Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TNS BMRB poll out

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited June 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TNS BMRB poll out

It will make for grim reading for the Blues, all the other parties will be delighted. Labour haven’t slipped, the Yellows have nearly seen their support up by nearly 50% from 7% to 10%, UKIP up 1% and nearly polling double the Lib Dems score.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    So what is the Cameron/Osborne master strategy? Nothing much seems to be the present answer.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Which reasonably well known MPs would lose their seats, on these sorts of figures?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Not sure I believe the figures, beyond Labour's.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    *puts on Canadian accent*

    It's another terrrr-ible evening for the Conservatives.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited June 2013
    COME ON!!!

    We constantly hear about all the mega shrewd "ahead of the bookies" political bets everyone has... how about someone prices up a UKIP-Tory crossover in any VI opinion poll this year?


    Pick a price you think is right

    Lets quit the petty tribal ner ners and let dough decide who was right!

    No Yes
    1/7 4/1?
    1/6 7/2?
    1/5 10/3?
    2/9 3/1?
    1/4 11/4?
    2/7 5/2?
    1/3 9/4?
    4/11 2/1?
    2/5 7/4?
    4/9 13/8?
    1/2 6/4?
    8/15 11/8?
    4/7 5/4?
    8/13 6/5?
    4/6 11/10?
    8/11 EVS?
    5/6 5/6?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. T, whilst they should certainly be making plans terror would be a step too far. If Rome could survive Cannae by collective willpower and pathological self-confidence then the Conservatives can* survive UKIP.

    *Of course, the PCP appears to be capable only of panic or complacency, so Roman resilience may be hoping for the improbable.

    On a betting note, I was sorely tempted by the 4.6 for Sharapova to beat Jankovic 2-1. Half of their matches (6 in truth, they've played 9 times but 3 ended with retirement/walkover) ended with that scoreline. However, they've only met once on clay.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2013
    Of course there is one option which would immediately give Cameron a 10% lead in the polls but for some reason he refuses to contemplate it. Something to do with giving people born since 1957 a say on a certain little matter.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "Of course there is one option which would immediately give Cameron a 10% lead in the polls but for some reason he refuses to contemplate it."

    I don't think George Osborne should be executed either.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362
    AndyJS said:

    Of course there is one option which would immediately give Cameron a 10% lead in the polls but for some reason he refuses to contemplate it.

    Giving his job to Boris ? It would only work for a month or two.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Lords division on Gay Marriage.

    Result in 10 to 15 mins.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    These "Baxterings" of polls are like someone working out a seasonal points price for a football team using two points for a win even though teams now receive three points for a win
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just saying that he would like to hold a referendum as soon as possible would probably be enough to restore popularity. The LDs would block it but then that would be their fault, not his.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    What are the 3 CON gains - Solihull, Dorset Mid & Wells ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    SeanT said:

    OK I'm off for a walk in the GORGEOUS Primrose Hill sunshine, but one final question: is this a record low for the Tories with TNS-BMRB? Is it an equal record low with any pollster?

    Gotta be close. I seem to remember one other poll with the Tories on 24 (Survation?) but nothing lower. Perhaps Andrea, if he is around, can inform us.

    In this parliament, Is a record low with TNS, the previous low with TNS was 25.

    Is the Tories' equal lowest share in this parliament.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Pulpstar said:

    What are the 3 CON gains - Solihull, Dorset Mid & Wells ?

    Yup
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    SeanT said:

    OK I'm off for a walk in the GORGEOUS Primrose Hill sunshine, but one final question: is this a record low for the Tories with TNS-BMRB? Is it an equal record low with any pollster?

    Gotta be close. I seem to remember one other poll with the Tories on 24 (Survation?) but nothing lower. Perhaps Andrea, if he is around, can inform us.

    I believe lowest ever Conservative score in a poll was 18.5% Gallup September 1995 .
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Survation had the Tories on 24% on 24th May and also on 18th May. They haven't gone below that figure in recent times:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • Cameron could offer an/out referendum before the next GE. He would easily be able to get the legislation through. He could offer a free vote on it. There are more Labour MPs who are keen on a quitting the EU than there are tories to vote against it.

    UKIP's problem isn't having a referendum, and it hasn't been that for a while. It is still more likely to happen in the next parliament than this one.

    The big problem will be winning it, against the scaremongering from the main party leaders and the BBC.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Lords looks absolutely packed.

    Result will take a lot longer.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Cyclefree said:

    Which reasonably well known MPs would lose their seats, on these sorts of figures?

    David Jones and Jacob Rees-Mogg
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    From a couple of threads ago (sorry, have been busy generating export earnings)

    Do you even understand what you are asking about?
    Should a donation from a church group include an element for the church building?
    Should a donation from Charles include an element for Daddy's staff that made it possible?
    Should a donation from a banker include a calculation for the overheads of his workplace?
    Should a newspaper endorsement be counted as a donation in kind?

    But Dave gets a diversion and avoids a recall bill, that's what this is about

    In the meantime,feel free to answer SO's point about Free School costs.
    You must be so concerned about their secret funding.


    Yes, I do understand what I am asking about. Soft money is very closely monitored and regulated in the City (and rightly so), so I am well aware of the nuances of the issue. Fundamentally, they are donations of value in a specie other than cash. To take your examples:

    If the church group allows a political party to hold a campaign event in their church hall, without charging a fee, then yes, that is a donation, even if no money changes hand.

    The monetary value of a donation from an individual should be counted, but as it doesn't belong to the company that generated the earnings there is no impact. If, say, I was to second my assistant to work for a political party for 3 months (or to spend 2 hours photocopying) and to pay her salary then that should be counted.

    A donation from a banker is covered by para 2 above.

    A newspaper endorsement is more complicated - arguably it has value. That said, it is an expression of free speech so should probably not be considered a donation.

    So all your points are very simply dealt with. The fundamental point is that if an organisation gives a political party something of value then it should be counted towards the limits. This is regardless of whether it is cash, office space, photocopying, staff, an airplane, whatever.

    On Free Schools, transparency is generally better. I don't why this information is not public (presumably because it would be used as a weapon against the policy - in the way that people misused the cost information for the Boris buses). It doesn't alter the fact that after a suitable period of time - say 3 or 5 years to allow the policy to bed in - the government should do a proper cost benefit analysis. If the improvements in education outcomes are not good enough, or the cost to achieve those improvements is too high, then the policy isn't working and should be amended or dropped.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    SeanT said:

    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....

    Are you blaming UKIP for *being popular*?
    No - the "continuity IDS" crowd who would rather be pristine than in power - if they have a death wish, so be it.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Lord Dear amendment to stop Bill:

    Yes 148
    No 390

    Bill survives. Next: Vote on 2nd Reading.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    2nd reading passed with no vote.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    That is an absolutely massive Lords vote - bigger margin in Lords than Commons I think.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    MikeL said:

    Lord Dear amendment to stop Bill:
    Yes 148
    No 390.

    I'd say that was pretty decisive. Good. It will piss off the Tory Taliban, assuming they are not in Fiji or propositioning their housekeepers...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    I know it has been said that it is wrong to do so, but look at the East/South East subsample and UKIP/CON/LAB are neck and neck and neck within the admittedly huge MoE for the subsample.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695

    MikeL said:

    Lord Dear amendment to stop Bill:
    Yes 148
    No 390.

    I'd say that was pretty decisive. Good. It will piss off the Tory Taliban, assuming they are not in Fiji or propositioning their housekeepers...
    It's an absolute annihilation.

    A total and utter devastating defeat for the swivel eyed loons.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Lord Dear amendment to stop Bill:
    Yes 148
    No 390.

    I'd say that was pretty decisive. Good. It will piss off the Tory Taliban, assuming they are not in Fiji or propositioning their housekeepers...
    It's an absolute annihilation.

    A total and utter devastating defeat for the swivel eyed loons.
    How many Tories voted with the loons?
    More pertinently, how many Bishops?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    TNS-BMRB/The Sunil:

    Tory/UKIP 43%
    Labour 37%
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @CarlottaVance It would be most unseemly to start down the path of bashing the bishops.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    edited June 2013
    Until the early 1980s, BMRB used to compile the sales figures used for the UK Top 40 music records.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    Until the early 1980s, BMRB used to compile the sales figures used for the UK Top 40 music records.

    Now you tell me.

    I could have put in so many 80s musics references into this thread.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    SeanT said:

    fpt for NPXMP

    If 20% of voters have made up their minds and they're voting for UKIP then that is revolutionary. I don't believe the Baxtered figures that give them 0 seats on 20% of the vote, I reckon UKIP would take 10-20 seats with that kind of support.

    More importantly, it would presage an epochal change in rightwing politics. The Tories would have to ally with UKIP - after a defeat of that scale in 2015 - and both parties would be obliged to support electoral reform, or else face near permanent exclusion from power.

    I take your well-made points about wishful thinking and leadership bids. But how will the average Tory MP behave, when faced with certain demise at the hands of Farage? Especially if he or she is eurosceptic?

    FWIW I don't think Farage will get anything like 20% in 2015. But I can see him getting 10% quite easily, and the days when UKIP could be dismissed (i.e. when they got 2%) are a distant memory.

    Baxtering UKIP 70% = nil seats.
    Con 12% = 222 seats
    Lab 18% = 377 seats
    L/lib 6% = 32 seats
    Others 4% =24 seats



  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Now that I have done tim the courtesy of answering his rather specious questions, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of answering mine:

    Why should valuable, non-cash, donations from unions not be counted towards campaign limits?
  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104

    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....

    It is the nature of such people that the conclusion they will draw is that the Tories are doing badly because Cameron didnt listen to them, and that therefore they must should louder.
  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    MikeL said:

    That is an absolutely massive Lords vote - bigger margin in Lords than Commons I think.

    Wow! Never expected that! I wonder if we will finally see The Telegraph give up it's frenzied crusade to get the Bill killed? No, I didnt think so either...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741
    Hopefully that is that over then and the tories can move back to talking about things that don't irritate some of their supporters so much. I would not put a lot of reliance on this poll but there is no question there is serious work to be done.

    From now to 2015 any government minister that is opening his mouth and not talking about the economy, welfare reform, immigration and employment (Mr Gove a possible exception) really needs to think if it is necessary to do so. And the swivel eyed mob really needs to be quiet, seriously quiet.

    Not much chance of the latter of course but surely self preservation kicks in at some point?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675

    Until the early 1980s, BMRB used to compile the sales figures used for the UK Top 40 music records.

    Now you tell me.

    I could have put in so many 80s musics references into this thread.
    Is there something I should know?

    :)
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited June 2013
    @SeanT
    "I don't believe the Baxtered figures that give them 0 seats on 20% of the vote, I reckon UKIP would take 10-20 seats with that kind of support."

    Wishful thinking. They might get within 5000 votes of victory in one or two....
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Bets offered on the UKIP Con crossover.

    Zero so far.

    Political BETTING dot com
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741
    A couple of years ago now I took my son (8 at the time) to the Theatre of Dreams. In the morning we went to the MoSI. We nearly missed the start of the match. He was absolutely enthralled. For someone addicted to making stuff on minecraft it must be the best museum in the country.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    DavidL said:

    A couple of years ago now I took my son (8 at the time) to the Theatre of Dreams. In the morning we went to the MoSI. We nearly missed the start of the match. He was absolutely enthralled. For someone addicted to making stuff on minecraft it must be the best museum in the country.

    I take my son there once a month, he loves it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @isam I'm not surprised you're not getting any takers. You're looking for someone to make an odds-on bet on something that's quite hard to price, bearing in mind that it might be lost on a rogue poll, on a subject of your choosing. Why should anyone bother to step up to the challenge?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    @isam I'm not surprised you're not getting any takers. You're looking for someone to make an odds-on bet on something that's quite hard to price, bearing in mind that it might be lost on a rogue poll, on a subject of your choosing. Why should anyone bother to step up to the challenge?

    Why not? We are all supposed to be interested in betting, and interested I'm sure in how well a new party on the block will do.

    I'm not trying to make a living out of the bet, maybe a tenner for fun! Something other than Tories blaming Labour, Labour supporters blaming Osborne, LDs praising the LDs, and so on

    & the big three largely agreeing on things that UKIP are against

    All good stuff, but can get a bit repetitive day after day, and no one EVER admits they are wrong

    So why not a little bet here and there from the self proclaimed experts... they'll factor a rogue poll into the price if they know what they're doing



  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    For all those PB Tories out there, you may be interested to know that Film 4 is showing The Iron Lady tonight at 9pm.

    Not a fan of Thatcher myself and even Ms Streep would not get me watching.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Now that I have done tim the courtesy of answering his rather specious questions, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of answering mine:

    Why should valuable, non-cash, donations from unions not be counted towards campaign limits?

    No idea what point you are trying to make, from what I can gather from the rumours donations from voluntary groups below a threshold won't be counted at a full rate.
    Your church group doesn't have to charge for labour costs does it?

    Do you know what's in this bill, no one else seems to?



    The original question. From when you said it was outrageous that union's soft money donations should be included.

    If my church group was to turn out as an organisation for a political party then it should be counted as a donation. But they don't.

    I haven't asked any of my political contacts wht's in the bill - been too busy making money for my employer
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    I have been to Liverpool twice and thoroughly enjoyed each visit.
    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

    Museum charging is a really difficult topic. There are lots of advantages of free entry (and we've been pleased that we have managed to maintain it for both our recent exhibitions) but it does consume a huge amount of resources that might be better spent elsewise in the sector (e.g. acquisitions or education).

    It was a real shame that Hugo Swire got yelled down - and lost his job - for even floating the idea back in 2007 (especially as he had previously run development for one of the major museums and really knew what he was talking about). I'm not saying charging is the right decision, for all museums, but surely museums should be allowed to charge if they want to
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Now that I have done tim the courtesy of answering his rather specious questions, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of answering mine:

    Why should valuable, non-cash, donations from unions not be counted towards campaign limits?

    No idea what point you are trying to make, from what I can gather from the rumours donations from voluntary groups below a threshold won't be counted at a full rate.
    Your church group doesn't have to charge for labour costs does it?

    Do you know what's in this bill, no one else seems to?



    The original question. From when you said it was outrageous that union's soft money donations should be included.

    If my church group was to turn out as an organisation for a political party then it should be counted as a donation. But they don't.

    I haven't asked any of my political contacts wht's in the bill - been too busy making money for my employer
    Don't be daft, from what I can gather some union donations won't be included.
    But as you don't know let's leave it until the bill is published.

    You carry on with your vaccine scaremonering until you have an update for me.

    Debates from first principles are better.

    But I'm guessing you're avoiding the question as you don't want to try to defend the indefensible.

    (FWIW, I'm sending a draft contract to a major vaccines company tomorrow - they are paying my employer more than £2 million for the right to use up to 20% of my time over the next 6 months. I guess they think that my views on the topic have some value).
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited June 2013
    RodCrosby said:

    @SeanT
    "I don't believe the Baxtered figures that give them 0 seats on 20% of the vote, I reckon UKIP would take 10-20 seats with that kind of support."

    Wishful thinking. They might get within 5000 votes of victory in one or two....

    The recent county council elections had them winning 10 seats, just in the seats that voted.

    http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/

  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    It looks bad if there are lots of free museums and galleries in London, but there is the danger of them closing or charging in London.

    Perhaps more of the 1% should put their hands in their pockets and contribute towards acquisitions and education. Also, the most important part of education is getting people to put their feet through the front door in the first place.
    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

    Museum charging is a really difficult topic. There are lots of advantages of free entry (and we've been pleased that we have managed to maintain it for both our recent exhibitions) but it does consume a huge amount of resources that might be better spent elsewise in the sector (e.g. acquisitions or education).

    It was a real shame that Hugo Swire got yelled down - and lost his job - for even floating the idea back in 2007 (especially as he had previously run development for one of the major museums and really knew what he was talking about). I'm not saying charging is the right decision, for all museums, but surely museums should be allowed to charge if they want to
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    edited June 2013
    RodCrosby said:

    @SeanT
    "I don't believe the Baxtered figures that give them 0 seats on 20% of the vote, I reckon UKIP would take 10-20 seats with that kind of support."

    Wishful thinking. They might get within 5000 votes of victory in one or two....

    3% in 2010, 20% in 2015, theoretically. A swing of 8.5%?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Now that I have done tim the courtesy of answering his rather specious questions, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of answering mine:

    Why should valuable, non-cash, donations from unions not be counted towards campaign limits?

    No idea what point you are trying to make, from what I can gather from the rumours donations from voluntary groups below a threshold won't be counted at a full rate.
    Your church group doesn't have to charge for labour costs does it?

    Do you know what's in this bill, no one else seems to?



    The original question. From when you said it was outrageous that union's soft money donations should be included.

    If my church group was to turn out as an organisation for a political party then it should be counted as a donation. But they don't.

    I haven't asked any of my political contacts wht's in the bill - been too busy making money for my employer
    Don't be daft, from what I can gather some union donations won't be included.
    But as you don't know let's leave it until the bill is published.

    You carry on with your vaccine scaremonering until you have an update for me.

    Debates from first principles are better.

    But I'm guessing you're avoiding the question as you don't want to try to defend the indefensible.

    (FWIW, I'm sending a draft contract to a major vaccines company tomorrow - they are paying my employer more than £2 million for the right to use up to 20% of my time over the next 6 months. I guess they think that my views on the topic have some value).
    Do they know you're prepared to put yours and other people's children at risk and invent scares.
    Wakefield was paid a lot I seem to remember.
    Comparing someone who is a professional working in the vaccines space to Andrew Wakefield, even implicitly, is very close to libel.

    I would politely request that you withdraw that comment and do not make any further comments about me or any member of my family in respect of vaccines.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741
    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    hucks67 said:

    For all those PB Tories out there, you may be interested to know that Film 4 is showing The Iron Lady tonight at 9pm.

    Not a fan of Thatcher myself and even Ms Streep would not get me watching.

    It wasn't a great film but wasn't terrible either.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    AndyJS said:

    Of course there is one option which would immediately give Cameron a 10% lead in the polls but for some reason he refuses to contemplate it. Something to do with giving people born since 1957 a say on a certain little matter.

    I must admit, I'm increasingly in favour of a referendum on EU membership now. Let's have a simple 'in/out' choice.

    The only problem with this is that I suspect it would come in with 55% in, 45% out. Which gets us into Quebec-land. Constant votes on leaving. Constant narrow votes in favour of staying. Which probably leads to the worst of all worlds economically, as businesses decide to invest elsewhere where the political situation is more sure:- if I was opening a car plants business, it might be important to me that Britain was in the EU; if I were opening a bank, it might be important that it were not.

    Similarly, and this is a more important question for the Conservative Party: would UKIP disappear after either (a) a vote for staying in, or (b) a vote for leaving? I suspect that the socially conservative voice of UKIP is sorely missed from the political discourse at current (and I say this is a borderline libertarian who disagrees with UKIP on pretty much all social issues). For this reason, I suspect UKIP would survive a referendum, whatever the result. And this is a key challenge to the Conservative Party.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    It looks bad if there are lots of free museums and galleries in London, but there is the danger of them closing or charging in London.

    Perhaps more of the 1% should put their hands in their pockets and contribute towards acquisitions and education. Also, the most important part of education is getting people to put their feet through the front door in the first place.

    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

    Museum charging is a really difficult topic. There are lots of advantages of free entry (and we've been pleased that we have managed to maintain it for both our recent exhibitions) but it does consume a huge amount of resources that might be better spent elsewise in the sector (e.g. acquisitions or education).

    It was a real shame that Hugo Swire got yelled down - and lost his job - for even floating the idea back in 2007 (especially as he had previously run development for one of the major museums and really knew what he was talking about). I'm not saying charging is the right decision, for all museums, but surely museums should be allowed to charge if they want to
    A lot do. There were 4 individuals (not named) who were extremely generous when it came to the recent Titian campaign, for instance. Similarly John Ruffer was extremely helpful with keeping the Zurbarans at Auckland (and ensuring public access) 2 years ago.

    Education is a very specific programme: it's not just getting them through the door as you need full time staff to work with the schools. We had 61 schools in 11 weeks for our recent exhibition, for instance - but it needs a huge amount of preparation, liasion and follow up.

    The biggest problem that the major museums have with fund raising is that many donors believe that any cash they give will just be offset by the government cutting their annual subvention.

    Personally, I would look closely at charging a nominal amount (say £1 per night) on hotel bills with the money going directly to museums and gallaries. In 2012 there were 31m visits to the UK with an average stay of 7.4 nights. Even allowing for some dimunition if you added £1 per night to the cost, that would suggest there is potentially £200m of funding to shoot for.
  • DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    There are no such things as "free museums". All that those who claim to support them are advocating is that people who choose not to attend museums should subsidise those who do. In other words, it is a policy of using coercion to promote subjective value judgments about the desirability of certain of cultural activities. That is a hallmark of paternalism.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    Collection boxes raised very very little. We discussed this at our board meeting - we only made a four thousand pounds from our 31,000 visitors. We checked with the major museums to see if we were doing something wrong - and they were amazed we got that much! One major museum, with 1m+ visitors per year, makes c. £10,000 p.a. from its very prominent collection boxes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    There are no such things as "free museums". All that those who claim to support them are advocating is that people who choose not to attend museums should subsidise those who do. In other words, it is a policy of using coercion to promote subjective value judgments about the desirability of certain of cultural activities. That is a hallmark of paternalism.
    It is at the moment, because the government insists that museums don't charge.

    If the decision is devolved to museum management then it becomes a legitimate resource allocation question, not a question of paternalism.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Something on those lines sounds reasonable as long as it is ring fenced and the money also goes to places that are less well-known, small and "in the sticks".
    Charles said:

    It looks bad if there are lots of free museums and galleries in London, but there is the danger of them closing or charging in London.

    Perhaps more of the 1% should put their hands in their pockets and contribute towards acquisitions and education. Also, the most important part of education is getting people to put their feet through the front door in the first place.

    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

    Museum charging is a really difficult topic. There are lots of advantages of free entry (and we've been pleased that we have managed to maintain it for both our recent exhibitions) but it does consume a huge amount of resources that might be better spent elsewise in the sector (e.g. acquisitions or education).

    It was a real shame that Hugo Swire got yelled down - and lost his job - for even floating the idea back in 2007 (especially as he had previously run development for one of the major museums and really knew what he was talking about). I'm not saying charging is the right decision, for all museums, but surely museums should be allowed to charge if they want to
    A lot do. There were 4 individuals (not named) who were extremely generous when it came to the recent Titian campaign, for instance. Similarly John Ruffer was extremely helpful with keeping the Zurbarans at Auckland (and ensuring public access) 2 years ago.

    Education is a very specific programme: it's not just getting them through the door as you need full time staff to work with the schools. We had 61 schools in 11 weeks for our recent exhibition, for instance - but it needs a huge amount of preparation, liasion and follow up.

    The biggest problem that the major museums have with fund raising is that many donors believe that any cash they give will just be offset by the government cutting their annual subvention.

    Personally, I would look closely at charging a nominal amount (say £1 per night) on hotel bills with the money going directly to museums and gallaries. In 2012 there were 31m visits to the UK with an average stay of 7.4 nights. Even allowing for some dimunition if you added £1 per night to the cost, that would suggest there is potentially £200m of funding to shoot for.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Now that I have done tim the courtesy of answering his rather specious questions, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of answering mine:

    Why should valuable, non-cash, donations from unions not be counted towards campaign limits?

    No idea what point you are trying to make, from what I can gather from the rumours donations from voluntary groups below a threshold won't be counted at a full rate.
    Your church group doesn't have to charge for labour costs does it?

    Do you know what's in this bill, no one else seems to?



    The original question. From when you said it was outrageous that union's soft money donations should be included.

    If my church group was to turn out as an organisation for a political party then it should be counted as a donation. But they don't.

    I haven't asked any of my political contacts wht's in the bill - been too busy making money for my employer
    Don't be daft, from what I can gather some union donations won't be included.
    But as you don't know let's leave it until the bill is published.

    You carry on with your vaccine scaremonering until you have an update for me.

    Debates from first principles are better.

    But I'm guessing you're avoiding the question as you don't want to try to defend the indefensible.

    (FWIW, I'm sending a draft contract to a major vaccines company tomorrow - they are paying my employer more than £2 million for the right to use up to 20% of my time over the next 6 months. I guess they think that my views on the topic have some value).
    Do they know you're prepared to put yours and other people's children at risk and invent scares.
    Wakefield was paid a lot I seem to remember.
    Comparing someone who is a professional working in the vaccines space to Andrew Wakefield, even implicitly, is very close to libel.

    I would politely request that you withdraw that comment and do not make any further comments about me or any member of my family in respect of vaccines.
    You've volunteered the risk to your children that you are willingly prepared to take, and put others in, how else would I have know about the threat you and your ilk are?
    And the false scaremongering about MMR you posted on here,in between boasting about your knowledge was also your decision, so it's a bit late to whine now.
    But it is tedious now and your quack theories and recklessness have been done to death I guess.
    No, I posted some very personal thoughts about a debate my wife and I were having (based on my vastly greater knowledge of vaccines and her upbringing). Risk/reward decisions are often different at the personal versus the macro level. You seem to have made it your mission to attack me personally and to try and damage my professional reputation.

    But enough.
  • Mujaahid Hamza AKA Michael Adebolajo to appear at the Central Criminal Court before Sweeney J tomorrow at 10 am via prison video link, when a bail application may be made.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    2 1/2 points to crossover
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mujaahid Hamza AKA Michael Adebolajo to appear at the Central Criminal Court before Sweeney J tomorrow at 10 am via prison video link, when a bail application may be made.

    One would assume, surely, the chance of bail is limited?!?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    The polls are all over the place. Cold comfort for Labour here.

    They need to be way in the distance. Shares in the mid thirties aren't good enough regardless of what Tories are on.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    BenM said:

    The polls are all over the place. Cold comfort for Labour here.

    They need to be way in the distance. Shares in the mid thirties aren't good enough regardless of what Tories are on.

    How would you suggest Labour persuade ordinary working folk to support them?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited June 2013

    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....

    The Cameroons threw away 1/4 of the support they had around the time of Crewe. That's what made them vulnerable to this.

    If they'd used the cover-up over the grooming as an example to hammer the nomenklatura over PC they'd be on 40%+ and New Labour on 30.

    edit: meant 50%
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Sky News

    Majority of Cons peers voted for gay marriage.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621

    Sky News

    Majority of Cons peers voted for gay marriage.

    Lord Tebbit?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    Collection boxes raised very very little. We discussed this at our board meeting - we only made a four thousand pounds from our 31,000 visitors. We checked with the major museums to see if we were doing something wrong - and they were amazed we got that much! One major museum, with 1m+ visitors per year, makes c. £10,000 p.a. from its very prominent collection boxes.
    What about the cafe and gift shop?

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    I don't think you can treat a Lords vote as symbolic of anything much when the modern day Lords mostly just represents the congealed political class.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cafes are profitable, but usually outsourced rather than run in house. Gift shops are high margin (we made >50% but use volunteers to staff it & we were incredibly successful with stock management).

    In the scheme of things, though, both are relatively small beer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    Charles said:

    It looks bad if there are lots of free museums and galleries in London, but there is the danger of them closing or charging in London.

    Perhaps more of the 1% should put their hands in their pockets and contribute towards acquisitions and education. Also, the most important part of education is getting people to put their feet through the front door in the first place.

    Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    @old_labour
    "Three national museums face prospect of charging for entry - and they're all in the north"

    Ah well, I suggest you come to National Museums Liverpool instead. One million objects and works of art across 8 museums and galleries. All absolutely free...

    Museum charging is a really difficult topic. There are lots of advantages of free entry (and we've been pleased that we have managed to maintain it for both our recent exhibitions) but it does consume a huge amount of resources that might be better spent elsewise in the sector (e.g. acquisitions or education).

    It was a real shame that Hugo Swire got yelled down - and lost his job - for even floating the idea back in 2007 (especially as he had previously run development for one of the major museums and really knew what he was talking about). I'm not saying charging is the right decision, for all museums, but surely museums should be allowed to charge if they want to
    A lot do. There were 4 individuals (not named) who were extremely generous when it came to the recent Titian campaign, for instance. Similarly John Ruffer was extremely helpful with keeping the Zurbarans at Auckland (and ensuring public access) 2 years ago.

    Education is a very specific programme: it's not just getting them through the door as you need full time staff to work with the schools. We had 61 schools in 11 weeks for our recent exhibition, for instance - but it needs a huge amount of preparation, liasion and follow up.

    The biggest problem that the major museums have with fund raising is that many donors believe that any cash they give will just be offset by the government cutting their annual subvention.

    Personally, I would look closely at charging a nominal amount (say £1 per night) on hotel bills with the money going directly to museums and gallaries. In 2012 there were 31m visits to the UK with an average stay of 7.4 nights. Even allowing for some dimunition if you added £1 per night to the cost, that would suggest there is potentially £200m of funding to shoot for.
    One of the museums under threat (and I scarcely believe this is nothing more than publicity blackmail at this stage) is the National Railway Museum. Which has just undergone a period of massive expansion and spending, for instance the Shildon annexe.

    A few months ago I posted the scandal of the NRM's overhaul of the Flying Scotsman, which is massively over budget and may not now even be completed. £2.6 million spent and the end is not in sight. Anyone interested in project (mis)management should read the report and weep.

    If they want to be free, then they should at least manage themselves well. The NRM has not.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    Collection boxes raised very very little. We discussed this at our board meeting - we only made a four thousand pounds from our 31,000 visitors. We checked with the major museums to see if we were doing something wrong - and they were amazed we got that much! One major museum, with 1m+ visitors per year, makes c. £10,000 p.a. from its very prominent collection boxes.
    What about the cafe and gift shop?

    To put it in perspective, the National Gallery funding for 2011/12 was:

    £26.7m grant in aid (government support)
    £2m donations & legacies
    £7.7m other income
    £0.7m investment income

    Of the £7.7m, trading income was £2.7m and concessions £900K
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,835
    MrJones said:

    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....

    The Cameroons threw away 1/4 of the support they had around the time of Crewe. That's what made them vulnerable to this.

    If they'd used the cover-up over the grooming as an example to hammer the nomenklatura over PC they'd be on 40%+ and New Labour on 30.

    edit: meant 50%
    Irrespective of the "what if?" world, the point striking me about these key numbers is that the combined Conservative/UKIP vote is now 43%. Even if 3/4 of the UKIP vote goes back to the Tories, they would still be behind Labour in terms of vote share and certainly in terms of seats.

    The hope then is volatility and an improving economy. For all that Avery grasps every positive statistic as a drowning man grabs a lifebelt, the lag between the improvement and the feeling among the electorate of improvement may yet be this Government's undoing. Things may get better 6-12 months too late making 2015 a good election to win.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    tim - you know very well that many Lords don't turn up - including many who are too old etc to do so.

    The relevant stat is more Con Lords voted for gay marriage than against.

    Whereas in the Commons, more Con MPs voted against than for.

    So a surprising result. Con Lords more in touch than Con MPs!!!!!!

    Or possibly it's just that they know writing is on wall - plus constitutional issue that it had passed the Commons so shouldn't be blocked.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,481
    FWIW, my suggested model for museum charging:

    A £5 for a one-off "tourist" visit,
    A £10 season ticket for locals,
    One free Sunday a month.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    BenM said:

    The polls are all over the place. Cold comfort for Labour here.

    They need to be way in the distance. Shares in the mid thirties aren't good enough regardless of what Tories are on.

    Agreed. No-one in their right mind thinks the Tories will poll in the 20s in a General Election. At the moment I think we are looking at about an even Steven popular vote with Labour most seats. But the debates, if they happen, will potentially make a big difference so Labour must get higher.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    To only get 66 Con Lords voting against gay marriage is actually astonishing given all the campaigning and media reports.

    The Times only yesterday said a Lords majority of only 60 was expected for gay marriage. In fact it was 242.

    I think it shows a lot of Lords have woken up and smelt the coffee.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    FWIW, my suggested model for museum charging:

    A £5 for a one-off "tourist" visit,
    A £10 season ticket for locals,
    One free Sunday a month.

    With websites, once you start charging, 90% of your traffic disappears.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Bobajob said:

    BenM said:

    The polls are all over the place. Cold comfort for Labour here.

    They need to be way in the distance. Shares in the mid thirties aren't good enough regardless of what Tories are on.

    Agreed. No-one in their right mind thinks the Tories will poll in the 20s in a General Election. At the moment I think we are looking at about an even Steven popular vote with Labour most seats. But the debates, if they happen, will potentially make a big difference so Labour must get higher.

    Do you bet?

    If you do, what price would you make me Tories <30% in the next GE?

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    Collection boxes raised very very little. We discussed this at our board meeting - we only made a four thousand pounds from our 31,000 visitors. We checked with the major museums to see if we were doing something wrong - and they were amazed we got that much! One major museum, with 1m+ visitors per year, makes c. £10,000 p.a. from its very prominent collection boxes.
    What about the cafe and gift shop?

    To put it in perspective, the National Gallery funding for 2011/12 was:

    £26.7m grant in aid (government support)
    £2m donations & legacies
    £7.7m other income
    £0.7m investment income

    Of the £7.7m, trading income was £2.7m and concessions £900K
    What were the ratios before the change to no fees? Did your museum break even?

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited June 2013
    MikeL said:

    To only get 66 Con Lords voting against gay marriage is actually astonishing given all the campaigning and media reports.

    The Times only yesterday said a Lords majority of only 60 was expected for gay marriage. In fact it was 242.

    I think it shows a lot of Lords have woken up and smelt the coffee.

    More likely, as is usual these days, the Times didn't know what it was talking about.
    The rubbish they posited on Turkey is unbelievable.

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,481

    FWIW, my suggested model for museum charging:

    A £5 for a one-off "tourist" visit,
    A £10 season ticket for locals,
    One free Sunday a month.

    With websites, once you start charging, 90% of your traffic disappears.

    People pay to go to the cinema, National Trust properties, Legoland, Warwick Castle etc. etc.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    York Minster charges each adult £15.

    It looks like the National Railway Museum in York is heading in a similar direction.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,671
    MikeL said:



    I think it shows a lot of Lords have woken up and smelt the coffee.

    More down to the fact that peers aren't under pressure from swivel-eyed loons back in the constituencies threatening to defect to Ukip every ten seconds.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    stodge said:

    MrJones said:

    I hope the Tory Taliban are happy with their handiwork.....

    The Cameroons threw away 1/4 of the support they had around the time of Crewe. That's what made them vulnerable to this.

    If they'd used the cover-up over the grooming as an example to hammer the nomenklatura over PC they'd be on 40%+ and New Labour on 30.

    edit: meant 50%
    Irrespective of the "what if?" world, the point striking me about these key numbers is that the combined Conservative/UKIP vote is now 43%. Even if 3/4 of the UKIP vote goes back to the Tories, they would still be behind Labour in terms of vote share and certainly in terms of seats.

    The hope then is volatility and an improving economy. For all that Avery grasps every positive statistic as a drowning man grabs a lifebelt, the lag between the improvement and the feeling among the electorate of improvement may yet be this Government's undoing. Things may get better 6-12 months too late making 2015 a good election to win.

    The what-if is the key point though. You're right, if the Cameroon Tories got 3/4 of the UKIP vote back they still can't win - because they're a globalist party and a globalist party can't win as a globalist party. They can only win if they can successfully pretend to be a Conservative party *or* they somehow make the other side lose.

    Alternatively an actual Conservative party i.e. UKIP crossover + chunk of Tory vote + chunk of Labour vote can win as themselves.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Bobajob said:

    BenM said:

    The polls are all over the place. Cold comfort for Labour here.

    They need to be way in the distance. Shares in the mid thirties aren't good enough regardless of what Tories are on.

    Agreed. No-one in their right mind thinks the Tories will poll in the 20s in a General Election. At the moment I think we are looking at about an even Steven popular vote with Labour most seats. But the debates, if they happen, will potentially make a big difference so Labour must get higher.

    To be fair it is silly to ask someone to price that as it is massive odds on for Tories to be over 30%

    A better bet would be an Even money "under or over" 30-something %

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809
    there's nothing wrong with charging for museums although I hope they at the same time reduce/abolish the subsidy for the NT and Covent Garden. Not to do so would be scandalous.

    and very FPT wrt the polls:

    Everyone is having fun in the sun right now, I might even do it if a pollster asked me, why not? Anything to keep the mass debate going.

    UKIP are a NOTA party and I would be worried if I were Lab because having two overtly no-policy parties will only mean, come January 2015, that the (currently only) party with policies cleans up.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I support the idea of free museums. It encourages people to pop in when they have a little time instead of making a whole day thing of it. It does a lot for their cafes and gift shops too.

    What I would say is that those that can afford to will notice that there are always collection bins at the doors. What has your visit been worth and do you want to come back? Only new Labour thinks this sort of stuff comes free.

    Collection boxes raised very very little. We discussed this at our board meeting - we only made a four thousand pounds from our 31,000 visitors. We checked with the major museums to see if we were doing something wrong - and they were amazed we got that much! One major museum, with 1m+ visitors per year, makes c. £10,000 p.a. from its very prominent collection boxes.
    What about the cafe and gift shop?

    To put it in perspective, the National Gallery funding for 2011/12 was:

    £26.7m grant in aid (government support)
    £2m donations & legacies
    £7.7m other income
    £0.7m investment income

    Of the £7.7m, trading income was £2.7m and concessions £900K
    What were the ratios before the change to no fees? Did your museum break even?

    This is a new project: the first exhibition was subsidied by £50,000 from the foundation (plus the use of the house and executive team that we don't charge for). The second one broke even - mainly due to the success of the shop and great cost control
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Re Museum funding , there is no need for museums to charge anything for entrance . All they have to do is auction off a small part of their reserve collections which they never have the space to exhibit and which in many cases is literally rotting away in storage and has never seen the light of day .
This discussion has been closed.