@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
Yet.
Car crashes to be paid for by car manufacturers. Insurance companies to be windfall taxed as a result.
In all seriousness, it's notable that these big announcements - energy freezes; paternity pay - involve trying to give money away without having to raise it in tax. Which of course is a sleight of hand.
Presumably the Tories are saving up an energy exec or two to state that prices are actually higher today because of a fear that Ed will get in.
If you go on 2010 figures, the LDs were twice as popular as the the Sun.
Even considering current voter apathy, We can expect the two main parties to EACH receive more votes than the combined readership of the printed press.
OK, so politics is a lost cause. I just hope the MikeK and other Climate Change Deniers come to realise that the scientific method is aimed at finding out the truth. There will be mistakes made by individual scientists but peer reviewing will find these out. Science unlike politics isn't really something where you can simply rely on belief or opinion.
Correct - so all the more worrying that the current argument seems to be "the science is settled" together with a figure of e.g. "97% of scientists". You don't vote on science, you make hypotheses and conduct experiments.
Also, appropriating the term "denier" to describe sceptics is utterly inappropriate, and smacks of a [nasty] PR campaign than an attempt to "find truth". It's politicising science, in a process sense.
I write all the above as someone who thinks that AGW is probably happening.
The politicisation of climate science has all been driven by those people attempting to throw mud at the bits of climate science that are so settled they are boring to working climate scientists. There is plenty of uncertainty in climate science, but the political opponents don't ever want to talk about the interesting bits, because its the bits that imply that it's a real thing that they feel they have to attack for political reasons.
If political debate ever becomes a debate on science then you know there is a problem. What this means is that politics isn't having the debate on what to do about climate science, which means we end up with nonsense like the EU carbon market, Cameron's Green Deal, and the renewable heat incentive, which are doing more harm than good.
If the public political debate was about what the most effective response was, rather than whether it was something we had to respond to, then you would have a better chance of avoiding those sorts of frack-ups. As it is people like Monbiot fight a lonely battle in the middle of the non-debate.
OK, pop poll pickers...so today we definitely have Populus, Lord A (er, well, yes, um) and dear ole' YouGov.
About time for another ComRes (online or phone or both) isn't it....and ICM and MORI are surely due this week, aren't they?
I think we'll get ICM next week, and if we're good Ipsos-Mori this week.
My chance to trouser £100 rests on this Ipsos-Mori.
Bonne chance....now you're a pbTory, we do share our winnings. Paging Neil....
Unfortunately the PB Tory funds are much depleted due to the expense of paying for taxis for our more wayward brethren to get home from random seaside resorts at the end of train lines.
The politicisation of climate science has all been driven by those people attempting to throw mud at the bits of climate science that are so settled they are boring to working climate scientists. There is plenty of uncertainty in climate science, but the political opponents don't ever want to talk about the interesting bits, because its the bits that imply that it's a real thing that they feel they have to attack for political reasons.
Hmm, I think that's a bit generous to the climate-change scientists. As a scientist myself I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover that the climate-change computer model of Norwich University was proprietary, i.e. the source code of the model was not available for peer review.
"But they never behaved like this: what has changed?"
Thatcher! (Alanbrooke take note). She encouraged greed and 'get rich quick' with her privatizations and lauding the unacceptable face of capitalism. Inviting the likes of Hanson into her inner circle. She even presided over the corruption of lawyers once as respected as doctors. Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services
Guffaw !
wel done Roger you've avoided today's remedial class.
Now can you explain why Labour did nothing about it ? And why is "filthy rich" Mandelson OK for Labourites ?
As for Lawyers they did it to themselves, Thatcher has bugger all to do with it.
OK, pop poll pickers...so today we definitely have Populus, Lord A (er, well, yes, um) and dear ole' YouGov.
About time for another ComRes (online or phone or both) isn't it....and ICM and MORI are surely due this week, aren't they?
I think we'll get ICM next week, and if we're good Ipsos-Mori this week.
My chance to trouser £100 rests on this Ipsos-Mori.
Bonne chance....now you're a pbTory, we do share our winnings. Paging Neil....
Unfortunately the PB Tory funds are much depleted due to the expense of paying for taxis for our more wayward brethren to get home from random seaside resorts at the end of train lines.
Yes, we must have a quiet word with Dr Nabavi about his life-style choices.
The most important stats about climate change today.
@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove
@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove
That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.
The most important stats about climate change today.
@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove
@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove
That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.
Outrage bandwagon ahoy !
Probably because those who believe AGW is rubbish are more rational whilst those who don't are more emotional. Alternatively it could be a sort of 'build a safe nest for our young' mentality.
The most important stats about climate change today.
@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove
@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove
That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.
Outrage bandwagon ahoy !
Has given me a few ideas for chat up lines.
I'll melt your heart like a car engine melts the polar ice caps.
I'll get your temperature rising quicker than the Earth's temperature due to global warming.
Must admit I'm looking at this table and struggling to work out which side is the value, 5-1 sounds like a fair price but perhaps it's really a 10s chance ?
The problem I have with this blog topic is that if " Ed Miliband has judged that the Tory press isn’t the force that it was", and if he is right, then that would suggest that Ed Somebody has mad a sound judgment of something.
Must admit I'm looking at this table and struggling to work out which side is the value, 5-1 sounds like a fair price but perhaps it's really a 10s chance ?
No idea honestly though - a tricky one to price
What'a apparent is that although Labour sometimes tick's up, the overall trend is down since 2013. Very much the same picture with other pollsters and there's no reason to think that long term trend should change between now and polling day...
The most important stats about climate change today.
@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove
@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove
That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.
Outrage bandwagon ahoy !
Has given me a few ideas for chat up lines.
I'll melt your heart like a car engine melts the polar ice caps.
I'll get your temperature rising quicker than the Earth's temperature due to global warming.
Surely you'd be better telling them about the trauma of climate change and how that twister dumped you in Kansas in your red shoes ?
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Or did you not expect it to be scrutinised on a costing basis rather than just political attacks on it being too left wing etc... which would be very good for the Greens
O'Neill's interview was smart precisely because he didn't really attack it from a political perspective, just eviscerated the accounting of it.
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.
But the citizen's income - it doesn't even sound like too bad an idea and I imagine could have alot of appeal... but did noone think about the expense of it and how it should be paid for ?
I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.
But the citizen's income - it doesn't even sound like too bad an idea and I imagine could have alot of appeal... but did noone think about the expense of it and how it should be paid for ?
I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures
There are many citizen's income proposals out there and all are capable of being costed (and I imagine all have been). Citizen's income remains Green party policy. Whether (or what form) it appears in the 2015 GE manifesto will have nothing to do with Andrew Neil.
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Or did you not expect it to be scrutinised on a costing basis rather than just political attacks on it being too left wing etc... which would be very good for the Greens
O'Neill's interview was smart precisely because he didn't really attack it from a political perspective, just eviscerated the accounting of it.
Except the number of NOTA-party (Ukip, Greens) voters who give a toss is vanishingly small because no-one expects them to form a government.
'Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services'
He must have forgotten about social services.
Roger and the other deluded lefties on here perfectly encapsulate the Labour attitude that the only legitimately wealthy people are those who've become millionaires out of the public sector, whereas everyone else is a crook. Which is, of course, 180 degrees the opposite of the truth. Anyone who trousers hundreds of thousands, or even millions, out of the public sector is ripping off every single person who pays tax - which does not include any employee in the public sector as they are necessarily net takers of tax.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"
That's a nonsense.
He even refutes it in his own piece !
He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
Your last question is one I have been pondering as well. It's worth a lengthy post in itself. Rather than clutter up this thread I may do something separately and see if OGH is interested. It has relevance not just to banking but to other sectors because the root causes to my mind are very similar.
I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.
Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
Generally speaking, when you enter negotiations, you enhance your bargaining power if you can show that you have other potential deals on offer.
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"
That's a nonsense.
He even refutes it in his own piece !
He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."
Shush. I want that misconception getting the widest possible currency in the coming months.
The politicisation of climate science has all been driven by those people attempting to throw mud at the bits of climate science that are so settled they are boring to working climate scientists. There is plenty of uncertainty in climate science, but the political opponents don't ever want to talk about the interesting bits, because its the bits that imply that it's a real thing that they feel they have to attack for political reasons.
Hmm, I think that's a bit generous to the climate-change scientists. As a scientist myself I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover that the climate-change computer model of Norwich University was proprietary, i.e. the source code of the model was not available for peer review.
That, by definition, is not science.
What do you mean by your final sentence?
Science has never proceeded by audit. Other scientists would not have come into the Roslin Institute and asked to clone their own sheep using the equipment there. They would have followed the description of the method in the relevant papers and then recreated it themselves in their own labs, with their own equipment.
Being open about computer code is important, but a paper should provide enough information about the methods used that other scientists can recreate it, and arguably this method is more robust to error, as mistakes in computer code can survive undetected for a long time, but two people writing code for the same method are unlikely to make the same coding mistakes.
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"
That's a nonsense.
He even refutes it in his own piece !
He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."
Yes, and the maths is wonky too, isn't it - Ed needs 88/2 = 44 gains. But the more interesting line is the one on the expected outcome.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
... Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Science has never proceeded by audit. Other scientists would not have come into the Roslin Institute and asked to clone their own sheep using the equipment there. They would have followed the description of the method in the relevant papers and then recreated it themselves in their own labs, with their own equipment.
Being open about computer code is important, but a paper should provide enough information about the methods used that other scientists can recreate it, and arguably this method is more robust to error, as mistakes in computer code can survive undetected for a long time, but two people writing code for the same method are unlikely to make the same coding mistakes.
I mean that, by definition, in science you must be able to reproduce the results and check the workings. In the case of a computer model, there might be, as you say, straightforward coding errors, and there will certainly be implicit assumptions. Essentially the climate-change models were black boxes which other scientists weren't allowed to look into. By definition that is not science, the models were not peer-reviewed nor reproducible by other scientists.
As I said, I was absolutely flabbergasted when this came out. The University of Norwich went to great lengths to try to keep the model secret. This totally shook my faith in the climate change 'science', since it clearly wasn't science if it was secret and unverifiable.
Your point about the Roslin Institute is wrong: other scientists could reproduce the experiment. What's more, if there was anything unclear about how to do it, then a scientist can always ask the original authors of the paper and would expect to get a sensible reply, not 'you are not allowed to know'.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
I've been building a very nice book on the seats/votes issue - Con Seats, Labour votes is the jackpot though.
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
Boris doesn't know the first thing about science.
He knows more about science than Ed does about economics.
@TheScreamingEagles Definitely a possibility, but blaming Ed B when the evidence only came to light in 2010? (you are excused from the competition anyway, as you specialize in rhetoric, not logic)
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
I've been building a very nice book on the seats/votes issue - Con Seats, Labour votes is the jackpot though.
I doubt if UKIP will perform particularly well in Berkshire or Surrey, and they'll have no impact on the outcome there, in any case.
UKIP will poll well all the way down the East, and South East coast, Devon & Cornwall, the West Midlands, and South Yorkshire.
saddened The Times, the Guardian and the Telegraph still have a far greater depth of news stories than most other news sources, as well as opinion and comment, that is the main reason to buy them
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
Boris doesn't know the first thing about science.
What drove Einstein, Higgs and myriad other research scientists? Was it money or was it some combinations of curiosity, ego, challenge and freedom from interference by bean counters and capitalists? I know the answer, but, to avoid trouble, I'm not telling.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
I've been building a very nice book on the seats/votes issue - Con Seats, Labour votes is the jackpot though.
I doubt if UKIP will perform particularly well in Berkshire or Surrey, and they'll have no impact on the outcome there, in any case.
UKIP will poll well all the way down the East, and South East coast, Devon & Cornwall, the West Midlands, and South Yorkshire.
They may do well in the Chilterns as they are opposed to HS2
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
I've been building a very nice book on the seats/votes issue - Con Seats, Labour votes is the jackpot though.
I doubt if UKIP will perform particularly well in Berkshire or Surrey, and they'll have no impact on the outcome there, in any case.
UKIP will poll well all the way down the East, and South East coast, Devon & Cornwall, the West Midlands, and South Yorkshire.
You'll know far better than I - but it's precisely how they poll in seats where they have no impact on the outcome that affects the electoral bias. Obviously if they start taking lots of seats too then that changes things.
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
Your last question is one I have been pondering as well. It's worth a lengthy post in itself. Rather than clutter up this thread I may do something separately and see if OGH is interested. It has relevance not just to banking but to other sectors because the root causes to my mind are very similar.
I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.
Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.
It's not just finance - something seems to have gone wrong with our culture across multiple areas at the same time. It's not quite corruption, but it's certainly self-seeking.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
I think of the TV show House here. One person can colour many others if their personality is strong/appealing enough. The unethical but expedient becomes the norm.
I'm guilty of such behaviour myself, so acutely aware of how useful it is - and potentially poisonous to those around us who aren't. That's my take on it all.
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
...and what if LibDems actually do poll as the polls suggest e.g. 6-8%?
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
Boris doesn't know the first thing about science.
Nor do the climate change liars, they do know how to fiddle figures though
No individual, in their right mind would choose to pay extra tax than is legally necessary so why do we insist that companies act differently? Fine when people break the law prosecute to the full but all the rest is cant and rank hypocrisy. It's like blaming the banks when people borrow more than they can afford. We really need to get back to people taking responsibility for their actions.
The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like.
"As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about."
Greed. Mixed with a bit of the 'masters of the universe' stuff which polished their egos. A pretty ugly combination
Where there is money there will be stupidity and greed. And that applies to all of us, not just bankers. Always has been and always will.
The more interesting question to my mind is why we are so poor at understanding this and controlling it and what we might learn to do better in future.
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
Vanilla mail
Amazing how this is a Political Betting website but the actual bets are often kept secret.
Specific to the UK, I don't see what HSBC have done wrong. They have acted legally to help their clients avoid tax. If politicians want to stop it then they need to reform the tax code, not just point at perfectly legal behaviour and shout and scream about it.
As for overseas conduct, there is only an implication that they broke tax laws in other countries, but I'm sure HSBC have their own legal experts to ensure they didn't cross the line. This all seems to be a witch hunt aimed at the wrong people. Wealthy people and banks will use whatever means necessary to reduce tax exposure, it is up to governments worldwide to change the tax code and tax treaties so that avoidance isn't so trivial.
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
Just sheer naked greed Charles I am afraid.
Poor man wanna be rich Rich man wanna be King, But the King ain't satisfied until he rules everything.
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.
But the citizen's income - it doesn't even sound like too bad an idea and I imagine could have alot of appeal... but did noone think about the expense of it and how it should be paid for ?
I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures
There are many citizen's income proposals out there and all are capable of being costed (and I imagine all have been). Citizen's income remains Green party policy. Whether (or what form) it appears in the 2015 GE manifesto will have nothing to do with Andrew Neil.
The joy about "Citizen's Income" is that you can simply get rid of an enormous number of other benefits (i.e. all of them, with the possible exception of disability) - so, no more housing benefit, no more job seekers, etc. etc. etc.
And you also get rid of all the adminstrative costs associated with those benefits. You could even roll child-benefit into it by having a small "citizen's income" per child.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
Not sure what you complaint is. UKIP are in reality polling at a higher level? It's possible there is a methodology problem with UKIP as untried territory in a GE at this level. But we'll only really know after the fact.
Comments
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
Yet.
About time for another ComRes (online or phone or both) isn't it....and ICM and MORI are surely due this week, aren't they?
I now get it for free via o2.
3rd on their most read
12,000 shares already
430 comments of which the top 10 have more than 13,000 upvotes and the top 4 20,000 upvotes.
Prince Charles article also has 54,000 shares now.
Those are the big two politically relevant stories in amongst the celeb tat.
In all seriousness, it's notable that these big announcements - energy freezes; paternity pay - involve trying to give money away without having to raise it in tax. Which of course is a sleight of hand.
Presumably the Tories are saving up an energy exec or two to state that prices are actually higher today because of a fear that Ed will get in.
My chance to trouser £100 rests on this Ipsos-Mori.
If you go on 2010 figures, the LDs were twice as popular as the the Sun.
Even considering current voter apathy, We can expect the two main parties to EACH receive more votes than the combined readership of the printed press.
If political debate ever becomes a debate on science then you know there is a problem. What this means is that politics isn't having the debate on what to do about climate science, which means we end up with nonsense like the EU carbon market, Cameron's Green Deal, and the renewable heat incentive, which are doing more harm than good.
If the public political debate was about what the most effective response was, rather than whether it was something we had to respond to, then you would have a better chance of avoiding those sorts of frack-ups. As it is people like Monbiot fight a lonely battle in the middle of the non-debate.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6327797/Nearly-40-Labour-MPs-hire-staff-on-zero-hours-contracts.html
What were the odds ?
14-1 ?
That, by definition, is not science.
wel done Roger you've avoided today's remedial class.
Now can you explain why Labour did nothing about it ? And why is "filthy rich" Mandelson OK for Labourites ?
As for Lawyers they did it to themselves, Thatcher has bugger all to do with it.
Outrage bandwagon ahoy !
I'll melt your heart like a car engine melts the polar ice caps.
I'll get your temperature rising quicker than the Earth's temperature due to global warming.
Must admit I'm looking at this table and struggling to work out which side is the value, 5-1 sounds like a fair price but perhaps it's really a 10s chance ?
No idea honestly though - a tricky one to price
Which is just too far fetched to be true.
'Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services'
He must have forgotten about social services.
Or did you not expect it to be scrutinised on a costing basis rather than just political attacks on it being too left wing etc... which would be very good for the Greens
O'Neill's interview was smart precisely because he didn't really attack it from a political perspective, just eviscerated the accounting of it.
I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11398870/Ed-Miliband-will-never-understand-that-capitalism-can-cure-cancer.html
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
EICIPM
Western Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsaba arrested for treason. "I would rather sit in jail for three to five years than go to the east to kill my Ukrainian brothers. This fear-mongering must be stopped."
That's a nonsense.
He even refutes it in his own piece !
He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."
I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.
Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.
Science has never proceeded by audit. Other scientists would not have come into the Roslin Institute and asked to clone their own sheep using the equipment there. They would have followed the description of the method in the relevant papers and then recreated it themselves in their own labs, with their own equipment.
Being open about computer code is important, but a paper should provide enough information about the methods used that other scientists can recreate it, and arguably this method is more robust to error, as mistakes in computer code can survive undetected for a long time, but two people writing code for the same method are unlikely to make the same coding mistakes.
I haven't monitored the numbers but the 45-54 group seem to be drifting their way as well, having been overwhelmingly Labour at one point.
England and Wales virtually tied on Populus, so presumably a Tory lead in England.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/09/margaret-hodge-accuses-ex-chairman-lord-stephen-green-over-hsbc-files
As I said, I was absolutely flabbergasted when this came out. The University of Norwich went to great lengths to try to keep the model secret. This totally shook my faith in the climate change 'science', since it clearly wasn't science if it was secret and unverifiable.
Your point about the Roslin Institute is wrong: other scientists could reproduce the experiment. What's more, if there was anything unclear about how to do it, then a scientist can always ask the original authors of the paper and would expect to get a sensible reply, not 'you are not allowed to know'.
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
Definitely a possibility, but blaming Ed B when the evidence only came to light in 2010?
(you are excused from the competition anyway, as you specialize in rhetoric, not logic)
If only I was allowed to do smileys!
UKIP will poll well all the way down the East, and South East coast, Devon & Cornwall, the West Midlands, and South Yorkshire.
I'm guilty of such behaviour myself, so acutely aware of how useful it is - and potentially poisonous to those around us who aren't. That's my take on it all.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-), Con 33 (+2), LD 8 (-), UKIP 15 (-1), Others 10 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/5SfSTX9zbX
The more interesting question to my mind is why we are so poor at understanding this and controlling it and what we might learn to do better in future.
As for overseas conduct, there is only an implication that they broke tax laws in other countries, but I'm sure HSBC have their own legal experts to ensure they didn't cross the line. This all seems to be a witch hunt aimed at the wrong people. Wealthy people and banks will use whatever means necessary to reduce tax exposure, it is up to governments worldwide to change the tax code and tax treaties so that avoidance isn't so trivial.
tripetrite.Apply all the Seven Deadly Sins instead for a slightly more convincing argument.
And you also get rid of all the adminstrative costs associated with those benefits. You could even roll child-benefit into it by having a small "citizen's income" per child.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!