Have you any realisation of how unpleasant it is to try and use a personal tragedy as a health worker infected with Ebola to make a spurious political point.
As it happens, you are probably not aware that the Scottish health service pays for this treatment just as another European state would pay for similar treatment and indeed the English health service boards pay for various specialist treatments in Scotland.
All of this co-operation does not mean that the two independent health services have to be merged just sensible arrangements, a touch of commonsense and a trace of humanity.
Any political point is at the back of my mind: my major thought is with the patient and her recovery, as mentioned below.
Having said that, there are questions for proponents of Scottish independence to answer. Yes, the Scottish NHS may pay for the treatment. But if Scotland was independent, there would be no reason for the English NHS to automatically take Scottish patients. Would we expect France to automatically take English Ebola patients without good reason? If so, how many?
JJ - this is now and that (independence) would be then. Somehow the two have got confused. Independence would take about 2-3 years from a Yes, giving the Scots a chance to build a service that if they built one now would only lead to accusations of extravagance, however much (in my opinion) it is needed even now. You're in danger of falling into the old Unionist trap of assuming that what doesn't exist now wouldn't exist in an independent Scotland. You're normally much more sensible than that.*
In any case, specialist medical care is already routinely bought across the national border: I know a person in Northumberland who had heart ops in the Borders General and Edinburgh.
*BTW, have you seen Peter Lewis's book on Dickens and the Staplehurst derailment? I can't see a copy for sale anywhere and wonder if it is worth putting a request on Abebooks, after liking his other work e.g. on the Tay Bridge.
If you look at my post earlier in the thread, I said: "f this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence", so I more or less had that covered. I can understand why it got lost in the rather heated discussion that followed.
The point is that taking an Ebola patient, or several, might be politically a hot potato in England. The English NHS might be under no obligation to do so, whereas, as part of the same country, there is an obligation. I'd like to think we would.
I haven't read that book, thanks. I suppose it goes into how the crash effected his later writing?
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Yeah ok
You up for another £50 on the same bet?
ok
You up for any more? Up to £50 good for me.
Ok £50
Thanks:
just to confirm (may have missed nuances as only scanning):
I win if the LibDems have >4x as many seats as UKIP after GE2015
(i.e. you win at UKIP 5, LibDem 20; I win at UKIP 5, LibDem 21. Evens. £50.)
No the political point was at the front of your mind and it does you little credit.
As it happens the Scottish authorities dealt with the Ebola case in textbook fashion - moved quickly with secure ambulance into the isolation unit at Gartnavel. There was then a refreshing total transparancy from the First Minister and the Chief Medical Officer at an open press conference. This had the impact of calming everyone down except the Daily Mail!
It would not as it happens require a great deal to upgrade Gartnavel into a full Ebola unit - it is already more secure than facilities in Spain for example. There will almost certainly be contingency planning to do just that in the event of the few beds in London being full up. I know that the staff training has already been planned for.
However, the Brownlee unit at Gartnavel it is there for dealing with other rare and often tropical diseases and therefore it would not make any sense not to use the London facility when it is empty.
Luckily we have a First Minister in Scotland who puts the welfare of patients and commonsense before making a political point. It is one of the things that people like about the current administration in Scotland.
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Yeah ok
You up for another £50 on the same bet?
ok
You up for any more? Up to £50 good for me.
Ok £50
Thanks:
just to confirm (may have missed nuances as only scanning):
I win if the LibDems have >4x as many seats as UKIP after GE2015
(i.e. you win at UKIP 5, LibDem 20; I win at UKIP 5, LibDem 21. Evens. £50.)
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
Want to bet?
IMO William hills "1 or 2 UKIP MP's" @5/1 is a reasonable bet. If you want to lay me at 9/1, i'll take it
I don't want to but I think 3-4 is much better bet at bigger odds.. We have had this haven't we? Evs and void if not in range?
I don't think we've got an outstanding bet on that - unless my memory is playing up? Please do clarify if I am indeed mistaken.
Anyway, there's probably a bit of value in both of those WH bets - taking both would give 2.4/1 on UKIP having 1-4 MPs
The key to making money on political betting in the long run is betting as much as possible where there is the greatest value. Even 2.4/1 on (probably) an evens shot, 4 months away doesn't tempt me to invest my limited bankroll.
There are a couple of decent longshot bets out there which are fantastic value. None of them involve ukip
No the political point was at the front of your mind and it does you little credit.
As it happens the Scottish authorities dealt with the Ebola case in textbook fashion - moved quickly with secure ambulance into the isolation unit at Gartnavel. There was then a refreshing total transparancy from the First Minister and the Chief Medical Officer at an open press conference. This had the impact of calming everyone down except the Daily Mail!
It would not as it happens require a great deal to upgrade Gartnavel into a full Ebola unit - it is already more secure than facilities in Spain for example. There will almost certainly be contingency planning to do just that in the event of the few beds in London being full up. I know that the staff training has already been planned for.
However, the Brownlee unit at Gartnavel it is there for dealing with other rare and often tropical diseases and therefore it would not make any sense not to use the London facility when it is empty.
Luckily we have a First Minister in Scotland who puts the welfare of patients and commonsense before making a political point. It is one of the things that people like about the current administration in Scotland.
Thanks for telling me what was at the front of my own mind!
I have no doubt that Scotland could deal with such cases with preparation, but at the moment the unit in London is dealing with it after the immediate care she got in Glasgow. And it is not just a case of facilities; it is also knowledgeable staff.
In your justified praise for Scotland, I see you neglect to mention that Nicola Sturgeon attended a COBRA meeting this morning. The UK working together!
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Good to see that Merfyn King is now stating that the last Labour government was not to blame for the great recession.I wonder why he didn't say that sooner.Still he has added his expert view at last.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Is tim banned?
I thought he'd just gone away.
No, you were right. He flounced, He dished it out but couldn't take it.
Good to see that Merfyn King is now stating that the last Labour government was not to blame for the great recession.I wonder why he didn't say that sooner.Still he has added his expert view at last.
LOL. What a surprise. The man appointed by the Labour PM and Chancellor and who was jointly responsible with them for the mess they made of the economy and the crisis of 2008 claims it was non of their faults. Utter garbage.
The point you were trying to make was a perfectly obvious and unpleasant one.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
The atmosphere is poisonous on here so I am off, anything would be better.
Ah, Malcolm's a sensitive chap, never offers a hint of criticism of other posters. I understand that Swiss finishing schools teach their young ladies etiquette by having them study his posts.
Well, would you actually favour walking off the job of a half-finished school? Any sensible programme in any field finishes off previously-committed projects before closing down. But it's felt that India is no longer a priority for new money compared with poorer countries.
That's perfectly reasonable and common sense as far as the projects are concerned, of course.
I was actually responding to your politician's answer and not about the aid itself. You started off with a complete untruth ("zero") as a debating trick to disorient the questioner - followed by a complete contradiction that included the actual answer. Tut tut.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
In total there are have been polls in 127 constituencies 1/5th of the total, of them 72 are Tory seats, 38 are LD, 16 LAB and one Green seat. Of them the Tories lose 42 and gain 9, Labour gain 49, LD lose 18, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP 1. The average voting movements (my preferred measure, all figures are rounded to the closest half percentage point) is since 2010: CON -8, LAB +4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5, GRN +3 , which results in the LD on the high end of the national polls and the Tories on the low end.
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In Tory seats London swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 8% East England swing to LAB 5.5% , to UKIP 16.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 10.5% SE swing to LAB 5.5%, to UKIP 15% , to LD 1.5% (yeap no typo) SW swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% E. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% W. Midlands swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 5%, to UKIP 13% Wales swing to LAB 4%, to UKIP 9.5%
In Labour seats Yorkshire swing to UKIP 10% W. Midlands swing to UKIP 7.5% NW.England swing to UKIP 6.5%
In LD seats London swing to LAB 9.5%, to CON 2.5%, to UKIP 10.5% East England swing to LAB 9.5% , to CON 3%, to UKIP 10.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 14.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14.5% SE swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 12% SW swing to LAB 10.5%, to CON 4% , to UKIP 15% W. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to CON 2%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 11.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14% Wales swing to LAB 11%, to CON 4.5%, to UKIP 13.5%
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
Good to see that Merfyn King is now stating that the last Labour government was not to blame for the great recession.I wonder why he didn't say that sooner.Still he has added his expert view at last.
LOL. What a surprise. The man appointed by the Labour PM and Chancellor and who was jointly responsible with them for the mess they made of the economy and the crisis of 2008 claims it was non of their faults. Utter garbage.
Does anyone know when Cameron first used the phrase "fix the roof while the sun is shining" or equivalent thereof? I can find it mentioned by Osborne in Hansard back in March 2008 near the beginning of the financial crisis, but was it used earlier?
The point you were trying to make was a perfectly obvious and unpleasant one.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
Here endeth the party political broadcast for the SNP!
The point you were trying to make was a perfectly obvious and unpleasant one.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
Here endeth the party political broadcast for the SNP!
The point you were trying to make was a perfectly obvious and unpleasant one.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
Here endeth the party political broadcast for the SNP!
Don't scoff! We should feel honoured to have the MSP for Glasgow Southside posting on here.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
Want to bet?
That is not what I wrote; there's a trivially obvious difference between discrete and aggregate outcomes.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
Want to bet?
IMO William hills "1 or 2 UKIP MP's" @5/1 is a reasonable bet. If you want to lay me at 9/1, i'll take it
I don't want to but I think 3-4 is much better bet at bigger odds.. We have had this haven't we? Evs and void if not in range?
I don't think we've got an outstanding bet on that - unless my memory is playing up? Please do clarify if I am indeed mistaken.
Anyway, there's probably a bit of value in both of those WH bets - taking both would give 2.4/1 on UKIP having 1-4 MPs
The key to making money on political betting in the long run is betting as much as possible where there is the greatest value. Even 2.4/1 on (probably) an evens shot, 4 months away doesn't tempt me to invest my limited bankroll.
There are a couple of decent longshot bets out there which are fantastic value. None of them involve ukip
Oh good luck! It might be tissue price I have that bet with then
I thought that was the point of all betting? How is political betting different????
These even money £50 bets are just a bit of fun, prob little or no edge... But even as a disciplined gambling industry person I still love the thrill of a punt !
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
In total there are have been polls in 127 constituencies 1/5th of the total, of them 72 are Tory seats, 38 are LD, 16 LAB and one Green seat. Of them the Tories lose 42 and gain 9, Labour gain 49, LD lose 18, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP 1. The average voting movements (my preferred measure, all figures are rounded to the closest half percentage point) is since 2010: CON -8, LAB +4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5, GRN +3 , which results in the LD on the high end of the national polls and the Tories on the low end.
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In Tory seats London swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 8% East England swing to LAB 5.5% , to UKIP 16.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 10.5% SE swing to LAB 5.5%, to UKIP 15% , to LD 1.5% (yeap no typo) SW swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% E. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% W. Midlands swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 5%, to UKIP 13% Wales swing to LAB 4%, to UKIP 9.5%
In Labour seats Yorkshire swing to UKIP 10% W. Midlands swing to UKIP 7.5% NW.England swing to UKIP 6.5%
In LD seats London swing to LAB 9.5%, to CON 2.5%, to UKIP 10.5% East England swing to LAB 9.5% , to CON 3%, to UKIP 10.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 14.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14.5% SE swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 12% SW swing to LAB 10.5%, to CON 4% , to UKIP 15% W. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to CON 2%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 11.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14% Wales swing to LAB 11%, to CON 4.5%, to UKIP 13.5%
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
The point you were trying to make was a perfectly obvious and unpleasant one.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
I'm shocked at the news of a flue pandemic.
Did all their plans go up in smoke? Or hope just drain away?
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Whatever
You are no value to the site, your only gambling advice was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike (Tories 3/1 value Rochester) and so I muck about in response to your nonsense, oh the shame
JJ - this is now and that (independence) would be then. Somehow the two have got confused. Independence would take about 2-3 years from a Yes, giving the Scots a chance to build a service that if they built one now would only lead to accusations of extravagance, however much (in my opinion) it is needed even now. You're in danger of falling into the old Unionist trap of assuming that what doesn't exist now wouldn't exist in an independent Scotland. You're normally much more sensible than that.*
In any case, specialist medical care is already routinely bought across the national border: I know a person in Northumberland who had heart ops in the Borders General and Edinburgh.
*BTW, have you seen Peter Lewis's book on Dickens and the Staplehurst derailment? I can't see a copy for sale anywhere and wonder if it is worth putting a request on Abebooks, after liking his other work e.g. on the Tay Bridge.
If you look at my post earlier in the thread, I said: "f this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence", so I more or less had that covered. I can understand why it got lost in the rather heated discussion that followed.
The point is that taking an Ebola patient, or several, might be politically a hot potato in England. The English NHS might be under no obligation to do so, whereas, as part of the same country, there is an obligation. I'd like to think we would.
I haven't read that book, thanks. I suppose it goes into how the crash effected his later writing?
Re the Dickens book, I suppose it ought to, but I can't say, not having read it. Lewis probably gives the civil engineering side more emphasis. But he will probably go into how Dickens was a case of railway spine or whatever they called PTSD in those days!
I was a bit surprised to find it had sold out even at the publisher, as it is a recent book, but perhaps the Dickens + mistress film had something to do with it.
Greece has the cash to pay back the 4.5 billion euros to the IMF in March, they wont have any problem until some bonds held by the ECB totaling around 10 billion euros have to be payed back in June, after that it's petty cash of around 5-7 billion a year until 2022 when it jumps again. Essentially the crunch time is June when either Greece will default to the ECB, or the EU (Germany) finds a way around it (lets say have the ECB pay the money to itself).
Greece has the cash to pay back the 4.5 billion euros to the IMF in March, they wont have any problem until some bonds held by the ECB totaling around 10 billion euros have to be payed back in June, after that it's petty cash of around 5-7 billion a year until 2022 when it jumps again. Essentially the crunch time is June when either Greece will default to the ECB, or the EU (Germany) finds a way around it (lets say have the ECB pay the money to itself).
That's right, although, as I've said several times, a deal between the troika and Greece is coming in early 2015, and the only question is who is on the Athens side of the table.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
In total there are have been polls in 127 constituencies 1/5th of the total, of them 72 are Tory seats, 38 are LD, 16 LAB and one Green seat. Of them the Tories lose 42 and gain 9, Labour gain 49, LD lose 18, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP 1. The average voting movements (my preferred measure, all figures are rounded to the closest half percentage point) is since 2010: CON -8, LAB +4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5, GRN +3 , which results in the LD on the high end of the national polls and the Tories on the low end.
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In Tory seats London swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 8% East England swing to LAB 5.5% , to UKIP 16.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 10.5% SE swing to LAB 5.5%, to UKIP 15% , to LD 1.5% (yeap no typo) SW swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% E. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5% W. Midlands swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 5%, to UKIP 13% Wales swing to LAB 4%, to UKIP 9.5%
In Labour seats Yorkshire swing to UKIP 10% W. Midlands swing to UKIP 7.5% NW.England swing to UKIP 6.5%
In LD seats London swing to LAB 9.5%, to CON 2.5%, to UKIP 10.5% East England swing to LAB 9.5% , to CON 3%, to UKIP 10.5% Yorkshire swing to LAB 14.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14.5% SE swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 12% SW swing to LAB 10.5%, to CON 4% , to UKIP 15% W. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to CON 2%, to UKIP 13% NW.England swing to LAB 11.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14% Wales swing to LAB 11%, to CON 4.5%, to UKIP 13.5%
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
I've just realised that the collapse in oil prices means that fracking will be a non-issue at GE 2015.
It also means tap will have to find something else to obsess about.
The crash in the price is clearly a secret plan by the lizards to distract attention while they get on and frack out of the public eye... helped, of course, by their ownership of the media...
I've just realised that the collapse in oil prices means that fracking will be a non-issue at GE 2015.
It also means tap will have to find something else to obsess about.
He's now getting worked up over a one man band masquerading as an international child abuse investigation body. Even hard core tinfoil hatters find the whole thing a bit weird.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Is tim banned?
I thought he'd just gone away.
No, you were right. He flounced, He dished it out but couldn't take it.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Is tim banned?
I thought he'd just gone away.
No, you were right. He flounced, He dished it out but couldn't take it.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Lefties in fantasy land! Your party will be closer to 25% than 30% come 7th May and Ed Bland will make Michael Foot look like a titan of British politics.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Is tim banned?
I thought he'd just gone away.
No, you were right. He flounced, He dished it out but couldn't take it.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Lefties in fantasy land! Your party will be closer to 25% than 30% come 7th May and Ed Bland will make Michael Foot look like a titan of British politics.
There's no way they drop that far just because Ed M is uninspiring, the hatred of the Tories is too deep and too real in many areas, regardless of whether that is in any way fair given the various policies being offered, for them to fall so low. Heck, a lot of people genuinely seem to think Tory austerity is an evil that is worth any price to prevent, even if Labour austerity will not feel appreciably different to those who feel the effects, as just one example.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Lefties in fantasy land! Your party will be closer to 25% than 30% come 7th May and Ed Bland will make Michael Foot look like a titan of British politics.
There's no way they drop that far just because Ed M is uninspiring, the hatred of the Tories is too deep and too real in many areas, regardless of whether that is in any way fair given the various policies being offered, for them to fall so low. Heck, a lot of people genuinely seem to think Tory austerity is an evil that is worth any price to prevent, even if Labour austerity will not feel appreciably different to those who feel the effects, as just one example.
Labour polled 24% in the European elections this year. Just saying.
@TheWatcher Yes, he stood as Labour, but kept on with the moronic economic policies of Thatcher. A country that doesn't make much, is a country looking at permanent debt. Still, house prices make you all feel better, and you can blame the rest on whatever whipping boy your fancy takes. As the old saying goes, "you can fool a Tory all of the time"
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Lefties in fantasy land! Your party will be closer to 25% than 30% come 7th May and Ed Bland will make Michael Foot look like a titan of British politics.
There's no way they drop that far just because Ed M is uninspiring, the hatred of the Tories is too deep and too real in many areas, regardless of whether that is in any way fair given the various policies being offered, for them to fall so low. Heck, a lot of people genuinely seem to think Tory austerity is an evil that is worth any price to prevent, even if Labour austerity will not feel appreciably different to those who feel the effects, as just one example.
Labour polled 24% in the European elections this year. Just saying.
What pisses me off Blair is not so much his economic policies - after all Gordon looked after that. The 1997 - 2001 government was progressive. Minmum wage , Surestart etc.
It was the warmongering in the second term when he came out as the Tory that he is.
I think Labour would have struggled if they had taken the New Labour route during this government's term. Even as they've tacked left people have accused Labour of not being radical enough and too similar to the Tories. To have offered a similar agenda to the Tories in this election could have been disastrous for Labour.
The votes to be won were mainly on the left and it is the Greens increasing fivefold and the SNP's big jump in Scotland that has seen Labour dragged under majority territory but still in with a decent shout of being the largest party.
Labour will almost certainly go back down the New Labour route if they are in opposiiton after May.
@TheWatcher Yes, he stood as Labour, but kept on with the moronic economic policies of Thatcher. A country that doesn't make much, is a country looking at permanent debt. Still, house prices make you all feel better, and you can blame the rest on whatever whipping boy your fancy takes. As the old saying goes, "you can fool a Tory all of the time"
The New Labour governments largely maintained Thatcher's "monetary" policies, but spending policies were very different. I saw Liverpool get transformed by the money they poured into it. Admittedly that might have been more to do with Gordon since Blair has been busily disowning everything vaguely good about that government in recent years.
Even though some PBers seem to think I'm the ultimate in loony leftism, I was actually quite happy with the last Labour government -- I've never really been too bothered about whether there's widespread nationalisations or whatever, I don't really care about the means of getting somewhere as long as the end results are "left-wing" outcomes that help the poorest (which imo the Labour govt achieved through high government spending). But what's really pissing me off now about Labour, and why I think Miliballs' stance is more right-wing than Labour's platforms in 1997/2001/2005, is that they're essentially saying we have to now give up on the ends as well as the means: they're not even defending the concept of government spending like Blair and Brown did, and they're not proposing regulation of businesses in any meaningful way either (apart from a few tokenistic sops like the energy price freeeze). However much they sucked up to "Middle England", Blair and Brown still ALWAYS held out atleast some rewards for the poorest people, which is why they were so much more successful at keeping "core Labour voters" onboard (atleast until 2005) than Miliband currently is.
@Danny565 Money wasn't lost during the economic crash, people suddenly realised it wasn't there to begin with. The kings have no clothes the world over, but no one wants to admit it.
@Artist You are probably right, but the illusion of wealth is not the same as the real thing.
Very true, especially as I am this moment reading about Jim Murphy and his new special offer of SLAB membership for £1. Provoking much discussion amongst the pro-indy side as to whether they all perhaps ought to join to make sure the party returns to its Hardieite roots!
Even though some PBers seem to think I'm the ultimate in loony leftism, I was actually quite happy with the last Labour government -- I've never really been too bothered about whether there's widespread nationalisations or whatever, I don't really care about the means of getting somewhere as long as the end results are "left-wing" outcomes that help the poorest (which imo the Labour govt achieved through high government spending). But what's really pissing me off now about Labour, and why I think Miliballs' stance is more right-wing than Labour's platforms in 1997/2001/2005, is that they're essentially saying we have to now give up on the ends as well as the means: they're not even defending the concept of government spending like Blair and Brown did, and they're not proposing regulation of businesses in any meaningful way either (apart from a few tokenistic sops like the energy price freeeze). However much they sucked up to "Middle England", Blair and Brown still ALWAYS held out atleast some rewards for the poorest people, which is why they were so much more successful at keeping "core Labour voters" onboard (atleast until 2005) than Miliband currently is.
Yeah, well that was because money was pouring into the coffers, thanks to the success of the City in benign international economic conditions, at a rate never seen before and not likely to be seen again anytime soon (and certainly not if Ed Miliband is PM).
Any fool, even Gordon Brown, can spend money. I've never understood why Labour supporters think this is some kind of achievement. The question should be - did they spend it wisely, and get value for taxpayers' money? For some bizarre reason it's a question which the Left never, ever, ask. In fact they seem to think it is somehow unseemly or immoral to ask it.
@Richard_Nabavi In pure economic terms, the "money" was never there to spend wisely or waste. The Right can't grasp the concept either, so stop lobbing bricks from your glass house.
@Richard_Nabavi In pure economic terms, the "money" was never there to spend wisely or waste. The Right can't grasp the concept either, so stop lobbing bricks from your glass house.
If it wasn't there, then the irresponsibility was even worse. They should have fixed the roof while the sun shone, eh?
Danny says --- ''I was actually quite happy with the last Labour government ''. Condemned from your own mouth. A government that had got spending under control was replaced by one which let spending rip, wasted windfall revenues, destroyed private pensions, failed to reform public pensions the public services health education and welfare, politicised the police, ignored phone hacking, neutered the BoE, ripped up banking regulation, became an open door for the accession countries, parked the ill educated malingerers on bogus benefits, gave away our rebate, failed to give a referendum on Lisbon and signed it in shame, gave the green light to banking mayhem and sleepwalked us unprepared into the biggest recession since the Jarrow march.
I have finished moving all constituency polls (all 127 seats) into regional categories and per party incumbency, the results are revealing and also confirming most suspicions, although in 2 regions (N.England & Scotland) there are too few polls to make a judgement (so I wont post those).
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I have been writing about the Tories' serious situation in the SE, SW and East England while Sean T bleats about Labour's "loss of a generation" in Scotland. They lose far more here than Labour potentially loses in Scotland [ half a loss really as SNP is the gainer ]. Labour has always won England except 2005 when they won an election. Labour will also win seats in 2015 in England.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Lefties in fantasy land! Your party will be closer to 25% than 30% come 7th May and Ed Bland will make Michael Foot look like a titan of British politics.
There's no way they drop that far just because Ed M is uninspiring, the hatred of the Tories is too deep and too real in many areas, regardless of whether that is in any way fair given the various policies being offered, for them to fall so low. Heck, a lot of people genuinely seem to think Tory austerity is an evil that is worth any price to prevent, even if Labour austerity will not feel appreciably different to those who feel the effects, as just one example.
Labour polled 24% in the European elections this year. Just saying.
Yup. 9% more than 2009 !
When in Govt. and subject to protest votes in an election which everyone knows is meaningless.
If you look at my post earlier in the thread, I said: "f this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence", so I more or less had that covered. I can understand why it got lost in the rather heated discussion that followed.
The point is that taking an Ebola patient, or several, might be politically a hot potato in England. The English NHS might be under no obligation to do so, whereas, as part of the same country, there is an obligation. I'd like to think we would.
I haven't read that book, thanks. I suppose it goes into how the crash effected his later writing?
The English and Scottish health services are separate entities that are funded and controlled completely separately. There are numerous reciprocal agreements between them for the provision and funding of specialist care like transplant and cardiac/neuro surgery. Such like there is a europewide agreement on Ebola treatment(thus the transfer of plasma), Scottish inependence would not have affected those agreements (see for instance the letter of complaint from the Great Ormond Street Hospital about a particularly misleading anti independence ad).
Any fool, even Gordon Brown, can spend money. I've never understood why Labour supporters think this is some kind of achievement. The question should be - did they spend it wisely, and get value for taxpayers' money? For some bizarre reason it's a question which the Left never, ever, ask. In fact they seem to think it is somehow unseemly or immoral to ask it.
There was certainly value in northerners actually getting given jobs and decent(ish) living standards and a halfway-decent environs, unlike in the previous 18 years of the Tories. Believe it or not, some people think politics is about more than just making numbers on a spreadsheet look tidy.
It's the joy of capitalism, everyone pretends the money is there, and then they use the pretend money to make more. A brilliant system until people start to notice. Happily for you, there is a Chancellor that is blind to this basic fact. (in fact....dozens of them the world over)
Labour seems to have by and large accepted that their spending plans and cuts are going to be broadly in line with those of a Conservative Govt./Conservative led Coalition. They now have three months to convince the voters that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls - a pair integral in fecking the economy in the first place - will better implement that policy than Cameron and Osborne, who have overseen top of the league performances.
Those of the Magic Money Tree Tendency who don't agree that spending plans need to be largely similar to the Tories are already leaving to the Greens and/or the SNP in Scotland. The difference in polling between Cameron/Osborne and Miliband/Balls will shake out the rest by early May.
The British public have a choice - sack Mourinho and replace with Nigel Pearson. or stay with a winning set up.
Cameron is the Special One. Miliband the Special Needs.
There was certainly value in scousers actually getting given jobs and decent(ish) living standards and a halfway-decent environs, unlike in the previous 18 years of the Tories. Believe it or not, some people think politics is about more than just making numbers on a spreadsheet look tidy.
Sure, with such massive amounts of spending, you'd expect some of it to have some benefit. Yet those Scousers were left in 2010 in hardly a better (and certainly a worse relative) position than in 1997. The remarkable thing is how little Labour achieved for disadvantaged areas, given the humoungous spending.
In any case you are making a ludicrous assumption - that a Tory government, in such hugely benign economic conditions (benign thanks largely to the Thatcher inheritance, BTW), wouldn't also have been able to improve living standards and environs. You're right of course that jobs are a key part of that - so why on earth do you not give credit to this government for creating so many jobs, in the most adverse world economic conditions since at least the 1930s?
Any fool, even Gordon Brown, can spend money. I've never understood why Labour supporters think this is some kind of achievement. The question should be - did they spend it wisely, and get value for taxpayers' money? For some bizarre reason it's a question which the Left never, ever, ask. In fact they seem to think it is somehow unseemly or immoral to ask it.
There was certainly value in northerners actually getting given jobs and decent(ish) living standards and a halfway-decent environs, unlike in the previous 18 years of the Tories. Believe it or not, some people think politics is about more than just making numbers on a spreadsheet look tidy.
@Richard_Nabavi Jobs are being created, but the GDP per head is still low. This points to something being a tad odd. Isn't George's new robe absolutely wonderful?
What pisses me off Blair is not so much his economic policies - after all Gordon looked after that. The 1997 - 2001 government was progressive. Minmum wage , Surestart etc.
It was the warmongering in the second term when he came out as the Tory that he is.
Which part of warmongering is terrorists supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan attacking US cities? Or Saddam breaking the Gulf War ceasefire? Responding to that is not warmongering. Blair is many things - all of them I despise - but he is not the German High Command in 1914.
What you highlight is the socialist surrender monkey pacifist strip labelled 'peacenik' that runs the the middle of every stick spendthrift incompetent Labour Rock.
But I'm expecting to see YouGov and Populus on Monday, and Lord Ashcroft the following Monday.
And then we'll be back to normal.
I expect we're going to see more polling than we can handle between now and May.
I've just responded to an Opinium survey with deadline Jan 2 "or as soon as we fulfil our qoutas" or words to that effect.
Yes, we'll probably be seeing about 10 polls a week. Shall we all agree that it takes TWO (or even THREE) poll movements in the same direction before any of us get excited, and we all laugh derisively at anyone who breaks the rule?
@Richard_Nabavi Jobs are being created, but the GDP per head is still low. This points to something being a tad odd. Isn't George's new robe absolutely wonderful?
It points to the benefits being more widely spread than before, rather than having a huge number of unemployed people with all the attendant problems of self-esteem, mental health, physical health, life chances and general well-being.
In any case you are making a ludicrous assumption - that a Tory government, in such hugely benign economic conditions (benign thanks largely to the Thatcher inheritance, BTW), wouldn't also have been able to improve living standards and environs. You're right of course that jobs are a key part of that - so why on earth do you not give credit to this government for creating so many jobs, in the most adverse world economic conditions since at least the 1930s?
Then why weren't living standards improved in the north during Thatcher's time when the GDP stats were (at times) good? Why aren't living standards improving now when the GDP stats are good?
No matter how good the tractor stats are, it still takes a government to choose to actively try and make things better for it to filter down below the super-rich, even if that comes at the cost of a messier balance sheet or upsetting random traders on a Shanghai stock exchange.
Then why weren't living standards improved in the north during Thatcher's time when the GDP stats were (at times) good? Why aren't living standards improving now when the GDP stats are good?.
Perhaps because, as in every other country in Europe and North America, without a single exception, traditional industries which were the mainstay of the economy of many northern cities, were declining over that period.
You have thought of this possibility, I suppose? Or do you not know that, for example, the economy of the Pas de Calais also declined during this period?
@Richard_Nabavi That's the job where the government pays firms to hire on extra people so the said firm has more money to invest overseas. Don't try to plead ignorance when you have already stated on these very pages that it is what you are doing with your "portfolio"
That's the job where the government pays firms to hire on extra people so the said firm has more money to invest overseas.
How does that work, exactly? I understand how the Labour scam works - the government pays people directly or via quangos to do non-jobs - but I've never heard of what you're suggesting. Can you give an example?
But I'm expecting to see YouGov and Populus on Monday, and Lord Ashcroft the following Monday.
And then we'll be back to normal.
I expect we're going to see more polling than we can handle between now and May.
I've just responded to an Opinium survey with deadline Jan 2 "or as soon as we fulfil our qoutas" or words to that effect.
Yes, we'll probably be seeing about 10 polls a week. Shall we all agree that it takes TWO (or even THREE) poll movements in the same direction before any of us get excited, and we all laugh derisively at anyone who breaks the rule?
Yup.
Make it 3 different polls including at least one phone poll.
I've been speculating that come March time we may have 15 polls a week once you add in the marginal/seat specific polling and Scotland/England only polling
For me the next big polling event is the Ashcroft Scotland seats polling.
Although I'm calling it now.
The SNP to be in landslide territory on Q1 but the Unionist parties winning/doing a lot better on Q2.
Latest SNP whinge. The Westminster establishment have failed to recognise anyone in the separation movement for their role in trying to break up the UK by putting them forward for , er, a UK honour...
@Richard_Nabavi OK, we have an entirely fictitious coffee house chain, they hire people to work for them using government subsidies to top up the wage bill. Then you arrange your tax affairs so you pay less tax to an entirely different government. And if your fictitious company gets caught in the act, you enter into a cosy voluntary arrangement with HMRC. On a smaller scale, you get the government to help pay for a nice new van for your new "business". Stunningly simple, and I am sure someone as clever as you will have worked this out long ago.
Latest SNP whinge. The Westminster establishment have failed to recognise anyone in the separation movement for their role in trying to break up the UK by putting them forward for , er, a UK honour...
Latest SNP whinge. The Westminster establishment have failed to recognise anyone in the separation movement for their role in trying to break up the UK by putting them forward for , er, a UK honour...
Surely you jest? I certainly hope so. The simple fact that not enough people feel genuine affection for the Union, thus sealing the probable victory for the Indys at some point as those people decline in number yet further, makes it hard to laugh at such things if indeed that is correct, as it just feels like a sign of all the bitterness that will continue on for so long until the unionists just give up..
''Labour’s lead as most trusted party on issue falls to three points, while two-thirds of voters willing to pay more tax for NHS''
...for someone else to pay more taxes. Its a fatuous question. Whose taxes how much and for what purpose? Ask someone on the standard rate 'would you pay an extra 5p in the pound on income tax'? What would they say? Especially if it was to give a 5% pay raise to health workers.
I have nothing against health workers but their pay and the gifts of the NHS comes from growth in the economy and our ability to pay. We have already been committed over the last 20 years to paying more tax for the NHS. Where has it left us? Why, to saying we must pay even more tax to the NHS. I have nothing against the NHS in principle, but plying ducks and drakes with its funding is not helping it or us. In the last Labour manifesto they claimed funding was sufficient. That funding has been maintained. Labour --- LABOUR --- set in train 20 billion of health service efficiencies. The National Health Service has become a Symbol of National Hysteria. We are spending what we can afford, we must make rational choices on how it is spent.
Latest SNP whinge. The Westminster establishment have failed to recognise anyone in the separation movement for their role in trying to break up the UK by putting them forward for , er, a UK honour...
Surely you jest? I certainly hope so. The simple fact that not enough people feel genuine affection for the Union, thus sealing the probable victory for the Indys at some point as those people decline in number yet further, makes it hard to laugh at such things if indeed that is correct, as it just feels like a sign of all the bitterness that will continue on for so long until the unionists just give up..
A pleasant night to all.
Remind me of the current cost of a barrel of crude oil.
There is a delicious irony about those who pointed to the USSR's subsidizing of unproductive workers as a sign of economic failure, now defending the practise. Funny old world innit?
In the last Labour manifesto they claimed funding was sufficient. That funding has been maintained. Labour --- LABOUR --- set in train 20 billion of health service efficiencies. The National Health Service has become a Symbol of National Hysteria. We are spending what we can afford, we must make rational choices on how it is spent.
Hey, you sound a little bit hysterical yourself, unlike your normal sober style even if I don't always agree with you. There is no single objective level of health care and spending - it's a matter of choice. Would you like to have more money after tax, or more confidence in fast and good treatment if you should fall ill? People will vary how they feel about it, depending partly on their own health and incomes and those around them, but in general the poll suggests that people would be willing to pay more in tax if they felt that it would improve the service. Clearly there will be limits - we can't spend 100% of our income on health - but Britain is not especially high up in the health spending:GDP ratio in the west.
I do agree that the choice needs to be illuminated by rational assessment - in my opinion NICE was one of the most important innovations of the last government, and I think its assumptions should be more widely discussed. But although it's wrong to assume that more money=better care, at some point you do get to the quesion of how much we're willing to spend. It would be odd if whatever it was at the moment happened to be what everyone thought was best, forever.
Latest SNP whinge. The Westminster establishment have failed to recognise anyone in the separation movement for their role in trying to break up the UK by putting them forward for , er, a UK honour...
Link, please? DT and Beano do not count.
That's a little harsh.
The Beano is, after all, a Dundee based paper & the owners should have a pretty good view on what's going on in the region
Interesting betting movements in Wales - a few weeks ago Ladbrokes had Plaid as 16/1 outsiders to win in Llanelli Westminster seat. Then price moved in to 10/1 and now it is at 4/1. Plaid has been strengthening recently in Carmarthenshire - watch out for upcoming local by-election in Hengoed as indication if this trend is continuing.
Comments
The point is that taking an Ebola patient, or several, might be politically a hot potato in England. The English NHS might be under no obligation to do so, whereas, as part of the same country, there is an obligation. I'd like to think we would.
I haven't read that book, thanks. I suppose it goes into how the crash effected his later writing?
[warning - smug git alert]
ECB SMP bond holdings are already defined as "hold to maturity", so "extend and pretend" should offer few pitfalls from an accounting perspective. See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140220.en.html
No the political point was at the front of your mind and it does you little credit.
As it happens the Scottish authorities dealt with the Ebola case in textbook fashion - moved quickly with secure ambulance into the isolation unit at Gartnavel. There was then a refreshing total transparancy from the First Minister and the Chief Medical Officer at an open press conference. This had the impact of calming everyone down except the Daily Mail!
It would not as it happens require a great deal to upgrade Gartnavel into a full Ebola unit - it is already more secure than facilities in Spain for example. There will almost certainly be contingency planning to do just that in the event of the few beds in London being full up. I know that the staff training has already been planned for.
However, the Brownlee unit at Gartnavel it is there for dealing with other rare and often tropical diseases and therefore it would not make any sense not to use the London facility when it is empty.
Luckily we have a First Minister in Scotland who puts the welfare of patients and commonsense before making a political point. It is one of the things that people like about the current administration in Scotland.
Anyway, there's probably a bit of value in both of those WH bets - taking both would give 2.4/1 on UKIP having 1-4 MPs
The key to making money on political betting in the long run is betting as much as possible where there is the greatest value. Even 2.4/1 on (probably) an evens shot, 4 months away doesn't tempt me to invest my limited bankroll.
There are a couple of decent longshot bets out there which are fantastic value. None of them involve ukip
I have no doubt that Scotland could deal with such cases with preparation, but at the moment the unit in London is dealing with it after the immediate care she got in Glasgow. And it is not just a case of facilities; it is also knowledgeable staff.
In your justified praise for Scotland, I see you neglect to mention that Nicola Sturgeon attended a COBRA meeting this morning. The UK working together!
I thought he'd just gone away.
http://www.france24.com/en/20141230-gambia-coup-attempt-capital-shooting-presidential-palace-jammeh/
He dished it out but couldn't take it.
The Scottish Government has its own Resilience Committee which was activated yesterday and seems to do an excellent job. One thinks , for example, of the handling of the flue pandemic threat of a few years ago or the west coast floods of last year.
In both cases the Scottish preparations seemed, to this interested observer, to be substantially superior to the equivalent COBRA attempts. I suspect that is because in a country the size of Scotland in is easier to get all stake holders working together.
However, that is not really an argument for independence no-more than the First Minister attending a COBRA meeting is an argument against it.
It is really just reflects the reality that we have, and have had for some time, an efficient and organised Government in Scotland who respond well to challenges.
In total there are have been polls in 127 constituencies 1/5th of the total, of them 72 are Tory seats, 38 are LD, 16 LAB and one Green seat.
Of them the Tories lose 42 and gain 9, Labour gain 49, LD lose 18, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP 1.
The average voting movements (my preferred measure, all figures are rounded to the closest half percentage point) is since 2010:
CON -8, LAB +4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5, GRN +3 , which results in the LD on the high end of the national polls and the Tories on the low end.
And now the regional swings (with more than 1 seat) per party seat against parties that matter:
In Tory seats
London swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 8%
East England swing to LAB 5.5% , to UKIP 16.5%
Yorkshire swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 10.5%
SE swing to LAB 5.5%, to UKIP 15% , to LD 1.5% (yeap no typo)
SW swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5%
E. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 11.5%
W. Midlands swing to LAB 4.5%, to UKIP 13%
NW.England swing to LAB 5%, to UKIP 13%
Wales swing to LAB 4%, to UKIP 9.5%
In Labour seats
Yorkshire swing to UKIP 10%
W. Midlands swing to UKIP 7.5%
NW.England swing to UKIP 6.5%
In LD seats
London swing to LAB 9.5%, to CON 2.5%, to UKIP 10.5%
East England swing to LAB 9.5% , to CON 3%, to UKIP 10.5%
Yorkshire swing to LAB 14.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14.5%
SE swing to LAB 6%, to UKIP 12%
SW swing to LAB 10.5%, to CON 4% , to UKIP 15%
W. Midlands swing to LAB 6%, to CON 2%, to UKIP 13%
NW.England swing to LAB 11.5%, to CON 3.5%, to UKIP 14%
Wales swing to LAB 11%, to CON 4.5%, to UKIP 13.5%
In conclusion there is a regional variation between 4-6% in the CON to LAB swing, with wild variations with UKIP and the LD's behaving in a strong regional manner, the SE is particularly an eyesore for the Tories with a larger than normal UKIP swing and even a swing towards the LD.
I thought that was the point of all betting? How is political betting different????
These even money £50 bets are just a bit of fun, prob little or no edge... But even as a disciplined gambling industry person I still love the thrill of a punt !
Did all their plans go up in smoke? Or hope just drain away?
You are no value to the site, your only gambling advice was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike (Tories 3/1 value Rochester) and so I muck about in response to your nonsense, oh the shame
It also means tap will have to find something else to obsess about.
I was a bit surprised to find it had sold out even at the publisher, as it is a recent book, but perhaps the Dickens + mistress film had something to do with it.
Essentially the crunch time is June when either Greece will default to the ECB, or the EU (Germany) finds a way around it (lets say have the ECB pay the money to itself).
Hove, Lincoln and Blackpool North & Cleveleys have changed from Con favourite to Labour in the last few days. I am not aware of any other changes.
Meanwhile Glasgow North has changed from Labour to SNP. All other Glasgow seats still has Labour as favourites.
My figures are very much the same. Labour on UNS wins more than 300 seats even winning less than 10 in Scotland.
Labour’s lead as most trusted party on issue falls to three points, while two-thirds of voters willing to pay more tax for NHS
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/david-cameron-ed-miliband-trust-nhs-survey
Election fever will begin next week, I assume.
'You flounced'
'He Bobajobbed'
Party before Nation!
To be fair, Blair was pretty much a Tory at the best of times.
But I'm expecting to see YouGov and Populus on Monday, and Lord Ashcroft the following Monday.
And then we'll be back to normal.
I expect we're going to see more polling than we can handle between now and May.
1) A majority since 1974
2) A working majority since 1966
And you lot go on about the Tories not winning a majority since 1992
Yes, he stood as Labour, but kept on with the moronic economic policies of Thatcher.
A country that doesn't make much, is a country looking at permanent debt.
Still, house prices make you all feel better, and you can blame the rest on whatever whipping boy your fancy takes.
As the old saying goes, "you can fool a Tory all of the time"
Yes Danny, his manifesto's were works of art, but mainly fiction.
http://t.co/f9ZH2jJ6kh
It was the warmongering in the second term when he came out as the Tory that he is.
The votes to be won were mainly on the left and it is the Greens increasing fivefold and the SNP's big jump in Scotland that has seen Labour dragged under majority territory but still in with a decent shout of being the largest party.
Labour will almost certainly go back down the New Labour route if they are in opposiiton after May.
You are probably right, but the illusion of wealth is not the same as the real thing.
Even though some PBers seem to think I'm the ultimate in loony leftism, I was actually quite happy with the last Labour government -- I've never really been too bothered about whether there's widespread nationalisations or whatever, I don't really care about the means of getting somewhere as long as the end results are "left-wing" outcomes that help the poorest (which imo the Labour govt achieved through high government spending). But what's really pissing me off now about Labour, and why I think Miliballs' stance is more right-wing than Labour's platforms in 1997/2001/2005, is that they're essentially saying we have to now give up on the ends as well as the means: they're not even defending the concept of government spending like Blair and Brown did, and they're not proposing regulation of businesses in any meaningful way either (apart from a few tokenistic sops like the energy price freeeze). However much they sucked up to "Middle England", Blair and Brown still ALWAYS held out atleast some rewards for the poorest people, which is why they were so much more successful at keeping "core Labour voters" onboard (atleast until 2005) than Miliband currently is.
Money wasn't lost during the economic crash, people suddenly realised it wasn't there to begin with.
The kings have no clothes the world over, but no one wants to admit it.
Blair has touched a nerve, hasn't he.
Any fool, even Gordon Brown, can spend money. I've never understood why Labour supporters think this is some kind of achievement. The question should be - did they spend it wisely, and get value for taxpayers' money? For some bizarre reason it's a question which the Left never, ever, ask. In fact they seem to think it is somehow unseemly or immoral to ask it.
In pure economic terms, the "money" was never there to spend wisely or waste.
The Right can't grasp the concept either, so stop lobbing bricks from your glass house.
Condemned from your own mouth.
A government that had got spending under control was replaced by one which let spending rip, wasted windfall revenues, destroyed private pensions, failed to reform public pensions the public services health education and welfare, politicised the police, ignored phone hacking, neutered the BoE, ripped up banking regulation, became an open door for the accession countries, parked the ill educated malingerers on bogus benefits, gave away our rebate, failed to give a referendum on Lisbon and signed it in shame, gave the green light to banking mayhem and sleepwalked us unprepared into the biggest recession since the Jarrow march.
It's the joy of capitalism, everyone pretends the money is there, and then they use the pretend money to make more.
A brilliant system until people start to notice. Happily for you, there is a Chancellor that is blind to this basic fact. (in fact....dozens of them the world over)
Those of the Magic Money Tree Tendency who don't agree that spending plans need to be largely similar to the Tories are already leaving to the Greens and/or the SNP in Scotland. The difference in polling between Cameron/Osborne and Miliband/Balls will shake out the rest by early May.
The British public have a choice - sack Mourinho and replace with Nigel Pearson. or stay with a winning set up.
Cameron is the Special One. Miliband the Special Needs.
In any case you are making a ludicrous assumption - that a Tory government, in such hugely benign economic conditions (benign thanks largely to the Thatcher inheritance, BTW), wouldn't also have been able to improve living standards and environs. You're right of course that jobs are a key part of that - so why on earth do you not give credit to this government for creating so many jobs, in the most adverse world economic conditions since at least the 1930s?
Some Tories did a huge amount to help Liverpool.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/mar/13/michael-heseltine-liverpool-freeman-margaret-thatcher
Jobs are being created, but the GDP per head is still low. This points to something being a tad odd.
Isn't George's new robe absolutely wonderful?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/nov/09/comment.housing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3313642/MPs-condemn-disastrous-pathfinder-scheme.html
What you highlight is the socialist surrender monkey pacifist strip labelled 'peacenik' that runs the the middle of every stick spendthrift incompetent Labour Rock.
Yes, we'll probably be seeing about 10 polls a week. Shall we all agree that it takes TWO (or even THREE) poll movements in the same direction before any of us get excited, and we all laugh derisively at anyone who breaks the rule?
That's good, right? Perhaps you don't think so.
No matter how good the tractor stats are, it still takes a government to choose to actively try and make things better for it to filter down below the super-rich, even if that comes at the cost of a messier balance sheet or upsetting random traders on a Shanghai stock exchange.
Having a fantasy job is good for your mental health?
Interesting concept.
You have thought of this possibility, I suppose? Or do you not know that, for example, the economy of the Pas de Calais also declined during this period?
Edit: Ah, silly me - I know the answer. It's one created after 2010. By definition a job created under a Conservative-led government can't be real.
When the pollsters start ringing and Tim comes out to playyyyyyyyyy...
I just wish it could be mega polling Monday everydayyyyyyyyyyy...
Let the pollsters ring now for the election....
See y'all next year.
That's the job where the government pays firms to hire on extra people so the said firm has more money to invest overseas.
Don't try to plead ignorance when you have already stated on these very pages that it is what you are doing with your "portfolio"
Make it 3 different polls including at least one phone poll.
I've been speculating that come March time we may have 15 polls a week once you add in the marginal/seat specific polling and Scotland/England only polling
For me the next big polling event is the Ashcroft Scotland seats polling.
Although I'm calling it now.
The SNP to be in landslide territory on Q1 but the Unionist parties winning/doing a lot better on Q2.
Which will make things clear as mud.
OK, we have an entirely fictitious coffee house chain, they hire people to work for them using government subsidies to top up the wage bill. Then you arrange your tax affairs so you pay less tax to an entirely different government.
And if your fictitious company gets caught in the act, you enter into a cosy voluntary arrangement with HMRC.
On a smaller scale, you get the government to help pay for a nice new van for your new "business".
Stunningly simple, and I am sure someone as clever as you will have worked this out long ago.
A pleasant night to all.
...for someone else to pay more taxes.
Its a fatuous question. Whose taxes how much and for what purpose? Ask someone on the standard rate 'would you pay an extra 5p in the pound on income tax'? What would they say? Especially if it was to give a 5% pay raise to health workers.
I have nothing against health workers but their pay and the gifts of the NHS comes from growth in the economy and our ability to pay.
We have already been committed over the last 20 years to paying more tax for the NHS. Where has it left us? Why, to saying we must pay even more tax to the NHS. I have nothing against the NHS in principle, but plying ducks and drakes with its funding is not helping it or us.
In the last Labour manifesto they claimed funding was sufficient. That funding has been maintained. Labour --- LABOUR --- set in train 20 billion of health service efficiencies.
The National Health Service has become a Symbol of National Hysteria. We are spending what we can afford, we must make rational choices on how it is spent.
Funny old world innit?
I do agree that the choice needs to be illuminated by rational assessment - in my opinion NICE was one of the most important innovations of the last government, and I think its assumptions should be more widely discussed. But although it's wrong to assume that more money=better care, at some point you do get to the quesion of how much we're willing to spend. It would be odd if whatever it was at the moment happened to be what everyone thought was best, forever.
The Beano is, after all, a Dundee based paper & the owners should have a pretty good view on what's going on in the region