Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s cartoon from Marf (on Sir Malcolm of course) and

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Yes, about the same rate of job loss as under Wilson.
    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    I believe he said he wouldn't, but I would love it if Ken Livingstone ran for London Mayor again. That would be hilarious whether he won or not, and as I don't live there the outcome wouldn't matter to me anyway, so there's no downside.

    You would love it?

    You are Kevin Keegan and I claim by £5
    But I'll tell ya - you can tell him now if you're watching it - we're still fighting for this Election, and he's got to go to PMQs and get something, and... and I tell you honestly, I will love it if we beat them, love it!
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Really? So the House of Commons Library and the BBC and, incidently, the Guardian who also used the same figures, are wrong then?

    What source do you have for your figures?
    There were at one time over 1.2 million miners - why not start with that instead of blaming Thatcher for everything.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    Enough to make you want to pack your bags!
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TheWatcher
    Oddly enough he too went into mental decline.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,087
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    I believe he said he wouldn't, but I would love it if Ken Livingstone ran for London Mayor again. That would be hilarious whether he won or not, and as I don't live there the outcome wouldn't matter to me anyway, so there's no downside.

    Christ, no!! There's no hilarity with Livingstone. He's far more dangerous than people assume.

    I'll take your word for it, but in this at least, London's problems would not be mine I suspect.

    Perhaps one of the Labour frontrunners or a cooky independent could provide an entertainment on the level of yet another Livingstone attempt, but I fear not. Here's hoping though.

    A pleasant night to all.
  • Options
    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam
  • Options

    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?

    Oh, those were cuddly, warm, fair, job losses, not at all the same.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    UKPR seem pretty sanguine about the survation poll especially considering the swing the other way it gave last time.
    And it points out ...'the daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 33%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 7%. A two point Conservative lead from YouGov, the first time they’ve shown that for just over a month.'

    I can see why OGH likes survation because it shows an increase of support of nearly 50%.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,249

    I wouldn't write Boris off but who is he? At some point he'll have to decide. The metropolitan immigration loving mayor? The eurosceptic darling of the Tory grassroots? A Thatcherite or a one-nation revivalist? My guess is it depends on whoever he is addressing at the time.

    And that is the problem in a nutshell. He's a good writer and performer. He's good at projecting himself. He is good at cheering people up. But his actual achievements are modest - especially after 8 years as Mayor. There are no major disasters, he has not spent money madly and badly and maybe that is all one can or should expect.

    The Tories should have sober people throughout the country talking about what's been done, why it is good for them (the voters) and what still needs to be done and why. They should have been doing this for the last few years and they should have been listening to people.

    Not hoping to find the political equivalent of Viagra at the last moment.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,087
    Tim_B said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Really? So the House of Commons Library and the BBC and, incidently, the Guardian who also used the same figures, are wrong then?

    What source do you have for your figures?
    There were at one time over 1.2 million miners - why not start with that instead of blaming Thatcher for everything.
    That would go against the tenets of a whole religion, a big ask indeed. Maybe in 50 years. We can only hope. Honestly, I've never voted Tory, but one day I might if someone assumes I will vote against the party or tries to make me vote against them on the strength of hatred of Thatcher alone, despite being a child when she left office.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,087

    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?

    Oh, those were cuddly, warm, fair, job losses, not at all the same.
    Like Labour cuts, no doubt.
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    Enough to make you want to pack your bags!
    You don't think it odd that during a period of all out war strikes accounted for more lost production than enemy action?

    I did, because it runs counter to the myth of the heroic Bevan boys battling on the home front.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?

    Oh, those were cuddly, warm, fair, job losses, not at all the same.
    And it was much less painful as it was only 50% (or whatever) not a wicked 80% of a much smaller number.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Really? So the House of Commons Library and the BBC and, incidently, the Guardian who also used the same figures, are wrong then?

    What source do you have for your figures?
    Where do you get your 225k and 60k from?

    I have give you the industry figures
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,673
    edited February 2015
    To be fair to BigJohn, he's on the edge of South Yorkshire, in South Yorkshire (except Sheffield Hallam) it is an article of faith, that Thatcher hated miners and went out of her way to punish them.

    Last year, 30 years on from the strike, Sheffield United took on Nottingham Forest in the cup. Nottinghamshire was the home of the anti striking UDM.

    The Blades fan still call Forest fans Scabs.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911

    To be fair to BigJohn, he's on the edge of South Yorkshire, in South Yorkshire (except Sheffield Hallam) it is an article of faith, that Thatcher hated miners and went out of her way to punish them.

    Last year, 30 years on from the strike, Sheffield United took Nottingham Forest in the cup. Nottinghamshire was the home of the anti striking UDM.

    The Blades fan still call Forest fans Scabs.

    Well you have ruined my night now by mentioning Sheffield Utd.
  • Options
    saddened said:

    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    Enough to make you want to pack your bags!
    You don't think it odd that during a period of all out war strikes accounted for more lost production than enemy action?

    I did, because it runs counter to the myth of the heroic Bevan boys battling on the home front.
    I suppose we are being a bit cruel destroying all Big John's heart felt misconceptions but I am sure with that big IQ of his he will somehow cope.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    philiph said:

    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?

    Oh, those were cuddly, warm, fair, job losses, not at all the same.
    And it was much less painful as it was only 50% (or whatever) not a wicked 80% of a much smaller number.
    43% and 80% but that would be misusing statistics.
  • Options

    43% and 80% but that would be misusing statistics.

    Over how many years in each case?
  • Options

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    Where do you get those figures from?

    ConHome or Daily Mail

    The BBC. :-)

    Are you sure your IQ is 138?

    Just goes to show I was right about how useless IQ is for measuring intelligence.
    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost

    Spot on no wonder I am a genius compared to some!!!

    I remember TSE pointed out the survey showing Kippers had the lowest IQ
    That survey also said the Greens had the highest IQ.

    Following Ms Bennett's interview today, I'm not sure that study is any good
  • Options

    The Latest Yougov and Survation Polls

    Yougov CON 35%, LAB 33%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 7%


    (plus an analysis of UKIPs polling position)

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9266
  • Options

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Really? So the House of Commons Library and the BBC and, incidently, the Guardian who also used the same figures, are wrong then?

    What source do you have for your figures?
    Where do you get your 225k and 60k from?

    I have give you the industry figures
    From the House of Commons paper I linked to.

    You have provided no links at all.

    Mind you your number for the miners in 1990 is similar to mine. Unfortunately for you the 280,000 in 1979 is out by over 50,000.

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Strikes

    A combination of war weariness, fears for the future and the new bargaining power that the labour shortage created for the miners meant industrial relations in coal were often poor. Trade union leaders were committed to the war effort and involved in its planning at a local and regional level. But at the coalface there were tensions, especially when miners were prosecuted for petty offences such as being late for work without permission.

    There were 514 stoppages in the south Wales coalfield between September 1939 and October 1944. Most were unofficial like the 1942 and 1943 'pit boys' strikes by young miners who were angry at earning less than older men. In the spring of 1944, 100,000 Welsh miners went on strike over wages. The dispute won the miners a healthy minimum wage but it meant that some saw them as unpatriotic.

    The writer and miner Bert Coombes noted that many young miners during the war were bitter about conditions, distrustful of officialdom and often had little respect for older workers and community institutions. He put this down to them growing up in period of idleness and misery. More sympathetically, a miners' agent in the Swansea valleys noted the strikes were as much a revolt against the 'conditions of life during the war' as they were about wages. He pointed out, 'Couldn't get anything, see, you went to the pit, came out of the pit, and that was the end of the bloody day for you. See, you couldn't go down town, or if you went down town, you wouldn't be able to buy anything or spend anything'.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911

    saddened said:

    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    Enough to make you want to pack your bags!
    You don't think it odd that during a period of all out war strikes accounted for more lost production than enemy action?

    I did, because it runs counter to the myth of the heroic Bevan boys battling on the home front.
    I suppose we are being a bit cruel destroying all Big John's heart felt misconceptions but I am sure with that big IQ of his he will somehow cope.
    I is just a fik socialist but EICIPM on 8/5/15 will cheer me up.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,012

    @TSEofPB: YouGov polling for the Times on London http://t.co/e7q7FEtFg0

    A 3% swing to Labour in London doesn't look that great.

  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    To be fair to BigJohn, he's on the edge of South Yorkshire, in South Yorkshire (except Sheffield Hallam) it is an article of faith, that Thatcher hated miners and went out of her way to punish them.

    Last year, 30 years on from the strike, Sheffield United took Nottingham Forest in the cup. Nottinghamshire was the home of the anti striking UDM.

    The Blades fan still call Forest fans Scabs.

    I would think a big IQ should question an article of faith.

    I remember driving up and down the A1 (Hertfordshire to Harrogate) fairly often during the strikes. Long queues, police vans everywhere, police checks and testosterone galore flowing over into anger and conflict about to burst out at any minute.
  • Options

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    No Ilford North?
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    Individual polls by Ashcroft say otherwise in a few of those.

    I'd look at demographic change in a few suburbs for Con-Lab swings but suspect that Diane Abbott, Harriet Harman et al are racking up plenty of pointless extra votes in Hackney, Peckham etc.
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    philiph said:

    Would it be correct to assume from the comments of others here, that Wilson took great pleasure in these job losses, and then went mad with guilt?

    Oh, those were cuddly, warm, fair, job losses, not at all the same.
    And it was much less painful as it was only 50% (or whatever) not a wicked 80% of a much smaller number.
    43% and 80% but that would be misusing statistics.
    By not taking into account the progress in automation for example? That sort of abuse of figures?
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Good riddance. Here's hoping we'll have someone less supine to protect our interests chairing the Intelligence committee. You would never have expected something like the US Senate's Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency 's Detention and Interrogation Program under Rifkind's chairmanship.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    At the height of the Battle of Britain there were delays in production at the Spitfire factory in Castle Bromwich over pay.

    Mind you the Germans had similar problems on the home front. Germany did not go over to a proper war economy until 1943. Tank and aircraft production peaked in late 44. In comparison the UK went to a war economy in 1939. Part of the reason we won was that we were more driven and efficient than the Germans.

    BTW amazon has Iain McWhirters book on the Sindy campaign for 99p today

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00QPHSKE0/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1424819469&sr=1-1&pi=AC_SY200_QL40&dpPl=1&dpID=41r2mrMJ3KL&ref=plSrch
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    No Ilford North?
    No, nuked by the Russians
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,012

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    No Ilford North?
    On that swing, the Conservatives should hold Ilford North.

  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    I make it a 3% swing Con to Lab from GE 2010. On the face of it rather underwhelming but it pretty much unwinds the swing Lab to Con achieved at the general election.

    How's that for spinning? ;-)
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,021
    Finding myself running out of superlatives to describe just how much of a gold standard yougov are.
  • Options

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    No Ilford North?
    On UNS, Lee Scott hold on.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,185
    Sean_F said:

    @TSEofPB: YouGov polling for the Times on London http://t.co/e7q7FEtFg0

    A 3% swing to Labour in London doesn't look that great.

    And that is before deploying the Boris Bazooka!

    The Tories had a poor election in London in 2010, so I guess there aren't so many low-hanging blue-berries to pick off.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    RobD said:

    Finding myself running out of superlatives to describe just how much of a gold standard yougov are.

    Well, you could start with:

    Dogs
  • Options
    murali_s said:

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    I make it a 3% swing Con to Lab from GE 2010. On the face of it rather underwhelming but it pretty much unwinds the swing Lab to Con achieved at the general election.

    How's that for spinning? ;-)
    That's not spinning, that's an honest and accurate assessment.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2015
    The London opinion-polling has been relatively poor for Labour all through the past 5 years (subsamples have regularly shown London to be the region with the lowest swing from 2010 throughout), yet the elections in May last year showed the exact opposite. The question is whether there was something specific about those elections last year which gave Labour a one-off boost, or if London polling just isn't getting the right sample mix.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    murali_s said:

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    I make it a 3% swing Con to Lab from GE 2010. On the face of it rather underwhelming but it pretty much unwinds the swing Lab to Con achieved at the general election.

    How's that for spinning? ;-)
    That's not spinning, that's an honest and accurate assessment.
    MOE?
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited February 2015
    kle4 said:

    Tim_B said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    These numbers are correct

    1979 281,023 employed
    1990 56,204

    Jobs lost equal 224,819

    56204 as a percentage of 281023 = 19.99% ie 80.01% of miners jobs lost
    Really? So the House of Commons Library and the BBC and, incidently, the Guardian who also used the same figures, are wrong then?

    What source do you have for your figures?
    There were at one time over 1.2 million miners - why not start with that instead of blaming Thatcher for everything.
    That would go against the tenets of a whole religion, a big ask indeed. Maybe in 50 years. We can only hope. Honestly, I've never voted Tory, but one day I might if someone assumes I will vote against the party or tries to make me vote against them on the strength of hatred of Thatcher alone, despite being a child when she left office.
    Looking at the page 19 graphs in the document mentioned earlier. it is obvious that by 1979 the NCB and the coal mining industry was a shadow of what it once was.

    What nobody mentions is the huge amount of taxpayer money it took to subsidize the coal board's operations, to keep it going, as it was very inefficient.

    Things got so bad that I remember in the late 1970s, it was cheaper to import coal from abroad rather than use the output of UK miners. If you want a death knell, there it is.

    Being a Yorkshireman myself, I understand the damage to communities that happened as a result of the collapse of the coal industry, and it is regrettable. But that merely shows how unwise it is to live in a one horse town.

    It is immoral to take taxpayers money to prop up indefinitely an industry that has no chance of ever paying its way, and its product is more expensive than imports. That's just throwing other people's money away.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
  • Options
    the most telling point of your post is you did not rebut the Wilson statement. Because deep down you know it's true ... Go on admit it you will feel so much better.

    No idea if its true or not but no amount of Tory spin on coal mines will mask the fact that 80 per cent of coal jobs were lost under Thatcher.

    Maybe the other difference would be that Thatcher enjoyed inflicting the misery on mining communities

    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?

    I could ask my grandad who was made redundant by the Wilson government.

    Still he was given the opportunity to work at another pit - 12 mile bike ride there, 8 hours underground, 12 mile bike ride home. He dropped dead a couple of years later.

    If he'd been made redundant in the 1980s he would have received a big payoff and a nice pension.


    In 1984 I was working as a van salesman involving dairy products, and every Monday afternoon I used to deliver into the NCB headquarters in Victoria. As the strike took hold I went to make my usual delivery but there was a picket line manned by the Kent miners. I refused to cross the picket line but asked the miners if I could just walk in and speak to the guy at security, they said no problem, he spoke to the kitchen staff and they came out and got the delivery.

    When I got back to the depot I was called into the office as the NCB had made a complaint, and they wanted to sack me but my Union intervened. When you consider that my third child was born that year I was taking a risk, but no way I would cross that picket line and didn't for the duration of the strike. I also put at least a ten ner in the bucket every week and gave them as much food as I could fiddle.

    Nothing like the ultimate sacrifice your Grandad made but people like John think that because I am now a Kipper I am some sort of Nazi, when the truth is I am more working class than most on this board.
  • Options
    The Times have put their article up, the précis

    The Tories have won the minds of the voters because of the economy.

    But to win, they also need win their hearts, with an optimistic message, and Boris is the chap to do that (as well duff up Ed)
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    saddened said:

    saddened said:

    Moses_ said:

    @moses I have found the figures regarding mining job losses now 212,000 were lost under wilson 224,818 were lost under thatcher.

    Interesting fact that I didnt know

    Wrong again.

    There were 225,000 jobs in UK mining industry when Thatcher came to power and around 60,000 when she was ousted 11 years later. So Job losses under Thatcher were around 165,000 in 11 years compared to around 220,000 in 6 years under Wilson.

    Wilson must have really hated those miners.
    RT
    Don't forget 80% of all miners jobs were lost under Thatcher. ( according to the guy with an IQ of 138)
    Mathamatical calculations not the stong point in that IQ obviously

    Good night
    80% reduction in mining jobs under Thatcher wouldnt work with Tyndall or your numbers but i am afraid you are both wrong.

    What is your source?
    Try the House of Commons

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp99-111.pdf

    (Graph on Page 19)

    Like I said, I really would get that IQ checked if I were you. Maybe you meant you had 138 Anti-Nazi League badges.

    Interesting to note, from the same page, that the biggest cause of lost production during both world wars was not enemy action, but strikes.
    Enough to make you want to pack your bags!
    You don't think it odd that during a period of all out war strikes accounted for more lost production than enemy action?

    I did, because it runs counter to the myth of the heroic Bevan boys battling on the home front.
    The Bevin Boys were mostly conscripts. I'm not sure they got on well with their fellow workers.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    @Tim_B

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.


    Good line
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,673
    edited February 2015
    Danny565 said:

    The London opinion-polling has been relatively poor for Labour all through the past 5 years (subsamples have regularly shown London to be the region with the lowest swing from 2010 throughout), yet the elections in May last year showed the exact opposite. The question is whether there was something specific about those elections last year which gave Labour a one-off boost, or if London polling just isn't getting the right sample mix.

    I think London is particularly resistant to Lab to UKIP switching, and particularly fertile for LD to Lab switching, so that's why Labour did so well in London last year.

    And because the 2006 London results were bad for Labour, we saw of that unwind in 2010, but it properly shook out in 2014
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045

    So, the Times YouGov London poll predicts

    Lab gains from the Lib Dems of

    1) Bermondsey
    2) Brent Central
    3) Hornsey & Wood Green

    Lab Gains from the Tories

    1) Brentford & Isleworth
    2) Croydon Central
    3) Enfield North
    4) Hendon

    and Con gain the Lib Dem seats of

    1) Carshallton & Wallington
    2) Sutton and Cheam

    No Ilford North?
    On UNS, Lee Scott hold on.
    Lee Scott is one of the few Tories that I like. He was a vehement critic of the recently deposed President of Sri Lanka.
  • Options
    I'm hearing that the Lab candidate in Bradford West has pulled out. She was only selected a few days ago.

    This is only a rumour.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited February 2015

    the most telling point of your post is you did not rebut the Wilson statement. Because deep down you know it's true ... Go on admit it you will feel so much better.

    '' No idea if its true or not but no amount of Tory spin on coal mines will mask the fact that 80 per cent of coal jobs were lost under Thatcher.

    Maybe the other difference would be that Thatcher enjoyed inflicting the misery on mining communities

    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?

    I could ask my grandad who was made redundant by the Wilson government.

    Still he was given the opportunity to work at another pit - 12 mile bike ride there, 8 hours underground, 12 mile bike ride home. He dropped dead a couple of years later.

    If he'd been made redundant in the 1980s he would have received a big payoff and a nice pension.


    In 1984 I was working as a van salesman involving dairy products, and every Monday afternoon I used to deliver into the NCB headquarters in Victoria. As the strike took hold I went to make my usual delivery but there was a picket line manned by the Kent miners. I refused to cross the picket line but asked the miners if I could just walk in and speak to the guy at security, they said no problem, he spoke to the kitchen staff and they came out and got the delivery.

    When I got back to the depot I was called into the office as the NCB had made a complaint, and they wanted to sack me but my Union intervened. When you consider that my third child was born that year I was taking a risk, but no way I would cross that picket line and didn't for the duration of the strike. I also put at least a ten ner in the bucket every week and gave them as much food as I could fiddle.

    Nothing like the ultimate sacrifice your Grandad made but people like John think that because I am now a Kipper I am some sort of Nazi, when the truth is I am more working class than most on this board. ''




    You are not as working class as me if thats your measure. My father worked down the pit as did his brother and brother in law and his father and his father before him. Furthermore I was born and brought up surrounded by slag heaps.
    My father was disgusted with the strike. But in any event the notion that you cannot be working class and 'some sort of nazi' at the same time is stupid.
  • Options

    I'm hearing that the Lab candidate in Bradford West has pulled out. She was only selected a few days ago.

    This is only a rumour.

    She sounded exceptionally unsuitable for that constituency.

    Labour seem determined to lose me money again in Bradford West. This is beginning to look like a personal vendetta against my betting position!
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    @Nigel4england

    No idea if its true or not but no amount of Tory spin on coal mines will mask the fact that 80 per cent of coal jobs were lost under Thatcher.


    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?






    In 1920 there were 1.25 million miners in Britain. Roughly half had gone before Wilson came to power. You might want to adjust your numbers and cease the spin.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Tim_B said:

    @Nigel4england

    No idea if its true or not but no amount of Tory spin on coal mines will mask the fact that 80 per cent of coal jobs were lost under Thatcher.

    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?





    In 1920 there were 1.25 million miners in Britain. Roughly half had gone before Wilson came to power. You might want to adjust your numbers and cease the spin.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023

    I'm hearing that the Lab candidate in Bradford West has pulled out. She was only selected a few days ago.

    This is only a rumour.

    I' m on George here, so this sounds good to me. I see Labour have chosen the seemingly excellent local boy Imran Hussain them for Bradford East
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,931
    edited February 2015
    Anthony basically saying that The Kippers are going down the tubes;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9266
  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,883
    I'd be surprised if Labour don't gain Ealing Central and Acton in London.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,673
    edited February 2015

    I'm hearing that the Lab candidate in Bradford West has pulled out. She was only selected a few days ago.

    This is only a rumour.

    She sounded exceptionally unsuitable for that constituency.

    Labour seem determined to lose me money again in Bradford West. This is beginning to look like a personal vendetta against my betting position!
    I'm not complaining, I won money on George in 2012, and hope to do so again in 2015
  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    Anthony basically saying that The Kippers are going down the tubes;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9266

    The correct technical term is "Sleazy, broken UKIP on the slide"
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,673
    edited February 2015
    From ITV

    @PaulBrandITV: Opposition candidates in Bradford West claim @AminaAliLabour has stepped down as candidate just days after being selected to run for Labour.

    @PaulBrandITV: No response yet from Labour on @AminaAliLabour rumour, so let's believe it when we see it. Will leave it there for tonight...
  • Options
    Just wondering if anyone on here has built (or is working on) a forecast model? Mine isn't ready yet but getting some very interesting results...

    https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/570229225531281408
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,931
    edited February 2015
    If it wasn't these new kid's on the block like Survation and The Good Lord this might just have been the week where Team Con achieved genuine crossover? :(

    Tut.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,931

    GIN1138 said:

    Anthony basically saying that The Kippers are going down the tubes;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9266

    The correct technical term is "Sleazy, broken UKIP on the slide"
    "Sleazy, broken fruitcakes on the slide" If you don't mind...
  • Options


    Maybe the other difference would be that Thatcher enjoyed inflicting the misery on mining communities

    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?

    I could ask my grandad who was made redundant by the Wilson government.

    Still he was given the opportunity to work at another pit - 12 mile bike ride there, 8 hours underground, 12 mile bike ride home. He dropped dead a couple of years later.

    If he'd been made redundant in the 1980s he would have received a big payoff and a nice pension.


    In 1984 I was working as a van salesman involving dairy products, and every Monday afternoon I used to deliver into the NCB headquarters in Victoria. As the strike took hold I went to make my usual delivery but there was a picket line manned by the Kent miners. I refused to cross the picket line but asked the miners if I could just walk in and speak to the guy at security, they said no problem, he spoke to the kitchen staff and they came out and got the delivery.

    When I got back to the depot I was called into the office as the NCB had made a complaint, and they wanted to sack me but my Union intervened. When you consider that my third child was born that year I was taking a risk, but no way I would cross that picket line and didn't for the duration of the strike. I also put at least a ten ner in the bucket every week and gave them as much food as I could fiddle.

    Nothing like the ultimate sacrifice your Grandad made but people like John think that because I am now a Kipper I am some sort of Nazi, when the truth is I am more working class than most on this board. ''




    You are not as working class as me if thats your measure. My father worked down the pit as did his brother and brother in law and his father and his father before him. Furthermore I was born and brought up surrounded by slag heaps.
    My father was disgusted with the strike. But in any event the notion that you cannot be working class and 'some sort of nazi' at the same time is stupid.


    Are we going to have a 'who is the most working class' competition, hope not as it would be stupid, however my old man left school at 13 to work in the market and support his family, he never knew who his father was. My Mum was one of 15, a Geordie with a life like something out of a Cookson novel, she ran away from home and lied about her age to join the army in 1939, at least she knew she would get fed.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Sunder Katwala @sundersays

    Labour odds-on favourites (1/2) in Bradford West, but Respect narrowly 2nd at 6/4 will fancy their chances more if Labour internal turmoil

  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    If it wasn't these new kid's on the block like Survation and The Good Lord this might just have been the week where Team Con achieved genuine crossover? :(

    Tut.

    Cons would be 0.3% ahead in ELBOW so far this week, exc. Survation and Ashcroft
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362


    Urban Echo @UrbanEchoNews
    ·
    According to sources Amina Ali failed to give accurate information during selection interview. #BradfordWest #Elections

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,931

    GIN1138 said:

    If it wasn't these new kid's on the block like Survation and The Good Lord this might just have been the week where Team Con achieved genuine crossover? :(

    Tut.

    Cons would be 0.3% ahead in ELBOW so far this week, exc. Survation and Ashcroft
    #crossover

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,034
    A bit of a sad epitaph to Natalie Bennets bad day that puts things in perspective

    Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman)
    24/02/2015 22:17
    Plus Bennett a braver woman than most to take on reports of interview as "car crash", given little-known fact that her mother died in one
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Tim B -- the sad thing about coal mining was that the coal effectively ran out. Thats why pits closed. There is still a lot of coal under our soil but it is in seams that are very deep seams that are very narrow and seams that are in very unfavourable geological conditions. Most coal 'mined' around the world is open cast.

    Its not really the 'subsidy' - it's that the coal was becoming vanishingly small. Its market was disappearing too.
    The great hope was Selby - with a 'reservoir of coal the size of the Isle it Wight' - but it opened as the miners struck and the problems of geology killed what was supposed to be a showpiece.

    BTW - after the strike you could get redundancy of £35,000. Ask the Rover-MG workers how much Labour got for them?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023



    Maybe the other difference would be that Thatcher enjoyed inflicting the misery on mining communities

    When Wilson came to power in 1964 there were 520,000 jobs in mining in Britain. When he left power in 1970 there were 290,000. I wonder if Wilson enjoyed inflicting misery on mining communities?

    I could ask my grandad who was made redundant by the Wilson government.

    Still he was given the opportunity to work at another pit - 12 mile bike ride there, 8 hours underground, 12 mile bike ride home. He dropped dead a couple of years later.

    If he'd been made redundant in the 1980s he would have received a big payoff and a nice pension.


    In 1984 I was working as a van salesman involving dairy products, and every Monday afternoon I used to deliver into the NCB headquarters in Victoria. As the strike took hold I went to make my usual delivery but there was a picket line manned by the Kent miners. I refused to cross the picket line but asked the miners if I could just walk in and speak to the guy at security, they said no problem, he spoke to the kitchen staff and they came out and got the delivery.

    When I got back to the depot I was called into the office as the NCB had made a complaint, and they wanted to sack me but my Union intervened. When you consider that my third child was born that year I was taking a risk, but no way I would cross that picket line and didn't for the duration of the strike. I also put at least a ten ner in the bucket every week and gave them as much food as I could fiddle.

    Nothing like the ultimate sacrifice your Grandad made but people like John think that because I am now a Kipper I am some sort of Nazi, when the truth is I am more working class than most on this board. ''




    You are not as working class as me if thats your measure. My father worked down the pit as did his brother and brother in law and his father and his father before him. Furthermore I was born and brought up surrounded by slag heaps.
    My father was disgusted with the strike. But in any event the notion that you cannot be working class and 'some sort of nazi' at the same time is stupid.


    Are we going to have a 'who is the most working class' competition, hope not as it would be stupid, however my old man left school at 13 to work in the market and support his family, he never knew who his father was. My Mum was one of 15, a Geordie with a life like something out of a Cookson novel, she ran away from home and lied about her age to join the army in 1939, at least she knew she would get fed.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited February 2015

    Tim B -- the sad thing about coal mining was that the coal effectively ran out. Thats why pits closed. There is still a lot of coal under our soil but it is in seams that are very deep seams that are very narrow and seams that are in very unfavourable geological conditions. Most coal 'mined' around the world is open cast.

    Its not really the 'subsidy' - it's that the coal was becoming vanishingly small. Its market was disappearing too.
    The great hope was Selby - with a 'reservoir of coal the size of the Isle it Wight' - but it opened as the miners struck and the problems of geology killed what was supposed to be a showpiece.

    BTW - after the strike you could get redundancy of £35,000. Ask the Rover-MG workers how much Labour got for them?

    There are many sad things about the decline of the coal industry, but the idea that "It was Thatcher wot dun it" is inaccurate. She merely administered the coup de grace to an industry that had been declining for over 60 years.

    You can question her motives as to timing, but it was the right thing to do for the country, even if it had unfortunate effects on mining communities.

    Coal production peaked in 1913 at 287 million tons - by 1980 it had declined by almost two thirds.

    In 1920 there were 1.25 million miners - by 1980 it was down by 80%.

    MG-Rover - that was lunacy from start to finish: there was no way it could survive as a full line car company, but should have been a niche sports car manufacturer, which would have given it a chance to survive.

    The Labour government's decision to make it a full line car company made it clear from the outset that it could not survive. It was a travesty.
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Something must have gone wrong. Nobody ever even asked me to pay £5,000 for this
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ptTjQXIAAqXn8.jpg
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    JohnLoony said:

    Something must have gone wrong. Nobody ever even asked me to pay £5,000 for this
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ptTjQXIAAqXn8.jpg

    For 5k you get a lot more than just a handshake.
This discussion has been closed.