/1 and 10% -15% at 2/1 to return winning odds of 0.714/1.
    Despite further evidence supporting the party's recent decline in the polls by around 2% - 3%, these same odds remain available from Ladbrokes.
    Of course as their showing VI share edges closer to the 10% level, it is the 5%-10% band which becomes progressively more attractive.
    DYOR
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Cameron and Farage level-pegging on satisfaction ratings.

    Both well ahead of the rest.

    Considering Cameron is supposed to be leading The Most Evil Coalition In the Last 100 Years, that's quite impressive for the PM.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Regarding the proposed law on "coercive and controlling behaviour", will an exemption be granted within prisons? Otherwise prisoners might attempt to use the law against the prison system.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30532087
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549
    Tomorrow is the start of the long campaign for the general election with its spending limits. This is why the parties have been delivering leaflets this week prior to the spending restrictions coming in.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30477250
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited December 2014
    saddened said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Apparently? The Labour party is mainly funded by pressure groups (Unions) apparently. And until recently they did it by recycling "modernization" funds AKA tax payers hard earned cash. Where is the biggest conflict of interest?
    I can't believe the Union "Modernization" scheme wasn't more of a scandal. The merest suggestion of Tories taking money from business men, bankers, etc, and the Guardian goes into meltdown.

    Actually, I remember the total uproar over Abrahams, sorry Abrahams cleaners, fairly small donations to Labour, but somehow the Union Modernization scheme passed with not much more than the odd article in the Mail or Telegraph.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    No council by-elections tonight?
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/173074/UKPGE-Part-3-Spending-and-donations.pdf

    More details on spending etc from the electoral commission website.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
    Not strongly, but I wasn't making a party political point. I do think it's a bit silly to include Short money in your argument though.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2014
    OldKingCole said:

    No council by-elections tonight?

    Three, including one in Kingston-upon-Thames:

    http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/5199/byelections-18th-december?page=1&scrollTo=208856
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Ishmael_X said:

    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
    Not strongly, but I wasn't making a party political point. I do think it's a bit silly to include Short money in your argument though.

    Why is it silly to include short money? It's money straight from the taxpayers pocket into Labour's.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Not much comment from the Lefties this evening on the state of play ....... understandable I suppose. A Tory lead from YouGov would round things off nicely.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT.
    http://john-moloney.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/cant-take-much-more.html

    ...and I can't take much more of a TSE led debate.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Dow closes up 420 points! Major move!

    Cheaper petrol and booming share prices!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876810/Fury-Home-Office-loses-174-000-illegal-immigrants-Scathing-dossier-reveal-three-quarters-foreigners-refused-permission-stay-UK-vanished.html

    UKIP membership passes the 42,000 mark for the first time ever
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT.
    Total Politics goes belly up. (in print anyway)

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/18/total-politics-closing-immediately/
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Mark Senior might prefer to ignore the significance of today's IpsosMORI poll, but for The Daily Telegraph online, it's their front page lead story:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11301993/Tories-pull-into-4-point-lead-over-Labour.html

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    MikeK said:

    FPT.
    http://john-moloney.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/cant-take-much-more.html

    ...and I can't take much more of a TSE led debate.

    Fortunately for you then that this isn't.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Mr Saddened asked me directly about the Labour Party:

    "So over a third direct from the taxpayer and another sizeable chunk from the taxpayer in the form of union "modernization" funds how does Mr Clipp feel about that?"

    To which I have to reply that I think it is scandalous. No political party should have such an enormous advantage over its competitors. Not Labour, not the Conservatives, not UKIP, who spent as much on the Euro elections as the Labour Party and the Lib Dems combined.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    Charles said:

    @Carnyx FPT

    Until 1997, the top rate of stamp duty was 2% (values above £500K).

    So it wasn't really an issue until Brown massively increased the rates. To be even-handed, Osborne also increased the top rates in order to offset any benefits from the reduction in the top rate of income tax to 45%.

    So the reason why the Tories haven't reformed it before now is that it wasn't a problem. I suppose you could complain why it has taken then 4.5 years to do so, but equally it shouldn't have been at the top of the list of priorities

    Thanks.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    MikeK said:

    FPT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876810/Fury-Home-Office-loses-174-000-illegal-immigrants-Scathing-dossier-reveal-three-quarters-foreigners-refused-permission-stay-UK-vanished.html

    UKIP membership passes the 42,000 mark for the first time ever

    Presumably if these illegal immigrants have "vanished", at least they're not in any position to receive welfare benefits or to accrue State pension benefits.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
    I love it.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    PClipp said:

    Mr Saddened asked me directly about the Labour Party:

    "So over a third direct from the taxpayer and another sizeable chunk from the taxpayer in the form of union "modernization" funds how does Mr Clipp feel about that?"

    To which I have to reply that I think it is scandalous. No political party should have such an enormous advantage over its competitors. Not Labour, not the Conservatives, not UKIP, who spent as much on the Euro elections as the Labour Party and the Lib Dems combined.

    Good. Write to the mirror and let them know.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Hmm... Circle Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre seems to be a good place, better than Queens, if you are a patient. Are Circle to take over managing Queens or is it just the dermatology department?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    peter_from_putney said:

    MikeK said:

    FPT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876810/Fury-Home-Office-loses-174-000-illegal-immigrants-Scathing-dossier-reveal-three-quarters-foreigners-refused-permission-stay-UK-vanished.html

    UKIP membership passes the 42,000 mark for the first time ever

    Presumably if these illegal immigrants have "vanished", at least they're not in any position to receive welfare benefits or to accrue State pension benefits.

    Illegal immigrants , by definition, do not claim benefits as they are "out of the system". They work. But, of course, do not pay tax because they can't.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    peter_from_putney said:

    Mark Senior might prefer to ignore the significance of today's IpsosMORI poll, but for The Daily Telegraph online, it's their front page lead story:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11301993/Tories-pull-into-4-point-lead-over-Labour.html

    I would urge caution. Take ICM and MORI together and they average a Lab lead of 1% - very similar to what YouGov is showing on a daily basis.

    There is no reason to believe MORI more than ICM or indeed anyone else.

    I think the best news for Con today is the Ashcroft marginal results - 3% swing, equal to a 1% Con lead. Pretty much bang in line with what Kellner is expecting - Con outperforming UNS in the marginals.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    peter_from_putney said:

    MikeK said:

    FPT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876810/Fury-Home-Office-loses-174-000-illegal-immigrants-Scathing-dossier-reveal-three-quarters-foreigners-refused-permission-stay-UK-vanished.html

    UKIP membership passes the 42,000 mark for the first time ever

    Presumably if these illegal immigrants have "vanished", at least they're not in any position to receive welfare benefits or to accrue State pension benefits.

    From your posts this evening, Peter, its seems you've had a few and are celebrating the season a little early. I cannot say that the vanished are living on benefits, but you cannot say they aren't. The real scandal is that the UK has long lost control of her borders and almost everything else.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    surbiton said:

    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
    I love it.
    And you think that comes as a surprise?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    saddened said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GeoffM said:

    PClipp said:

    FPT. I think it was in the Mirror that I read that the Tories had raised 78,000,000 so far for their election campaign.

    A lot of it came from Hedge Fund sources, apparently.

    Not a single Mirror reader will actually know what a hedge fund is.

    For low-information zombies like them it's just another phrase that means SATAN from HELL with POINTY STICKS
    I can't easily think of a less effective insult than "you don't know what a hedge fund is." For those that do, it's hard to see where they find the money to fund political parties, what with their pathetic returns and ludicrous performance fees.

    How do you feel about taxpayers funding Labour to such an extent?
    Not strongly, but I wasn't making a party political point. I do think it's a bit silly to include Short money in your argument though.

    Why is it silly to include short money? It's money straight from the taxpayers pocket into Labour's.
    It's money straight from the taxpayers pocket into the opposition's, so not a strong party point unless the tories are firmly committed to declining to accept it in future.

  • LordWakefieldLordWakefield Posts: 144
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    For all that I don't want Farage as UKIP leader, I do find it amusing that Mike has effectively ignored the fact that he was the most popular leader (or more accurately the least worst popular leader) with this pollster for so long whilst repeatedly making comments about how he was the most disliked leader with various other polls.

    Even now all he can claim is that Farage has seen a slip in his satisfaction ratings even though his net satisfaction is still better than any of the other leaders.

    Of course I am one of those who, if asked would be registering as dissatisfied but the paryail reporting of the satisfaction polls is somewhat disappointing.

    A big fat case of confirmation bias. A continuing narrative pushed by the thread headers on here.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited December 2014
    MikeK said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    MikeK said:

    FPT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876810/Fury-Home-Office-loses-174-000-illegal-immigrants-Scathing-dossier-reveal-three-quarters-foreigners-refused-permission-stay-UK-vanished.html

    UKIP membership passes the 42,000 mark for the first time ever

    Presumably if these illegal immigrants have "vanished", at least they're not in any position to receive welfare benefits or to accrue State pension benefits.

    From your posts this evening, Peter, its seems you've had a few and are celebrating the season a little early. I cannot say that the vanished are living on benefits, but you cannot say they aren't. The real scandal is that the UK has long lost control of her borders and almost everything else.
    Mike, I don't drink. My perceived exuberance is on account of the very one-sided anti-Tory traffic in evidence on this site of late - high time to redress the balance a little I decided.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Nick Cohen, one of my favourite journalists:

    "The Left is paying a heavy price for its cowardice towards Islamist fascism. The state is demanding new powers to deal with the threat"

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-january-february-2015-great-betrayal-liberals-appease-islam-nick-cohen-the-left
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    I see that the Conservatives have effectively written off next May´s election, and are already
    preparing for a second election next year.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/tories-contingency-funds-second-poll-general-election

    The Guardian repeats the story about the 78,000,000 pounds, and the more than useful contributions from the Hedge Funds. So it must be true, mustn´t it?

    Especially since the original source was the Conservative Party itself, via the Electorlal Commission.

    The underlyiing question is, really, whether certain groups of people should be able to "buy" elections in this way.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    When are we going to get a thread that dwells on and analyses the fact that Nick Clegg is the only leader in the -40 leader dissatiscation club?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Farage getting closer to the rest of the party leaders? It's his worst nightmare!

    I am genuinely and continually astonished at how Cameron is not rated at similar levels to Clegg and Miliband. Right from the start he has had very vocal detractors in his party, he's been unable to fight UKIP effectively and even lost two MPs to them, but his satisfied figures are comparatively decent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited December 2014
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    When are we going to get a thread that dwells on and analyses the fact that Nick Clegg is the only leader in the -40 leader dissatiscation club?

    If memory serves there have been several threads dwelling on why aren't the LDs panicking more/engaging in leadership challenges, with that as (or his being the worse anyway) being a factor in that debate.

    Regardless, his have been there or there abouts for years, it's not interesting. Farage's declining for whatever reason, while still being better than the others, is noteworthy. It cannot be down to more exposure, he's had plenty of that before, so I presume it has to be some of the negative stories about UKIP sticking to him lately, but they've been more one offs than sustaining I think.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    PClipp said:

    The Guardian repeats the story about the 78,000,000 pounds, and the more than useful contributions from the Hedge Funds. So it must be true, mustn´t it?

    It's certainly not obvious from the Electoral Commission website that the Guardian haven't made up the story about Hedge Funds. See for example Table 4 here:

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/178556/Q3-2014-donations-and-loans-Summary-document.pdf

    Maybe by 'Hedge fund' they mean anyone other than Trade Unions?
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    kle4 said:

    Farage getting closer to the rest of the party leaders? It's his worst nightmare!

    I am genuinely and continually astonished at how Cameron is not rated at similar levels to Clegg and Miliband. Right from the start he has had very vocal detractors in his party, he's been unable to fight UKIP effectively and even lost two MPs to them, but his satisfied figures are comparatively decent.

    Almost universal support amongst Conservative voters pushes his score right up. Excluding Conservative voters it's 19% satisifed, 75% dissatisfied and 7% don't know. I think that's true of his leadership ratings with YouGov as well.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Artist said:

    kle4 said:

    Farage getting closer to the rest of the party leaders? It's his worst nightmare!

    I am genuinely and continually astonished at how Cameron is not rated at similar levels to Clegg and Miliband. Right from the start he has had very vocal detractors in his party, he's been unable to fight UKIP effectively and even lost two MPs to them, but his satisfied figures are comparatively decent.

    Almost universal support amongst Conservative voters pushes his score right up. Excluding Conservative voters it's 19% satisifed, 75% dissatisfied and 7% don't know. I think that's true of his leadership ratings with YouGov as well.
    Sure, but it's the near universal support among Conservatives that I find baffling, given how prevalent the idea of him being despised by the Tory right is. I can understand them all still saying they will vote for him - those who haven't left already that is - but being satisfied by him?
  • Steven_WhaleySteven_Whaley Posts: 313
    Satisfaction figures are a useful measurement of satisfaction. Dissatisfaction figures are a useful measurement of dissatisfaction . I can't for the life of me see what netting the two figures measures though. Sure - it creates a new number but it doesn't measure anything.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    MikeL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Mark Senior might prefer to ignore the significance of today's IpsosMORI poll, but for The Daily Telegraph online, it's their front page lead story:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11301993/Tories-pull-into-4-point-lead-over-Labour.html

    I would urge caution. Take ICM and MORI together and they average a Lab lead of 1% - very similar to what YouGov is showing on a daily basis.

    There is no reason to believe MORI more than ICM or indeed anyone else.

    I think the best news for Con today is the Ashcroft marginal results - 3% swing, equal to a 1% Con lead. Pretty much bang in line with what Kellner is expecting - Con outperforming UNS in the marginals.
    Fair and interesting points. But is it right to average different polls? Polls with (possibly?) different methodologies?
    3 or4 % tory lead is good and labour so low is good - for Tories. But with the polls as they are isn't what matter more than ever what the centre or swing voters think. These are people that are not likely to be terribly committed to any party. But they may well vote against something. And they are not likely to want to vote in a way which will favour extremists.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    kle4 said:


    I am genuinely and continually astonished at how Cameron is not rated at similar levels to Clegg and Miliband. Right from the start he has had very vocal detractors in his party, he's been unable to fight UKIP effectively and even lost two MPs to them, but his satisfied figures are comparatively decent.

    I think a major reason is he scores very highly on stuff nobody on here cares about - non-political stuff, ie stuff nothing to do with policies.

    ie. He looks, walks and talks in a very leader-like way - he gives an outstanding impression.

    I can't remember the exact number but isn't it said that only about 10% or 20% of the impression given in an interview is based on what you actually say.

    Well it's the same when people assess a PM.

    Of course people on here don't see it that way because they are very interested in detailed policies and all the minutiae.

    In contrast most of the public just see the leaders on TV very briefly and form an overall, general impression.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903
    Is it really plausible that North Korea (where they struggle to keep the lights on at night), is able to totally outwit Sony (who may have robots that are brighter than I am)?

    Is it possible (I'm assuming that your answer above was no by the way) that North Korea had the money to pay people who could outwit Sony in such a way?

    Well, maybe yes. But what would they pay? Unless you're a mad bad haircut fan it's hardly likely that the incentive would really be there - surely you'd just sell your story - no risk of prison, celebrity, money..

    On balance I think something's wrong with this story.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited December 2014
    Omnium said:

    Is it really plausible that North Korea (where they struggle to keep the lights on at night), is able to totally outwit Sony (who may have robots that are brighter than I am)?

    Is it possible (I'm assuming that your answer above was no by the way) that North Korea had the money to pay people who could outwit Sony in such a way?

    Well, maybe yes. But what would they pay? Unless you're a mad bad haircut fan it's hardly likely that the incentive would really be there - surely you'd just sell your story - no risk of prison, celebrity, money..

    On balance I think something's wrong with this story.

    Well I suppose someone could just have hacked Sony, people wondered if it was NK given the upcoming film which NK had predictably made a hyperbolic statement about, and the hackers ran with that idea as good cover/laughs.

    That being said, having the resources and drive to have a small force of good hackers is probably easier than trying to keep the lights on nationwide in a failed state, so the nation being a basket case need not preclude them from having the capability.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited December 2014
    Omnium said:

    Is it really plausible that North Korea (where they struggle to keep the lights on at night), is able to totally outwit Sony (who may have robots that are brighter than I am)?

    Is it possible (I'm assuming that your answer above was no by the way) that North Korea had the money to pay people who could outwit Sony in such a way?

    Well, maybe yes. But what would they pay? Unless you're a mad bad haircut fan it's hardly likely that the incentive would really be there - surely you'd just sell your story - no risk of prison, celebrity, money..

    On balance I think something's wrong with this story.

    I don't know.

    Second things first...

    It is known there is a small-ish group of people behind the vast majority of hack, virus sdk's, and providing other tools for "cyberware". Most are guns for hire.

    The biggest botnet out there actually had a booking system, where you could book time and get access to 1000's of pc's to do what you wished with, akin to the old booking time on the mainframe.

    But also you seem to think that Sony will have top notch security. That is absolutely not a given at all. They have been attacked and hacked before. In 2011, somebody took down the entire Playstation network and stole personal details of 77 million accounts.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Omnium said:

    Is it really plausible that North Korea (where they struggle to keep the lights on at night), is able to totally outwit Sony (who may have robots that are brighter than I am)?

    Is it possible (I'm assuming that your answer above was no by the way) that North Korea had the money to pay people who could outwit Sony in such a way?

    Well, maybe yes. But what would they pay? Unless you're a mad bad haircut fan it's hardly likely that the incentive would really be there - surely you'd just sell your story - no risk of prison, celebrity, money..

    On balance I think something's wrong with this story.

    Haven't they exploded atom bombs and fired long range missiles?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    PClipp said:

    I see that the Conservatives have effectively written off next May´s election, and are already
    preparing for a second election next year.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/tories-contingency-funds-second-poll-general-election

    The Guardian repeats the story about the 78,000,000 pounds, and the more than useful contributions from the Hedge Funds. So it must be true, mustn´t it?

    Especially since the original source was the Conservative Party itself, via the Electorlal Commission.

    The underlyiing question is, really, whether certain groups of people should be able to "buy" elections in this way.

    No, it restates the total funding of £78m over 4 years: not the same as the electoral warchest.

    And the "hedge fund" classification relates to the business activities of the individual donors. I suspect that very few hedge funds donate *as an institution*. The partners are, of course, at liberty to spend their after tax income as they see fit
This discussion has been closed.