...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
The UK has said it is stepping back from QE which has sent prices down and yields up. Its up to you to say if you think the expectation of a load of QE is a measure of good economic performance for France.
Plus. In say France, bond yields tend move in line with Germany. These have been edging down recently as sadly the threat of a break-up of the eurozone has receded. Correct me if I am wrong but the Credit Default Swap 'insurance' for the UK is a lot less than France. Ours is not far from Germany and then of course there is Greece...
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
The only person I can tell who has correctly forecast the oil price is FluffyThoughts. If someone can point me to an analyst or company that had oil sub $50 (As a forecast at the time of the indyref) at the start of 2015, let me know.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
The other point would be that "it's clearly Saudi Arabia throwing their weight around - they're losing $x billion a year by doing so so it won't last more than a few years."
The only person I can tell who has correctly forecast the oil price is FluffyThoughts. If someone can point me to an analyst or company that had oil sub $50 (As a forecast at the time of the indyref) at the start of 2015, let me know.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
The price for a Brent Crude March 2015 futures contract back at the start of 2015 was pretty much exactly $100 a barrel. At the start of 2014 it was $110.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
Achilles, a tortoise and the March hare got together for a race.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
The Labour party number has been edging slowly, inexorably and surely southward for over two years.
The question is whether Ed can reverse the decline and avoid being the latest in a succession of Labour leaders since WWII who have seen their first election after losing office return a worse poll number - accordingly below 28%.
The former will not happen but Ed may avoid the latter.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
I am glad you popped up with advice as I have the ideas for this kind of thing but need help in fine tuning them
I thought it odd that Clegg was so close to Cameron.. but maybe we are just poo pooing an unexpected finding because it is unexpected?
92% of people aren't voting for the Lib Dems but only 39% of people are dissatisfied w Clegg
Makes me think Clegg wasnt as loved as we thought he was in 2010 and isn't as hated now as people might think
Actually I messed up as I used Mikes "England only" VI so the real figures should be
59.63 Cam 42.9 Mili 56.12 Clegg 79.21 Farage
I'm trying to work out what a "neutral" score would be in your system? That is, the score received by a leader who is neither a particular asset, or handicap, to their party.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
Like father like son.
Bah, my father voted Labour in the past (the last time was 1983, which I think makes him the only person to have voted Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997)
I have voted Tory in every general election that I've voted in.
The only person I can tell who has correctly forecast the oil price is FluffyThoughts. If someone can point me to an analyst or company that had oil sub $50 (As a forecast at the time of the indyref) at the start of 2015, let me know.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
No one accurately forecasted the oil price. What was pointed out is that it is volatile and not a safe basis upon which to make long term plans about the level of public spending. After all the current level of oil is not unprecedented. We have been here before and relatively recently.
As SO points out the promises of additional services, the ending of poverty and the higher standard of living were based on the premise that the oil price remained relatively stable. No honest politician would have made such misrepresentations. But they chose to lie and deluded a lot of people into voting for them as a result.
That was then. But the idea that we should accept that Salmond and Sturgeon were fundamentally wrong then but somehow magically right now is absurd. Yesterday, at FMQs, we had Sturgeon asking the UK Chancellor to effectively subsidise north sea oil exploration to save Scottish jobs. She was right to do so. But all that nonsense about how much oil was left in the North sea, how rich an independent Scotland was going to be and secure our future would be alone was indeed a pack of lies from people who knew better.
Bottom line is that the North Sea is not an asset at all at current prices. Its break even is normally thought to be in the mid 60 dollars per barrel. The price of oil may well go above that level in the future. It is indeed likely in the medium or longer term. Whether that will be in time to make use of the current infrastructure to extend production is the key to future employment and output. If the Saudis continue to play hard ball we are in trouble.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
Police raids on terror cells in Belgium, Germany and France today just demonstrates that Europe is facing an unprecedented fight to keep their citizens safe. It must be a real risk that the GE campaign could be overshadowed and even marginalised and how would that play out in terms of who voters would want to be Prime Minister in these circumstances
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
But that's not the line of attack.
The issue is not that the SNP figures are wrong (although they were). They consistently picked figures on what might be called the optimistic side of cautious.
The real issue is they SNP were told, over and over again. that a petro-economy was dangerous due to fluctuations in oil prices.
The SNP answer was that petro-economies like Norway were brilliant. That is no longer a tenable argument (it never was but gullible people fell for it)
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
The only person I can tell who has correctly forecast the oil price is FluffyThoughts. If someone can point me to an analyst or company that had oil sub $50 (As a forecast at the time of the indyref) at the start of 2015, let me know.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
I would point out that both SeanT and I were very vocal about the likelihood of energy prices falling. However, I thought they *might* touch $60, and that $60-80 was the likely longer-term range. (Which was pretty gutsy when oil was $115.) I did not expect a fall of this magnitude.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
That was then, under a very different polling regime, but it's not impossible.
I think what'll probably happen is that the Conservatives will inch up by 1-2% and Labour will shed something similar. So it could be that the polls stay very similar until much closer to the day, where we may end up with something like Con - 34% and Lab - 30%.
It could be wider than that, but probably not much.
Nothing as yet this morning from Stephen Fisher's model. Does this mean they have finally got around to adjusting for the surge in support for the SNP and are double checking their findings?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
Do you think the LibDems will get any benefit? I think a final result of UKIP 14/15, LibDems 12 looks quite likely.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
No one accurately forecasted the oil price. What was pointed out is that it is volatile and not a safe basis upon which to make long term plans about the level of public spending.
You beat me to it.
The argument at the time, hotly disputed by the SNP, was that Scotland would not be able to withstand a shock.
Now that a shock has arrived, Scotland is not able to withstand it and the SNP have begged Westminster to help.
That has to have some bearing on the next election
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
Like father like son.
Bah, my father voted Labour in the past (the last time was 1983, which I think makes him the only person to have voted Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997)
I have voted Tory in every general election that I've voted in.
Where's the fun in that? Like my dad, I've voted for all the main parties. I'm not sure my father has ever spoiled his ballot paper, but I've crossed that one off the list too, along with the Greens. Conversely, I'm not sure whether my dad has ever voted for UKIP, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. His turn for spoiling the ballot paper might be this time round, I suspect.
True. But we appear to have a "life flow" in which we go to uni, collect 50-60K debt, start work at 21, buy a house at a huge price, have a couple of kids and retire at 65/68. For the vast majority of todays' 20 year olds I cannot see how it will literally add up without moving retirement into the 70's at a faster rate than we are (though I note Neil's comments about adjustments made already)
The Green party may well have 2,000+ joiners for the 3rd day running today. It would take 50 more days of this to catch up with the Conservatives so that probably wont happen.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
Do you think the LibDems will get any benefit? I think a final result of UKIP 14/15, LibDems 12 looks quite likely.
My view is that UKIP will finish on 12/13%, and the Lib Dems just below that. I really can't see the Lib Dems finishing on the kind of figures that Yougov give them.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
But it's where we've arrived at. State Pension Age is going to increase so that the proportion of adult life spent over State Pension Age is kept constant (cancelling out longevity improvements). Public sector pensions are linked to State Pension Age (someone joining the civil service as a graduate today is probably looking at a pension age of 71 or more). And private sector workers, well, they're not going to be able to afford to retire until their 70s either.
I think most people who actually get to the retirement age region mainly want flexibility. I'll be 65 on Feb 5. I currently have two jobs plus the candidacy, and enjoy life, even though I virtually never just chill out. Slimming down to one job after May (one way or the other) would be nice, but I've not given any real thought to actually retiring for the forseeable future.
I know a bunch of people in my generation who vary a lot - some really want to call it a day, some would like to live and work forever, and a big middle group want to drop down to 3-4 days/week. These find it difficult - employers are dubious, the in-work benefits system isn't very helpful, their pension schemes are mostly all or nothing, and generally their impression is that nobody has tackled this seriously. Drawing down a bit of their pension pots does interest this group, but they still feel there isn't an overall strategy for gradual retirement.
For the vast majority of todays' 20 year olds I cannot see how it will literally add up without moving retirement into the 70's at a faster rate than we are (though I note Neil's comments about adjustments made already)
State Pension Age will be in the 70s for today's 20 year olds under current legislation.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
Like father like son.
Bah, my father voted Labour in the past (the last time was 1983, which I think makes him the only person to have voted Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997)
I have voted Tory in every general election that I've voted in.
Where's the fun in that? Like my dad, I've voted for all the main parties. I'm not sure my father has ever spoiled his ballot paper, but I've crossed that one off the list too, along with the Greens. Conversely, I'm not sure whether my dad has ever voted for UKIP, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. His turn for spoiling the ballot paper might be this time round, I suspect.
I once voted Labour in a council election, there were extenuating circumstances.
1) The Tory candidate, to put it politely was a bell end, like David Mellor or Brian Coleman but without the charm
2) The Tory leader at the time was IDS, so it was a tactical vote to get rid of him, so it really was a vote for the Tory party.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
And all the polls that have been carried out in the constituency.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
Really?
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
Even the infamous Oakeshott poll that had Clegg losing, in the supplementaries, had Clegg highly regarded by his constituents, not just the Lib Dem ones.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
The Lib Dems' performance in Hallam in local elections has been flattered because for some reason the Tories haven't been standing candidates in most wards there. And even then, the Lib Dems traditionally perform much better in local elections than they do in general elections.
I still get the impression the election campaign hasn't really started. I don;t see posters, adverts etc as I go about my daily business.
Will the farmers stay Tory or will they head to UKIP ?
Massive signs can be erected in fields and it's a key battleground for propaganda to appeal to drivers flying past.
Farmers are not happy that Russia has retaliated against EU sanctions by blocking imports of EU goods. As a result large quantities of EU grown produce meant for Russia has flooded the home market and severely depressed prices. Add to that with the cost of milk being less than bottle water I'd say they are not particularly happy at the moment. The fact that Farage is less hostile to Putin might have caught their attention.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
Clegg wins in Hallam due to Tory votes on loan. The electoral make-up of the constituency prob has a centre-right majority.
One wonders if there is similar left-wing thinking going on it South Thanet with Farage and Murray.
Scottish politics is about who can whinge most vocally that Scotland is hard done by. The SNP are winning that contest hands-down.
Which makes it interesting that Jim Murphy is standing on a platform of "who can fleece the English most effectively"
That's part of it. He's also a Unionist in at least one sense (though not necessarily others). he has also enabled London Labour to stand on a platform of "look at those nasty Jocks".
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
One wonders if there is similar left-wing thinking going on it South Thanet with Farage and Murray.
If anything he'll help Farage win his seat.
Do we all definitely think Murray is definitely standing?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
That was then, under a very different polling regime, but it's not impossible.
I think what'll probably happen is that the Conservatives will inch up by 1-2% and Labour will shed something similar. So it could be that the polls stay very similar until much closer to the day, where we may end up with something like Con - 34% and Lab - 30%.
It could be wider than that, but probably not much.
Probably the best news for the Conservatives is the clear rise in Cameron's ratings in the MORI poll. That is a form of polling that can be directly compared with the eighties and nineties, and mirrors what happened with Thatcher and Major as the election approached.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
Really?
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
But that's not the line of attack.
The issue is not that the SNP figures are wrong (although they were). They consistently picked figures on what might be called the optimistic side of cautious.
The real issue is they SNP were told, over and over again. that a petro-economy was dangerous due to fluctuations in oil prices.
The SNP answer was that petro-economies like Norway were brilliant. That is no longer a tenable argument (it never was but gullible people fell for it)
Have Norway magically gone skint , has that 600 Billion nest egg gone. As the SNP said the UK squandered the oil and used all the money to pay for unemployment , benefits etc. Intelligent people would have kept some aside at least in the good years and had a big pot of money when there was trouble. Hence Norway still rich , UK bankrupt and Scotland left in the crap due to Westminster troughing fools.
PS : Is that the same "Not Tenable" as Tories borrowing north of £100B per annum
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
The Lib Dems' performance in Hallam in local elections has been flattered because for some reason the Tories haven't been standing candidates in most wards there. And even then, the Lib Dems traditionally perform much better in local elections than they do in general elections.
It's a hold for Clegg, but I'm really not tempted at 1-4 or 1-3.
I know a bunch of people in my generation who vary a lot - some really want to call it a day, some would like to live and work forever, and a big middle group want to drop down to 3-4 days/week. These find it difficult - employers are dubious, the in-work benefits system isn't very helpful, their pension schemes are mostly all or nothing, and generally their impression is that nobody has tackled this seriously. Drawing down a bit of their pension pots does interest this group, but they still feel there isn't an overall strategy for gradual retirement.
I think that is changing really quite fast. In a few years' time the idea that you worked full-time until a predetermined Friday, and then stopped completely from the following Monday, will seem completely bizarre. Which it is.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
One wonders if there is similar left-wing thinking going on it South Thanet with Farage and Murray.
If anything he'll help Farage win his seat.
Do we all definitely think Murray is definitely standing?
If Murray doesn't stand is my deposit bet a winner or void ?
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
Exactly.
The SNP promised a land of milk and honey funded by oil.
To say now that the fact they were lying (and knew it) has no bearing on the next election is even more wishful thinking from the fantasists
They didn't. In fact, they went out of their way to promise the opposite. Google Mr Salmond on whisky and oil coming out of taps.
True. But we appear to have a "life flow" in which we go to uni, collect 50-60K debt, start work at 21, buy a house at a huge price, have a couple of kids and retire at 65/68. For the vast majority of todays' 20 year olds I cannot see how it will literally add up without moving retirement into the 70's at a faster rate than we are (though I note Neil's comments about adjustments made already)
The dependency ratio has always risen however gains in productivity have always negated the impact. As mentioned raising the retirement age has a huge impact anyway.
It might not worry voters but the collapse in productivity in the past decade should deeply concern the establishment.
No one accurately forecasted the oil price. What was pointed out is that it is volatile and not a safe basis upon which to make long term plans about the level of public spending.
You beat me to it.
The argument at the time, hotly disputed by the SNP, was that Scotland would not be able to withstand a shock.
Now that a shock has arrived, Scotland is not able to withstand it and the SNP have begged Westminster to help.
That has to have some bearing on the next election
Take your points. I hadn't realised the adjustments made already in the public sector for new joiners. Good.
However, to answer your question I'd like them to come up with a saner less volatile system of measuring pension liabilities.
At present all liabilities in a defined benefit private sector pensions (thousands out there being wound down - see Tesco last week for further last rites on a once great system), have to have notional liabilities of all scheme members no matter what age valued against current asset yields. As the 15 year gilt rate is taken very often as a safe corner stone from which much else is measured, its yield is effectively the sun in a financial solar system round which much else revolves. As todays yield is 1.85% (as opposed to a decades long average of something over 4%) unless we seriously expect it to be at that rate in 2040, it means we are radically overvaluing the liabilities of 40 year olds retiring in 25 years time. The resulting hole has to be filled with cash now diverting it from investment and (taxable!) profit. The converse is true should yields rise to unusually high levels.
Given the pension funds are often many times the value of the sponsoring company the volatility thus created also makes it nigh on impossible to value a company. This especially affects smaller companies I would assume.
Morally this matters because we (society and the govts it has elected) have managed to take a great system that needed some reform (Maxwel, ASW etc) and make it so risky and burdensome that nobody's doing it any more (again see Tesco above), leaving millions exposed to a poor old age as they are simply clueless as to the sums required to have a decent retirement.
I think it was Roosevelt who waxed about the "power of government to do good". Well when it's come to pensions our governments (plural, though Gordon bears particular responsibility IMO) is a story of government screwing up big time.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
The Lib Dems' performance in Hallam in local elections has been flattered because for some reason the Tories haven't been standing candidates in most wards there. And even then, the Lib Dems traditionally perform much better in local elections than they do in general elections.
This was a safe blue seat until 1990's so there may well be a fair amount of Blue to Yellow switching already. The proportion of "Red Liberals" may be much less in Sheffield Hallam than there are in seats where Labourites Have been tactically voting LD, such as parts of the West Country.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
One wonders if there is similar left-wing thinking going on it South Thanet with Farage and Murray.
If anything he'll help Farage win his seat.
Do we all definitely think Murray is definitely standing?
I can't see how he wouldn't given he's declared he will.
I initially opposed this just because of the civil liberties implications, but now it's quite clear from the experts that this could decimate the UK's tech sector if it goes through. What the hell is Cameron doing? Either he's being advised by security experts that don't understand the technology, or he just wants to pose as an authoritarian for electoral purposes?
I read in the Standard the other day that he'd even make the issue a red line in coalition negotiations. I'm not sure if this was the Standard getting it wrong because I haven't seen it elsewhere though.
Mr. Socrates, he's either playing politics (despicable) or is being very badly advised.
I hope he doesn't make it a red line. The proposal's completely ****ing insane. I've cruised through this Parliament, confident in voting Conservative to try and defeat Balls. I'd rather not have to consider casting my vote elsewhere because at the 11th hour Cameron's decided on an indefensibly stupid policy.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
But it's where we've arrived at. State Pension Age is going to increase so that the proportion of adult life spent over State Pension Age is kept constant (cancelling out longevity improvements). Public sector pensions are linked to State Pension Age (someone joining the civil service as a graduate today is probably looking at a pension age of 71 or more). And private sector workers, well, they're not going to be able to afford to retire until their 70s either.
I think most people who actually get to the retirement age region mainly want flexibility. I'll be 65 on Feb 5. I currently have two jobs plus the candidacy, and enjoy life, even though I virtually never just chill out. Slimming down to one job after May (one way or the other) would be nice, but I've not given any real thought to actually retiring for the forseeable future.
I know a bunch of people in my generation who vary a lot - some really want to call it a day, some would like to live and work forever, and a big middle group want to drop down to 3-4 days/week. These find it difficult - employers are dubious, the in-work benefits system isn't very helpful, their pension schemes are mostly all or nothing, and generally their impression is that nobody has tackled this seriously. Drawing down a bit of their pension pots does interest this group, but they still feel there isn't an overall strategy for gradual retirement.
Entirely agree Nick. And we could get a lot more working years out of people if we had a proper system for doing this. Initiatives here would be welcome.
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
Exactly.
The SNP promised a land of milk and honey funded by oil.
To say now that the fact they were lying (and knew it) has no bearing on the next election is even more wishful thinking from the fantasists
They didn't. In fact, they went out of their way to promise the opposite. Google Mr Salmond on whisky and oil coming out of taps.
Carnyx, Scott is just a Tory dope, he would not know the truth if it hit him in the face. His only joy in a sad life is slating the SNP, just laugh and let him get on with it.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election.
Not to the SNP 'DevoMax if we hold the balance of power' plan......
Why should that have anything to do with it? It's all within the Union anyway, and we've been told for 2-3 years how important it is to give all our oil money to London as we can't cope with it at all, whether oil piece is high, or low, or in the middle. The corollary, of course, is that London knows better, and that is what we are waiting to see demonstrated to us Scots.
N. B. Things like Mr Osborne's sudden tax of a year or two back Do Not Help.
Under devolution as it was I do not see what oil revenues any more than revenues from banking have to do with any particular part of the country. The oil is in the North Sea not the Trossachs. Any oil or gas revenues from fracking in the Midlands or Lancashire go to the UK Treasury. Rather shockingly I am proud to be living in the United Kingdom, proud to have Scotland part of the UK and proud to be assured that tax revenues drawn from the whole UK and its businesses will go to all parts of the UK according to a need for balance within that UK.
What I do not like under devolution is a 'devolved' MP voting on English matters which do not affect him or his constituents because they are devolved.
With Alex Salmond predicting an oil price of $150 / barrel then I do not think you can criticise Osborne, faced with a deficit of £150 billion from taxing North Sea oil. Fortunately for Aberdeen it is part of the wider UK and we can see the sense in offering tax concessions to the industry now in its time of trial.
Oh, suddenly it's about here and now, and not some Unionist myth of a counterfactual! Fair enough. For the moment, the oil is in UK economic zone waters. Of course all the money from Shetland to Kimmeridge goes to Whitehall.
But the oil industry is most certainly mostly in Scotland and that is what is dominating the news up here.
That is what I was talking about - though I should have made it clearer.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
Really?
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
Are you referring to Oblitus's equation?
I was looking at your post at 10.11am.
Oh right.. yes that was my first attempt.. it also had the mistake that if the net rating was 0 it wouldn't work
The latest one should be more accurate
Do you have a link to previous polls? Then we can look at the trend
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
And all the polls that have been carried out in the constituency.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
It's interesting how Sheffield is moving left (as you say like most core cities) while the rest of South Yorkshire is moving right.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
Really?
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
Are you referring to Oblitus's equation?
I was looking at your post at 10.11am.
Oh right.. yes that was my first attempt.. it also had the mistake that if the net rating was 0 it wouldn't work
The latest one should be more accurate
Do you have a link to previous polls? Then we can look at the trend
See my post at 11:01 should give you everything you need.
No students apparently "It says that many of the missing voters are young people - in part due to the decision to end the block registration by universities and colleges of students living in halls of residence. University cities and towns such as Cardiff, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Brighton and Hull have all seen five-figure falls in the numbers of registered voters"
I know a bunch of people in my generation who vary a lot - some really want to call it a day, some would like to live and work forever, and a big middle group want to drop down to 3-4 days/week. These find it difficult - employers are dubious, the in-work benefits system isn't very helpful, their pension schemes are mostly all or nothing, and generally their impression is that nobody has tackled this seriously. Drawing down a bit of their pension pots does interest this group, but they still feel there isn't an overall strategy for gradual retirement.
I think that is changing really quite fast. In a few years' time the idea that you worked full-time until a predetermined Friday, and then stopped completely from the following Monday, will seem completely bizarre. Which it is.
Increasingly in the NHS we see "24 hour retirement" so a full time employee retires, then returns a couple of days later as a bank Nurse or locum Doctor, with both pension and part time work. It works well to retire slowly, and I probably will do this myself in 7 years time.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
And all the polls that have been carried out in the constituency.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
It's interesting how Sheffield is moving left (as you say like most core cities) while the rest of South Yorkshire is moving right.
The Conservative party is toxic around here for obvious historical reasons - but there is I think a fair amount of small c conservatism around here. Hence UKIP.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Also, there must be an element of people that dislike a party saying they are satisfied with the job the leader of that party is doing, if the party are doing badly, and vice versa.
You need to multiply your final figures by minus 1.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
Really?
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
Are you referring to Oblitus's equation?
I was looking at your post at 10.11am.
Oh right.. yes that was my first attempt.. it also had the mistake that if the net rating was 0 it wouldn't work
The latest one should be more accurate
Do you have a link to previous polls? Then we can look at the trend
See my post at 11:01 should give you everything you need.
The Conservative party is toxic around here for obvious historical reasons - but there is I think a fair amount of small c conservatism around here. Hence UKIP.
This is why UKIP could be good for conservatives long term. Once they are big enough they can merge on an even somewhat fair basis with the Conservatives, you could have a new "Reform" party that ditches the reputation for being the party of the upper class, and the Tories historical poor branding. But the Tory leadership has been too idiotic to think long term, and think it's a more sensible strategy to speak badly of fellow conservatives, and work with the Guardian to smear them.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
And all the polls that have been carried out in the constituency.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
It's interesting how Sheffield is moving left (as you say like most core cities) while the rest of South Yorkshire is moving right.
Is this an ethnic thing? Whites (in the suburbs) are moving right while non-whites (in the core) are moving left?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
Even the infamous Oakeshott poll that had Clegg losing, in the supplementaries, had Clegg highly regarded by his constituents, not just the Lib Dem ones.
Which is what makes it so puzzling. The big question with the Lib Dems and from what I can tell the reason for their polling discrepancy 6-12% - how many of the don't knows will come back to them? ICM add on half I believe, but given the sheer number of don't knows this time, will that be accurate?
Now that a shock has arrived, Scotland is not able to withstand it and the SNP have begged Westminster to help.
That has to have some bearing on the next election
Not really. Scottish politics is about who can whinge most vocally that Scotland is hard done by. The SNP are winning that contest hands-down.
Yes, but as Mr Pulpstar said, the SNP are trying to implement a permanent solution, i.e. independence and responsibility.
Right now, the Union told us that it would manage Scotland better, and enough folk believed that to vote No. We're waiting to see this better management. Not least because the vast majority of the relevant machinery and taxation is not devolved (as we know from Mr Osborne's additional taxes imposed a couple of years ago). The SNP literally can do little more than ask Westminster to do something about it. What else are they supposed to do? Declare UDI?
Those who comment on the counterfactual nature of this thread are quite right. It all contributes to the feeling that the Unionists are stuck in some time warp.
What the hell is Cameron doing? Either he's being advised by security experts that don't understand the technology, or he just wants to pose as an authoritarian for electoral purposes?
Maybe a bit of both of those, but one more possibility is that what he's actually trying to get is something less extreme but still unreasonable/ambitious, and announcing it after building up this crazy thing will make it sound reasonable and moderate.
Now that a shock has arrived, Scotland is not able to withstand it and the SNP have begged Westminster to help.
That has to have some bearing on the next election
Not really. Scottish politics is about who can whinge most vocally that Scotland is hard done by. The SNP are winning that contest hands-down.
Yes, but as Mr Pulpstar said, the SNP are trying to implement a permanent solution, i.e. independence and responsibility.
Right now, the Union told us that it would manage Scotland better, and enough folk believed that to vote No. We're waiting to see this better management. Not least because the vast majority of the relevant machinery and taxation is not devolved (as we know from Mr Osborne's additional taxes imposed a couple of years ago). The SNP literally can do little more than ask Westminster to do something about it. What else are they supposed to do? Declare UDI?
Those who comment on the counterfactual nature of this thread are quite right. It all contributes to the feeling that the Unionists are stuck in some time warp.
The SNP could stop screaming about replacing the Barnett formula with something based on even partially sensible grounds, however. Either need, or each home nation paying its own way.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
I don't think the left-wing vote is big enough to win the constituency, unless the Conservatives and UKIP do better than I anticipate, and split the non-Labour vote. Unlike somewhere like Manchester Withington, or Brent Central, the Lib Dem vote has held up well in local elections here.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
Even the infamous Oakeshott poll that had Clegg losing, in the supplementaries, had Clegg highly regarded by his constituents, not just the Lib Dem ones.
Which is what makes it so puzzling. The big question with the Lib Dems and from what I can tell the reason for their polling discrepancy 6-12% - how many of the don't knows will come back to them? ICM add on half I believe, but given the sheer number of don't knows this time, will that be accurate?
That Oakeshott/ICM poll in Sheffield Hallam didn't have the spiral of silence adjustment.
The boss of Survation when looking at the data tables said if it had been a named poll or with a spiral of silence adjustment then it would have shown Clegg holding on.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's an odd mismatch.
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
And all the polls that have been carried out in the constituency.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
It's interesting how Sheffield is moving left (as you say like most core cities) while the rest of South Yorkshire is moving right.
Is this an ethnic thing? Whites (in the suburbs) are moving right while non-whites (in the core) are moving left?
Well, voters of Indian origin seem to be moving right (one reason I expect the Conservatives to hold Harrow East). Ethnicity is probably part of it, but I think there are also growing differences in outlook between voters in core cities on the one hand, and voters in medium-sized towns and rural areas on the other. The benefits of high levels of public spending are much more obvious in the former (with good public transport, lots of police, big hospitals, and educational institutions) than in the latter (dependent on car use, poorly policed, having to travel miles to get to the nearest hospital etc.)
Yes, but as Mr Pulpstar said, the SNP are trying to implement a permanent solution, i.e. independence and responsibility.
Right now, the Union told us that it would manage Scotland better, and enough folk believed that to vote No. We're waiting to see this better management. Not least because the vast majority of the relevant machinery and taxation is not devolved (as we know from Mr Osborne's additional taxes imposed a couple of years ago). The SNP literally can do little more than ask Westminster to do something about it. What else are they supposed to do? Declare UDI?
Those who comment on the counterfactual nature of this thread are quite right. It all contributes to the feeling that the Unionists are stuck in some time warp.
Yes, I think Jim Murphy's approach is not going to work. I can see why he's doing it, but ultimately it's an SNP-lite strategy. If you want that, why not vote for the real thing?
The big picture is that the SNP are going to do very well, in terms of swing, in May 2015. How well in terms of seats is very hard to say: anything from 20 to 50 seats looks plausible.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
I'd rate Clegg's chances of holding his seat at 95%.
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
I wonder. The Conservatives have tried shooting off several bolts over the last few months, in almost the most favourable economic conditions they could have hoped for, but none have pulled them ahead into a consistent lead.
There's not many left for them to fire now.
I was looking at the polling in the run-up to the 1987 election. Labour remained only a couple of per cent behind the Conservatives up till February, giving them hope of a hung Parliament. Then, there was a big shift to the government. Of course, the Conservatives aren't going to finish up 11% ahead, but they should be able to manage some sort of lead in vote share.
That was then, under a very different polling regime, but it's not impossible.
I think what'll probably happen is that the Conservatives will inch up by 1-2% and Labour will shed something similar. So it could be that the polls stay very similar until much closer to the day, where we may end up with something like Con - 34% and Lab - 30%.
It could be wider than that, but probably not much.
Probably the best news for the Conservatives is the clear rise in Cameron's ratings in the MORI poll. That is a form of polling that can be directly compared with the eighties and nineties, and mirrors what happened with Thatcher and Major as the election approached.
Portillo observed on TW that the real reason Cameron isn't keen on the TV debates is that it gives Ed a suckers punch. Although Ed is generally crap as we have seen he is capable of pulling off an occasional good performance and the one to one debate proposed could be especially dangerous for DC. The fact Ed is rarely capable of following it up and is hugely inconsistent is neither here or there. So ironically those MORI ratings might make the debates less likely to occur.
Mr. Socrates, each nation paying its way wouldn't go down well in Wales (2% of the wealth, 3% of the population). Mind you, historically we could count it as part of England [don't blame me, Welshmen, it was Edward, I think, who gave you a hiding]. That'd be unpopular too, I imagine.
TNS "The survey also shows that no party is particularly felt to represent the interest of normal people, but Labour (31%) and UKIP (26%) are seen as better than the Conservatives (18%) and Lib Dems (17%). ."
Comments
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/markets-bonds-euro-idUSL6N0UU3TM20150115
The UK has said it is stepping back from QE which has sent prices down and yields up. Its up to you to say if you think the expectation of a load of QE is a measure of good economic performance for France.
Plus. In say France, bond yields tend move in line with Germany. These have been edging down recently as sadly the threat of a break-up of the eurozone has receded.
Correct me if I am wrong but the Credit Default Swap 'insurance' for the UK is a lot less than France. Ours is not far from Germany and then of course there is Greece...
Looking at a crude average of this month's polling, the Labour lead is now 1.2%, which I think is the tightest figure yet. Can the Conservatives inch ahead?
There's not many left for them to fire now.
The question is whether Ed can reverse the decline and avoid being the latest in a succession of Labour leaders since WWII who have seen their first election after losing office return a worse poll number - accordingly below 28%.
The former will not happen but Ed may avoid the latter.
I have voted Tory in every general election that I've voted in.
As SO points out the promises of additional services, the ending of poverty and the higher standard of living were based on the premise that the oil price remained relatively stable. No honest politician would have made such misrepresentations. But they chose to lie and deluded a lot of people into voting for them as a result.
That was then. But the idea that we should accept that Salmond and Sturgeon were fundamentally wrong then but somehow magically right now is absurd. Yesterday, at FMQs, we had Sturgeon asking the UK Chancellor to effectively subsidise north sea oil exploration to save Scottish jobs. She was right to do so. But all that nonsense about how much oil was left in the North sea, how rich an independent Scotland was going to be and secure our future would be alone was indeed a pack of lies from people who knew better.
Bottom line is that the North Sea is not an asset at all at current prices. Its break even is normally thought to be in the mid 60 dollars per barrel. The price of oil may well go above that level in the future. It is indeed likely in the medium or longer term. Whether that will be in time to make use of the current infrastructure to extend production is the key to future employment and output. If the Saudis continue to play hard ball we are in trouble.
The issue is not that the SNP figures are wrong (although they were). They consistently picked figures on what might be called the optimistic side of cautious.
The real issue is they SNP were told, over and over again. that a petro-economy was dangerous due to fluctuations in oil prices.
The SNP answer was that petro-economies like Norway were brilliant. That is no longer a tenable argument (it never was but gullible people fell for it)
Labour supporters/activists think they can topple Clegg, but everyone else thinks he'll hold on comfortably.
I'm wondering if Labour think their hatred of Clegg is shared by everyone, when it is isn't.
Massive signs can be erected in fields and it's a key battleground for propaganda to appeal to drivers flying past.
As opposed to ed? what has he got left to fire??
I think what'll probably happen is that the Conservatives will inch up by 1-2% and Labour will shed something similar. So it could be that the polls stay very similar until much closer to the day, where we may end up with something like Con - 34% and Lab - 30%.
It could be wider than that, but probably not much.
If I was a farmer there is no way I'd want to come out of Europe.
Otherwise when you get to a leader with a net positive rating, you're going to end up with a negative figure.
The argument at the time, hotly disputed by the SNP, was that Scotland would not be able to withstand a shock.
Now that a shock has arrived, Scotland is not able to withstand it and the SNP have begged Westminster to help.
That has to have some bearing on the next election
Is this significant, I wonder?
Collapse in the muslim block vote?
@ DecrepitJohnL
True. But we appear to have a "life flow" in which we go to uni, collect 50-60K debt, start work at 21, buy a house at a huge price, have a couple of kids and retire at 65/68. For the vast majority of todays' 20 year olds I cannot see how it will literally add up without moving retirement into the 70's at a faster rate than we are (though I note Neil's comments about adjustments made already)
Careful. You are starting to exhibit the first signs of Scottish tory surgitis
I know a bunch of people in my generation who vary a lot - some really want to call it a day, some would like to live and work forever, and a big middle group want to drop down to 3-4 days/week. These find it difficult - employers are dubious, the in-work benefits system isn't very helpful, their pension schemes are mostly all or nothing, and generally their impression is that nobody has tackled this seriously. Drawing down a bit of their pension pots does interest this group, but they still feel there isn't an overall strategy for gradual retirement.
1) The Tory candidate, to put it politely was a bell end, like David Mellor or Brian Coleman but without the charm
2) The Tory leader at the time was IDS, so it was a tactical vote to get rid of him, so it really was a vote for the Tory party.
And, party leaders usually get a bit of a boost in their own constituency. I don't think any of the party leaders (outside Northern Ireland) has lost since 1945.
I don't think Clegg is hated at all, outside left-wing circles.
I agree with you that the general public don't share Labour activists' loathing for Clegg (he's more viewed as an irrelevant joke I think), but the key thing is not so much a negative personal vote but more that he's going to be without the substantial bonus he got from the Cleggasm last time. Not to mention the big cities' continual shift to the left, even in the wealthy parts.
I think Labour will take Hallam the next time they get a majority (though obviously the chances of that happening this year are now vanishingly small).
Like Ed's really worried about 'young people' LOL
It doesn't seem to
eg if Camerons leader rating was 11 rather than -11, his score would go from 59.63 to 74.37
Are you referring to Oblitus's equation?
One wonders if there is similar left-wing thinking going on it South Thanet with Farage and Murray.
If anything he'll help Farage win his seat.
PS : Is that the same "Not Tenable" as Tories borrowing north of £100B per annum
It is only the last of these that I regret!
It might not worry voters but the collapse in productivity in the past decade should deeply concern the establishment.
Take your points. I hadn't realised the adjustments made already in the public sector for new joiners. Good.
However, to answer your question I'd like them to come up with a saner less volatile system of measuring pension liabilities.
At present all liabilities in a defined benefit private sector pensions (thousands out there being wound down - see Tesco last week for further last rites on a once great system), have to have notional liabilities of all scheme members no matter what age valued against current asset yields. As the 15 year gilt rate is taken very often as a safe corner stone from which much else is measured, its yield is effectively the sun in a financial solar system round which much else revolves. As todays yield is 1.85% (as opposed to a decades long average of something over 4%) unless we seriously expect it to be at that rate in 2040, it means we are radically overvaluing the liabilities of 40 year olds retiring in 25 years time. The resulting hole has to be filled with cash now diverting it from investment and (taxable!) profit. The converse is true should yields rise to unusually high levels.
Given the pension funds are often many times the value of the sponsoring company the volatility thus created also makes it nigh on impossible to value a company. This especially affects smaller companies I would assume.
Morally this matters because we (society and the govts it has elected) have managed to take a great system that needed some reform (Maxwel, ASW etc) and make it so risky and burdensome that nobody's doing it any more (again see Tesco above), leaving millions exposed to a poor old age as they are simply clueless as to the sums required to have a decent retirement.
I think it was Roosevelt who waxed about the "power of government to do good". Well when it's come to pensions our governments (plural, though Gordon bears particular responsibility IMO) is a story of government screwing up big time.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/15/-sp-secret-us-cybersecurity-report-encryption-protect-data-cameron-paris-attacks
I initially opposed this just because of the civil liberties implications, but now it's quite clear from the experts that this could decimate the UK's tech sector if it goes through. What the hell is Cameron doing? Either he's being advised by security experts that don't understand the technology, or he just wants to pose as an authoritarian for electoral purposes?
I read in the Standard the other day that he'd even make the issue a red line in coalition negotiations. I'm not sure if this was the Standard getting it wrong because I haven't seen it elsewhere though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30845570
I hope he doesn't make it a red line. The proposal's completely ****ing insane. I've cruised through this Parliament, confident in voting Conservative to try and defeat Balls. I'd rather not have to consider casting my vote elsewhere because at the 11th hour Cameron's decided on an indefensibly stupid policy.
But the oil industry is most certainly mostly in Scotland and that is what is dominating the news up here.
That is what I was talking about - though I should have made it clearer.
The latest one should be more accurate
Do you have a link to previous polls? Then we can look at the trend
"It says that many of the missing voters are young people - in part due to the decision to end the block registration by universities and colleges of students living in halls of residence.
University cities and towns such as Cardiff, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Brighton and Hull have all seen five-figure falls in the numbers of registered voters"
http://www.novinite.com/articles/165985/Bulgaria+to+Restart+Eurozone+Accession+Talks
Right now, the Union told us that it would manage Scotland better, and enough folk believed that to vote No. We're waiting to see this better management. Not least because the vast majority of the relevant machinery and taxation is not devolved (as we know from Mr Osborne's additional taxes imposed a couple of years ago). The SNP literally can do little more than ask Westminster to do something about it. What else are they supposed to do? Declare UDI?
Those who comment on the counterfactual nature of this thread are quite right. It all contributes to the feeling that the Unionists are stuck in some time warp.
This is what Cybermatron on the Twitters reckons anyhow.
The boss of Survation when looking at the data tables said if it had been a named poll or with a spiral of silence adjustment then it would have shown Clegg holding on.
The big picture is that the SNP are going to do very well, in terms of swing, in May 2015. How well in terms of seats is very hard to say: anything from 20 to 50 seats looks plausible.
"The survey also shows that no party is particularly felt to represent the interest of normal people, but Labour (31%) and UKIP (26%) are seen as better than the Conservatives (18%) and Lib Dems (17%). ."
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/most-people-think-nigel-farage-is-saying-what-people-think
Those agreeing that UKIP represent the interest of normal people were:
25% current-Con, 19% current-Lab, 9% current-LD, 82% current-UKIP
p.146 of the PDF