Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Ed Miliband is no one's idea of a man of the people. This is not news.
Nor is it news that Cameron is an old Etonian and ex member of Bullingdon who gives, yes, kitchen suppers. Yet he tries to avoid mentioning all this. Why? Because he knows it damages him.
The next time Ed stands up in the Commons and bangs on about "Tory millionaires" he will be drowned out by scoffing remarks about his second kitchen.
You can argue that all this stuff SHOULDN'T matter. Nonetheless it does.
It matters - but only because Ed made it matter with his attacks on Cameron.
He is a rancid little hypocrite and unfit to run a whelk stall.
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
SeanT's view that Labour depends mainly on half-hearted low-income voters is dated if it was ever true. Half-hearted low-income voters simply don't vote, by and large, and haven't done for some time, though they may be tempted by UKIP. It's a challenge for parties to remain keen to help people who don't vote - for instance, we remain very enthusiastic about Sure Start, but I meet plenty of Sure Start parents who wouldn't dream of voting. In the USA, the Democrats have pretty much given up trying to appeal to very poor voters and have switched to groups like teachers who are well-organised and inclined to vote. The Tory equivalent here is wealthy pensioners, hence the preoccupation with pension pot draw-down.
It is a mistake by Mike and some commentators to look at the eve of poll Sporting Index Spreads from 2010 and compare them to the actual result . Look at the spreads in March 2010 before distorted by the Cleggasm . The number of LD seats was pretty much spot on , Conservatives were way too high and Labour too low .
OT For fans of Latin music - I must recommend the OST for Dexter - it's epic. I love the series, but the soundtrack is something special. I used to be sniffy about OSTs, but I've been converted and now search them out. youtube.com/watch?v=WtVkvcMgdxs
Surprisingly, despite recent evidence in the polls showing a modest shift to the Tories over recent days, in his latest projection this morning, Stephen Fisher continues to have the two major parties locked together with each on 33%, with the LibDems on an unchanged 8%. On this basis, he has the Tories winning 285 seats (down 1 on last week), Labour winning 279 seats (+1), with the Yellow team languishing on an unchanged 22 seats ..... yet another "denier" it would seem! He calculates a hung Parliament as being an 86% probability.
Here's the link to the intro piece by Nate Silver confifming 538.com's coverage of the British GE, involving an interview with a colleague: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/uk-election-forecast/ As will be seen from the piece, the good people of Skegness are set to be graced by a visit by the aforesaid Nathaniel.
I thought he tried already in 2010 and got it woefully wrong?
538.com forecast 2010 and got it wildly, completely wrong.
That said, I think his 24 seat LibDem prediction looks too high. Unless the LibDems crawl back into double digits, in which case it might be right.
He is only forecasting 30 or so Lib Dem deposit losses though. Think of the consequences of that for the moment.
Excellent performance by Ed Miliband on BBC's Free Speech reaffirms why spineless Cameron won't get in the ring with him as Ed's best hits are always the live gigs. Meanwhile the 8/9 DUP troops are clearly aligning themselves with the Tories as expected so the Orange Order can be added with the Orange bookers to the Tory total.
R4 Today - Quoting EdM that if PM he would instruct (via OfGem) all energy suppliers to cut their prices.
Hm: AFAIK, there is no obligation for an energy supplier to supply energy to clients If it is unprofitable for them to continue in business, then they can either export their energy to a client/country who will pay the economic price or shut down plants.
Also many of the UK's energy suppliers are owned by non-UK companies - would EdM have a duff up with Hollande? (ten 3 minute rounds in the Bois de Boulogne - or just pistols at dawn?)
Of course EdM could always nationalise the UK energy generation and supply - of course he would have to pay the global price for gas and oil imports - or would he just use a HMG subsidy and so rapidly grow the deficit and debt - and so the interest rate on UK paper would rise and so increasing the deficit and debt even more.
No matter he did teach economics at Harvard - all theory of course.
Wasn't he just a post grad who gave a couple of lectures and marked some papers?
Not quite up there with IDS muddling up "in" and "at" in relationship to Perugia, but definitely deliberately misleading
According to Wiki:
"On 25 July 2002, it was announced that Miliband would take a 12-month unpaid sabbatical from the Treasury to be a visiting scholar at the Centre for European Studies of Harvard University for two semesters.[22] He spent his time at Harvard teaching economics,[23] and stayed there after September 2003 for an additional semester teaching a course titled "What's Left? The Politics of Social Justice"
He was after my time there, but found that Harvard did teach a lot of theoretical theory.
SeanT's view that Labour depends mainly on half-hearted low-income voters is dated if it was ever true. Half-hearted low-income voters simply don't vote, by and large, and haven't done for some time, though they may be tempted by UKIP. It's a challenge for parties to remain keen to help people who don't vote - for instance, we remain very enthusiastic about Sure Start, but I meet plenty of Sure Start parents who wouldn't dream of voting. In the USA, the Democrats have pretty much given up trying to appeal to very poor voters and have switched to groups like teachers who are well-organised and inclined to vote. The Tory equivalent here is wealthy pensioners, hence the preoccupation with pension pot draw-down.
It's not a tie, it had the Tories 2% ahead.
Was merely the supplementaries asked as part of this poll.
Note, the fieldwork dates, samples size and unweighted numbers are exactly the same
Alerted to a below par Charlie Kennedy on QT I have now looked at some of it and have to say that if the LD party really cared for him he should not be standing again. He needs a different way of life. http://order-order.com/2015/03/13/bbc-slammed-over-charles-kennedy-question-time-appearance/ Very sad, but they even have a song about him. Mocking him. Speed bonnie boat, Like a hack on the make; Back to his seat on Skye. Carry the lad that was born to be King, Back to the seat on Skye Where is the man? Down in the bar, Loudly the Whips pro-clai-aim Out on the town, Out of his head, Charlie is pissed again
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Ed Miliband is no one's idea of a man of the people. This is not news.
Nor is it news that Cameron is an old Etonian and ex member of Bullingdon who gives, yes, kitchen suppers. Yet he tries to avoid mentioning all this. Why? Because he knows it damages him.
The next time Ed stands up in the Commons and bangs on about "Tory millionaires" he will be drowned out by scoffing remarks about his second kitchen.
You can argue that all this stuff SHOULDN'T matter. Nonetheless it does.
Actually, I think this stuff should matter (and I do find it very funny). We have a political class that is utterly divorced from the realities of everyday life. They deserve all the mockery that they get when the public veneer peels away.
But by and large, this will either go unnoticed or simply confirm the prejudices of those who do notice. It won't change minds.
"Admitting acting in a racially aggravated manner. Blood swore at police officers and called them "Jock". As part of the order he will be supervised for 18 months and must carry out 160 hours of unpaid work. He was also given a three year football banning order."
Only managed to see one question, when a bright young lady asked him 'would not Labour be in a better position if your brother was the Labour Leader.'
Never have I seen a man so unprepared for one of the most obvious questions that may arise. He jerked back in his chair, opened his eyes in surprise (probably that anyone would dare to ask him that question - or that it had not been moderated out) and started to mumble and waffle.
Both his lack of ability for quick thinking and his lack of preparedness would leave the UK with a PM that the world (and certainly the EU and Brussels) would laugh at.
He should have said, "I don't have to answer that. You're not my mother."
Excellent performance by Ed Miliband on BBC's Free Speech reaffirms why spineless Cameron won't get in the ring with him as Ed's best hits are always the live gigs.
Last year's conference address is evidence against the proposition.
On the subject of Soubry. If she switched to her politically more natural home of the Lib Dems , they would at least get one fierce woman who would sort out the males in the party that dared transgress with the females. This is the sort of Leader they really need at this time.
So what you're saying Mike is the spreads last time overestimated the opposition and underestimated the government.
Definitely can see that happening this time.
The spreads underestimated Labour who were the Gov't, but whether this is because the spreads tend to underestimate the Gov't or underestimate Labour is not knowable.
Surprisingly, despite recent evidence in the polls showing a modest shift to the Tories over recent days, in his latest projection this morning, Stephen Fisher continues to have the two major parties locked together with each on 33%, with the LibDems on an unchanged 8%. On this basis, he has the Tories winning 285 seats (down 1 on last week), Labour winning 279 seats (+1), with the Yellow team languishing on an unchanged 22 seats ..... yet another "denier" it would seem! He calculates a hung Parliament as being an 86% probability.
I imagine that the UKPR average will have the parties tied on 33 or 34%, due to rounding. The Conservatives are ahead this week, but the results for the previous two weeks will be given some weighting.
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
The Tories had a 10 point lead over Labour in England in 2010.As a rule of thumb,they are unlikely to be close to anywhere that lead this time around.Statistically this means they will start losing seats in England to Labour.I suspect Labour will do relatively well in the Northern and Metropolitan areas and Tories relatively well in SE and the shires like they always do.Are Tories able to pick off seats from the Libs in the SW might be a key question?
Surely the Tories' lead over Labour in England at the 2010 GE was 11.4% as OGH has reminded us again and again and again, etc. Do try to pay attention.
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
Thanks for the analysis but some of us never voted for Blair. Also 28 year olds in 1997 couldn't vote :P
To be fair, the Tory seat spreads weren't too far off.
What that tells me is the (rarely mentioned) truth that Labour actually did very well in GE2010, given the hopeless position they were in, and fought a very strong rearguard action.
Impressive when you consider they "should" have lost a further 40 seats. ~20 or so to the Lib Dem surge that never was, yes, but also another 20 to the Tories.
Rightly or wrongly I ascribe that to Mandleson who organised a very effective campaign and persuaded huge numbers of public sector workers in particular that they would be getting their P45s by the end of the week if the Tories got in and their pensions would probably be cancelled for good measure. He scared a lot of people and somehow got away with never spelling out what Labour would do instead.
It is that same fear factor which worked so well for them in 2010 that will work so badly against an Ed Miliband-led Labour in 2015. The economy is moving along nicely. Those P45's never materialised in the threatened millions. All of Labour's calls on the economy since 2010 have been doom-mongering. And Ed, the tax-avoiding millionaire living in a mansion, has the albatross of hypocrisy hung around his neck every time he tries to open up an attack line.
Mr. Bond, not sure I buy that [Miliband being observant, not the two kitchens for observant Jews bit].
If he were observant, he wouldn't eat bacon sarnies or describe himself as an atheist, surely?
[Mind you, if he were Jewish in a religious sense that would at least make his comment on being the first Jewish PM make sense. If he *is* an atheist, then he wouldn't be, as the first ethnically Jewish PM was Disraeli].
It makes sense if he's a cynical hypocrite. What do you think, possibility?
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
The problem is the Tories have continued to support the stupid house prices with help to buy.
So what you're saying Mike is the spreads last time overestimated the opposition and underestimated the government.
Definitely can see that happening this time.
The spreads underestimated Labour who were the Gov't, but whether this is because the spreads tend to underestimate the Gov't or underestimate Labour is not knowable.
Particularly with a single data point.
Let's have a look at the spreads a few days before the 2005 election
Labour spreads: IG Index 364-368: Sporting Index 362-366: Spreadfair 364.6- 366.2
Tory spreads: IG Index 184-188: Sporting Index 184-188: Spreadfair 186-189
Lib Dem spreads: IG Index 64-67: Sporting Index 65-67: Spreadfair 65.1-66.8
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Ed Miliband is no one's idea of a man of the people. This is not news.
Nor is it news that Cameron is an old Etonian and ex member of Bullingdon who gives, yes, kitchen suppers. Yet he tries to avoid mentioning all this. Why? Because he knows it damages him.
The next time Ed stands up in the Commons and bangs on about "Tory millionaires" he will be drowned out by scoffing remarks about his second kitchen.
You can argue that all this stuff SHOULDN'T matter. Nonetheless it does.
The big difference being that Tory PMs are expected to be rich and privileged, that's already priced in. Labour PM's are supposed to be son's of the soil and tribunes of the people, not rich hypocrites.
Incidentally it doesn't really matter why he has a second kitchen, even if for religious purposes, there was clearly an intent to showcase the down-market one, it would be a bit embarrassing if the other turned out to me some £100k Bulthaup confection.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
So what you're saying Mike is the spreads last time overestimated the opposition and underestimated the government.
Definitely can see that happening this time.
The spreads underestimated Labour who were the Gov't, but whether this is because the spreads tend to underestimate the Gov't or underestimate Labour is not knowable.
Particularly with a single data point.
Let's have a look at the spreads a few days before the 2005 election
Labour spreads: IG Index 364-368: Sporting Index 362-366: Spreadfair 364.6- 366.2
Tory spreads: IG Index 184-188: Sporting Index 184-188: Spreadfair 186-189
Lib Dem spreads: IG Index 64-67: Sporting Index 65-67: Spreadfair 65.1-66.8
Lab and Lib Dems overstated
Con underestimated.
So 2010
Labour understated Conservative ~ right Gov't understated
2005
Labour overstated Tories understated Gov't overstated
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
The problem is the Tories have continued to support the stupid house prices with help to buy.
True as far as it goes. But causing house prices to drop and leaving million of middle class people in negative equity is a vote loser like no other, especially for the Conservatives.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
Thanks for the analysis but some of us never voted for Blair. Also 28 year olds in 1997 couldn't vote :P
If you're 28 now you could have voted for him in 2005. The must culpable are those who did so in 1997, which isn't all 36-year olds of course. But I do always wonder, when I hear someone of that vintage bellyaching about house prices, what they actually did to stop it all.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
So what you're saying Mike is the spreads last time overestimated the opposition and underestimated the government.
Definitely can see that happening this time.
The spreads underestimated Labour who were the Gov't, but whether this is because the spreads tend to underestimate the Gov't or underestimate Labour is not knowable.
Particularly with a single data point.
Let's have a look at the spreads a few days before the 2005 election Labour spreads: IG Index 364-368: Sporting Index 362-366: Spreadfair 364.6- 366.2 Tory spreads: IG Index 184-188: Sporting Index 184-188: Spreadfair 186-189 Lib Dem spreads: IG Index 64-67: Sporting Index 65-67: Spreadfair 65.1-66.8 Lab and Lib Dems overstated Con underestimated.
So two elections and the one consistent rule is that the Lib Dems are always over stated?
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Ed Miliband is no one's idea of a man of the people. This is not news.
Nor is it news that Cameron is an old Etonian and ex member of Bullingdon who gives, yes, kitchen suppers. Yet he tries to avoid mentioning all this. Why? Because he knows it damages him.
The next time Ed stands up in the Commons and bangs on about "Tory millionaires" he will be drowned out by scoffing remarks about his second kitchen.
You can argue that all this stuff SHOULDN'T matter. Nonetheless it does.
Incidentally it doesn't really matter why he has a second kitchen, even if for religious purposes, there was clearly an intent to showcase the down-market one, it would be a bit embarrassing if the other turned out to me some £100k Bulthaup confection.
For 'religious purposes'? Presumably that's one for bacon, and the other for Kosher.
As you say, the 'real kitchen' will be a slick interior designed number, perfect for a £2 million Dartmouth Park mansion.
(No doubt there will be some spin doctor waffle about it already being in the house when they bought it, brushing over the fact that the house cost well over 10 times the national average, and would be unaffordable for 99% of the population).
On topic: you could draw various conclusions, most of them erroneous, from the discrepancy between the spreads and the actual result. One key point, as Mark Senior suggests, was the massive uncertainty caused by the Cleggasm, but I wouldn't recommend drawing the conclusion that you can reliably make money by selling the LibDems.
IMO the conclusion you should draw is that the degree of uncertainty in almost any political betting is often underestimated. For that reason, on the big set-piece betting events such as the GE and the US presidentials I try to trade my way into a position where I'm reasonably well covered, and preferably profitable, over quite a wide range of outcomes.
Excellent response by Miliband to a wide range of questions on the BBC 3 programme, very impressive indeed and bodes well for the debates.Shame some people saw only one question being answered. Lots of people running scared this morning, headless chickens come to mind.The polls are not pointing to a Tory victory despite the attempts of the Tory media. The reality of life in Tory Britain is the only campaign tool that will work for Labour; zero hours, bedroom tax , privatisation, cuts, closure of public services etc. etc.
EdM knows what it's like not to know where your next meal is coming from.
Genuinely funny. Lol
It's never good for a politician to be laughed at.
Speaking of which, Mr. "Tremayne", I laughed out loud last night when Angus took the piss out of his father in law by asking him if he was still directing tampon commercials.
I await Wodger's Amazon review of your book with interest given that he's in it.
True as far as it goes. But causing house prices to drop and leaving million of middle class people in negative equity is a vote loser like no other, especially for the Conservatives.
Collapsing prices would be a disaster in many ways, not least in terms of the number of houses being built. Help To Buy has been a great success, giving just enough confidence for the housebuilding firms to really get moving again, without stoking up house price inflation.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
The Labour vote is weak. We know that. They are relying on reluctant half hearted prior supporters turning out to vote in May, mainly the White working class. Being reminded that the already-disliked Miliband is just as rich and out of touch as Cameron will not help motivate these people. At all.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Weren't the Lib Dems marvellous pre-election poll ratings largely built on the backs of the under 35s who subsequently didn't turn up?
Who are that group polling for now?
Anyone 25 or so in 2010 is now a thirty-something. With five years experience of austerity just as they were getting their homes together. Similarly a bright-eyed 20 year old student in 2010 is now a 25 year old post grad with a lower living standard than their older siblings.
The demographic for whom I have the least sympathy is people who are now between about 28 and 40. These are the people who were old enough in 1997-2005 to vote for Blair, were warned accurately as to the consequences of doing so, but did so anyway.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
Thanks for the analysis but some of us never voted for Blair. Also 28 year olds in 1997 couldn't vote :P
If you're 28 now you could have voted for him in 2005. The must culpable are those who did so in 1997, which isn't all 36-year olds of course. But I do always wonder, when I hear someone of that vintage bellyaching about house prices, what they actually did to stop it all.
Plenty of people in that age cohort voted for parties other than Labour.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Today's issue isn't with MPs being rich, it's with hypocritical Labour ones who seek to hide their wealth, and pretend that they're 'ordinary'.
All is well in Tory fantasy land, and the small talk can return to the importance of kitchens, and the rights of persecuted presenters. No one can say PB is not a weathervane for the top political issues of the day.
(actually, 1 in 10 might, but they can be shouted down)
Two kitchens: what kind of lazy lard-arse can't be bothered to get up, go to the kitchen and put tea and "light snacks" on a tray and go back upstairs?
Good Morning. The real news this morning is that there's no news, except this little snippet of mine:
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago In 2014 I put a £20 bet @ 100/1 with local bookie on UKIP winning 50-100 seats in May, tonight in the pub he offered to but it back for £500
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 10h10 hours ago @oowmygawd Now thats an interesting fact. Whats making your local bookie scared?
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I`ve learned over the years,never believe what the media polls say on elections,if you want the truth, visit the bookie.
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I think he realises it could be £2000 in May.I always watch the bookies odds in the run up to elections,odds 5/1 now.
Trouble is that PB bookies are not following Richard Rogers Bookie.
@DPJHodges: New Statesman's latest May2015 projection: "Tories lead by 20 seats and are now on course to win this election".
Where does he get this from? The May 2015 calculator shows Tory lead Lab by 23 seats and therefore a hung parliament. I suppose it depends what you mean by 'win'.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Today's issue isn't with MPs being rich, it's with hypocritical Labour ones who seek to hide their wealth, and pretend that they're 'ordinary'.
SeanT's view that Labour depends mainly on half-hearted low-income voters is dated if it was ever true. Half-hearted low-income voters simply don't vote, by and large, and haven't done for some time, though they may be tempted by UKIP. It's a challenge for parties to remain keen to help people who don't vote - for instance, we remain very enthusiastic about Sure Start, but I meet plenty of Sure Start parents who wouldn't dream of voting. In the USA, the Democrats have pretty much given up trying to appeal to very poor voters and have switched to groups like teachers who are well-organised and inclined to vote. The Tory equivalent here is wealthy pensioners, hence the preoccupation with pension pot draw-down.
People don't like the idea of private companies making money out of them for what they think they already pay for through taxes and consider core essential services. It offends British notions of fair play.
That doesn't mean they'd vote for a party seriously proposing renationalisation, or be happy once the nationalised industries started to offer a poorer, less reliable service at a higher price. Which they would.
Incidentally, the figures for railways and utilities surprised me. A lot more people favouring private or pragmatic than I thought, and not far off parity with those preferring public. The one big one missing here is private telecommunications/mobile phone companies.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Today's issue isn't with MPs being rich, it's with hypocritical Labour ones who seek to hide their wealth, and pretend that they're 'ordinary'.
Exactly.
... or hypocritical Tory PMs who hug huskies to pretend they're green and hoodies to pretend they care.
Two kitchens: what kind of lazy lard-arse can't be bothered to get up, go to the kitchen and put tea and "light snacks" on a tray and go back upstairs?
It's an idea I've never thought of before, but my kitchen leads off the living room, so I don't have far to travel.
I suspect this set-up is because he holds so many policy seminar meetings at his house (a true kitchen cabinet?) and wants to keep all that away from the family living area upstairs.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Today's issue isn't with MPs being rich, it's with hypocritical Labour ones who seek to hide their wealth, and pretend that they're 'ordinary'.
Exactly.
... or hypocritical Tory PMs who hug huskies to pretend they're green and hoodies to pretend they care.
Cameron's photo shoot with the huskies was certainly a stunt - however his stance on green issues does appear to have been consistent. unfortunately..!
I have just hunted down the final moving average YouGov chart that I produced for the 2010 election. At the time, YouGov were producing 7 polls per week.
Some 5 weeks prior to the election the Tory lead over Labour began to improve. Then along came the TV debates, and everything changed rather dramatically.
Once the Cleggasm had subsided, things did begin to get back on track, but not quickly enough for the Tories to reassert their lead.
The final tick on this chart is not a moving average, but the actual election result.
I think the chart clearly explains Cameron’s reluctance to engage in any TV debates this time around. Click the chart to see a large version...
On the subject of Soubry. If she switched to her politically more natural home of the Lib Dems , they would at least get one fierce woman who would sort out the males in the party that dared transgress with the females. This is the sort of Leader they really need at this time.
I can't stand Soubry. However, I also disagree fundamentally with Nick's politics.
If I were in Broxtowe, I'd feel i'd have no choice other than to vote UKIP even though that'd probably make Nick's re-election more likely.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
Oddly, it's the pb Tories who've got all excited about it, when any benefit will be felt by UKIP.
Good Morning. The real news this morning is that there's no news, except this little snippet of mine:
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago In 2014 I put a £20 bet @ 100/1 with local bookie on UKIP winning 50-100 seats in May, tonight in the pub he offered to but it back for £500
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 10h10 hours ago @oowmygawd Now thats an interesting fact. Whats making your local bookie scared?
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I`ve learned over the years,never believe what the media polls say on elections,if you want the truth, visit the bookie.
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I think he realises it could be £2000 in May.I always watch the bookies odds in the run up to elections,odds 5/1 now.
Trouble is that PB bookies are not following Richard Rogers Bookie.
Can anyone point me in the direction of this bookie ?
What utility do you derive by having a second kitchen?
My daughter is very taken with the idea of a kitchen with an island in it, but why a second kitchen entirely?
A couple of years ago, we built an extension and ended up with two kitchens (and six toilets)
The first smaller kitchen is there for everyday use.
Originally it was backed up to the main dining room, however my mum wanted a large kitchen and didn't want it encroaching on the main dining room, so we built her a new one and a new dining room.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
Not a council flat. I understand they have been snapped up by rich union leaders.
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
Surprisingly stupid remark.
Two Kitchen Ed also hinders Labour's class war. It's hard to attack Tories for being privileged Bullingdonians when it's just been revealed the Labour leader has installed an induction hob for his servants quarters.
But perhaps, earning £500k yourself, you miss the optics here.
To most of Britain, Ed's life is a fantasyland of easy London wealth.
Ed Miliband is no one's idea of a man of the people. This is not news.
Nor is it news that Cameron is an old Etonian and ex member of Bullingdon who gives, yes, kitchen suppers. Yet he tries to avoid mentioning all this. Why? Because he knows it damages him.
The next time Ed stands up in the Commons and bangs on about "Tory millionaires" he will be drowned out by scoffing remarks about his second kitchen.
You can argue that all this stuff SHOULDN'T matter. Nonetheless it does.
Incidentally it doesn't really matter why he has a second kitchen, even if for religious purposes, there was clearly an intent to showcase the down-market one, it would be a bit embarrassing if the other turned out to me some £100k Bulthaup confection.
For 'religious purposes'? Presumably that's one for bacon, and the other for Kosher.
As you say, the 'real kitchen' will be a slick interior designed number, perfect for a £2 million Dartmouth Park mansion.
(No doubt there will be some spin doctor waffle about it already being in the house when they bought it, brushing over the fact that the house cost well over 10 times the national average, and would be unaffordable for 99% of the population).
An area where Miliband has yet to be skewered publicly, but will be during the campaign, is when someone - perhaps an ordinary person that he has met on Hampstead Heath? - asks him to guarantee that he and all other Labour MPs who own mansions will be paying Ed's mansion tax out of their own pocket. I.e that they will not expense it, so that we all pay it for them so that they don't.
He will give no such guarantee on his own behalf or anyone else's and will look foolish and hypocritical again.
I love the idea of a tax on second kitchens to fund more nurses for our NHS though. There'd be an exemption for those who have one for religious reasons obvs.
Good Morning. The real news this morning is that there's no news, except this little snippet of mine:
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago In 2014 I put a £20 bet @ 100/1 with local bookie on UKIP winning 50-100 seats in May, tonight in the pub he offered to but it back for £500
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 10h10 hours ago @oowmygawd Now thats an interesting fact. Whats making your local bookie scared?
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I`ve learned over the years,never believe what the media polls say on elections,if you want the truth, visit the bookie.
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago @atmikekayes3 I think he realises it could be £2000 in May.I always watch the bookies odds in the run up to elections,odds 5/1 now.
Trouble is that PB bookies are not following Richard Rogers Bookie.
Mike, as I pointed out last night, the actual odds on UKIP winning 50-100 seats are currently 50/1, if not higher.
Which makes his £20 bet worth about £40.
And that's being generous. The main bookies would offer a cashout of ~£35
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
I know the area and houses very well. Maybe it's the company I keep but I've never seen a house in that area with two kitchens.
Until recently I'd never heard of people having such things, thinking it an affectation for those with more money than sense. I thought it was something limited to Orthodox Jews, Russian billionaires who never cook and Royals.
There is no political impact of this story but it is good fun mocking politicians. We all know he lives in a big house with probably a big kitchen. Why not just film himself in it (if he has to do it all)?
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
It isn't nonsense when he is trying to portray himself as the Leader who went to the local comprehensive and feels your pain etc
We can judge the salience of the Two Kitchens story by the fact that it is number 1 in the Telegraph 'Most Read' list, despite very strong competition. Ed even manages to trounce this story:
We can judge the salience of the Two Kitchens story by the fact that it is number 1 in the Telegraph 'Most Read' list, despite very strong competition. Ed even manages to trounce this story:
My ideal living accommodation would be a solid insulated very large room with high walls;up high, perhaps with a balcony, set with book shelves all 'round ; cooking in one corner; ablution in another corner, perhaps enclosed; another corner for sitting, relaxing, and reading/sleeping; the rest of the wall space set up with workbenches and low shelving mainly for equipment; heavy lathes or whatever floor standing in the middle. So what?
We can judge the salience of the Two Kitchens story by the fact that it is number 1 in the Telegraph 'Most Read' list, despite very strong competition. Ed even manages to trounce this story:
Could the pb Tories identify for me the section of the electorate that has to this point been loyally behind Ed "two kitchens" Miliband but which will now desert him?
It's another mark against his "I'm an ordinary bloke like you" shtick. Individually they mean little, but they add up to Ed being a phoney.
Please identify these people who to this point have believed that Ed Miliband is ordinary. "Nerd" and "weird" would be more recognisable descriptions.
The kitchen meme is boring nonsense. No one thought he was 'a man of the people', he doesn't try to sell himself as one, and the photog looked like it was taken in a converted pokey utiity room.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
It's important to remind the punters at every opportunity that by his own lights, he's a rich, rich, rich man who's tax-dodged and troughed his way to this position. Furthermore, he has special spiteful taxes in mind for those who have not done so, which he himself will certainly dodge.
He's a rich back-stabbing tax hypocrite; these qualities speak to why he's unfit for any position in public life.
A. Everybody wants MPs who have experience of working. B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich. C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
Today's issue isn't with MPs being rich, it's with hypocritical Labour ones who seek to hide their wealth, and pretend that they're 'ordinary'.
Exactly.
... or hypocritical Tory PMs who hug huskies to pretend they're green and hoodies to pretend they care.
Cameron's photo shoot with the huskies was certainly a stunt - however his stance on green issues does appear to have been consistent. unfortunately..!
Plus Cameron never talked about 'hoodies' or hugging them. Its amusing to see people falling over themselves to toe a labour propaganda lie.
Equally rabbiting on about kitchens seem pretty silly. I know Miliband talked about bringing the recovery to the kitchen table but the real point about that is that inflation is falling, food prices have fallen, real wages have been rising and job numbers increasing and unemployment falling. And more British workers are finding British jobs.
Talking of kitchens, I'd probably vote for any politician who could whip off a tablecloth whilst leaving all the knives, forks etc in place.
My general rule of thumb is that the posher the kitchen, the more steel, Dualit toasters, whizzo coffee machines and other expensive gadgets there are in it, the less actual cooking is done in it. They are Versailles-kitchens: all for show and to show how much money has been spent. Any half-decent cook can whip up a delicious meal in an area the size of a pocket handkerchief with no more than 3 gas rings, a couple of pans, a sharp knife and a sink. Oh - and some fresh food, of course.
Comments
I never understood why she was such a cheerleader in her articles about him - now I know. Epic fail for her to run to his defence and get it so wrong.
She must be so *&^%$ about how it backfired.
He is a rancid little hypocrite and unfit to run a whelk stall.
Would anyone today seriously dispute the accuracy of the Demon Eyes poster's portrayal of Blair? Probably very few. Even diehard Labourites would concede that Blair was downright evil. When the Tories attack the personality of the Labour leader, it pays to listen, because they are always right. It's not something to ignore because they would do that wouldn't they - because in fact they don't. They attacked Kinnock, Blair, and Brown along those lines; they did not attack Callaghan or Smith.
That 28-40 cohort's current problems are therefore largely their own fault. Anyone from that generation who can't afford a house should be blaming Labour 1997-2010, and themselves for electing and re-electing the bums. Instead they rather often blame the generation that is now retired, that is likeliest to have seen through Blair, and whose houses Generation Rent can't afford because they've been bid up by other members of Generation Rent.
I'd need to see quite a bit more repentance and contrition from that demographic before I'd feel able to feel sorry for them.
banks:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/12/nationalisation-ideology-beats-pragmatism/
There's also a VI in there - a tie.
SeanT's view that Labour depends mainly on half-hearted low-income voters is dated if it was ever true. Half-hearted low-income voters simply don't vote, by and large, and haven't done for some time, though they may be tempted by UKIP. It's a challenge for parties to remain keen to help people who don't vote - for instance, we remain very enthusiastic about Sure Start, but I meet plenty of Sure Start parents who wouldn't dream of voting. In the USA, the Democrats have pretty much given up trying to appeal to very poor voters and have switched to groups like teachers who are well-organised and inclined to vote. The Tory equivalent here is wealthy pensioners, hence the preoccupation with pension pot draw-down.
On this basis, he has the Tories winning 285 seats (down 1 on last week), Labour winning 279 seats (+1), with the Yellow team languishing on an unchanged 22 seats ..... yet another "denier" it would seem!
He calculates a hung Parliament as being an 86% probability.
Meanwhile the 8/9 DUP troops are clearly aligning themselves with the Tories as expected so the Orange Order can be added with the Orange bookers to the Tory total.
I'm going with "misleading"
Was merely the supplementaries asked as part of this poll.
Note, the fieldwork dates, samples size and unweighted numbers are exactly the same
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zqp5n8yspz/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100315.pdf
Definitely can see that happening this time.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/13/bbc-slammed-over-charles-kennedy-question-time-appearance/
Very sad, but they even have a song about him. Mocking him.
Speed bonnie boat, Like a hack on the make;
Back to his seat on Skye.
Carry the lad that was born to be King, Back to the seat on Skye
Where is the man? Down in the bar, Loudly the Whips pro-clai-aim
Out on the town, Out of his head, Charlie is pissed again
But by and large, this will either go unnoticed or simply confirm the prejudices of those who do notice. It won't change minds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31856341
Imagine what Lord Braxfield would do with these laws.
Voter retention from 2010 (to SNP)
Con: 76 (13)
Lab: 48 (41)
LibD: 14 (36, 29 to Lab, 12 to Con)
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/game-music.html
Particularly with a single data point.
Do I need to join the Labour Party?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3450/Labour-are-the-most-popular-party-but-their-leader-lags-behind.aspx
Therefore there is some ground he can lose here.
Doing well - net (among VI)
Cameron: -36 (+87)
Miliband: -53 (+15)
Sturgeon: +33 (+94)
Murphy: -25 (+26)
So the only consolation for Murphy is his ratings aren't quite as bad as Ed's.....
Party united - net (among VI)
Labour: -48 (+11)
SNP: +57 (+91)
Labour spreads: IG Index 364-368: Sporting Index 362-366: Spreadfair 364.6- 366.2
Tory spreads: IG Index 184-188: Sporting Index 184-188: Spreadfair 186-189
Lib Dem spreads: IG Index 64-67: Sporting Index 65-67: Spreadfair 65.1-66.8
Lab and Lib Dems overstated
Con underestimated.
Incidentally it doesn't really matter why he has a second kitchen, even if for religious purposes, there was clearly an intent to showcase the down-market one, it would be a bit embarrassing if the other turned out to me some £100k Bulthaup confection.
His rich as creases mistake was soooo funny.
Labour understated
Conservative ~ right
Gov't understated
2005
Labour overstated
Tories understated
Gov't overstated
Clear as mud
B. Nobody wants an MP who is rich.
C. Therefore we all want an MP who worked, but wasn't very good at it.
As you say, the 'real kitchen' will be a slick interior designed number, perfect for a £2 million Dartmouth Park mansion.
(No doubt there will be some spin doctor waffle about it already being in the house when they bought it, brushing over the fact that the house cost well over 10 times the national average, and would be unaffordable for 99% of the population).
IMO the conclusion you should draw is that the degree of uncertainty in almost any political betting is often underestimated. For that reason, on the big set-piece betting events such as the GE and the US presidentials I try to trade my way into a position where I'm reasonably well covered, and preferably profitable, over quite a wide range of outcomes.
In the more down-market of the two kitchens, natch.
I await Wodger's Amazon review of your book with interest given that he's in it.
Con: +63
Lab: -16
SNP: -72
http://urban-echo.co.uk/exclusive-bradford-west-labour-candidate-naz-shah-reveals-all/
I'm sure she has a lot of practical life experience that she could share on important topics with Parliament.
We have a problem that the executive is drawn from the legislature. The skills required are quite different.
No one can say PB is not a weathervane for the top political issues of the day.
(actually, 1 in 10 might, but they can be shouted down)
The real news this morning is that there's no news, except this little snippet of mine:
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago
In 2014 I put a £20 bet @ 100/1 with local bookie on UKIP winning 50-100 seats in May, tonight in the pub he offered to but it back for £500
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 10h10 hours ago
@oowmygawd Now thats an interesting fact.
Whats making your local bookie scared?
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago
@atmikekayes3 I`ve learned over the years,never believe what the media polls say on elections,if you want the truth, visit the bookie.
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 10h10 hours ago
@atmikekayes3 I think he realises it could be £2000 in May.I always watch the bookies odds in the run up to elections,odds 5/1 now.
Trouble is that PB bookies are not following Richard Rogers Bookie.
My daughter is very taken with the idea of a kitchen with an island in it, but why a second kitchen entirely?
That doesn't mean they'd vote for a party seriously proposing renationalisation, or be happy once the nationalised industries started to offer a poorer, less reliable service at a higher price. Which they would.
Incidentally, the figures for railways and utilities surprised me. A lot more people favouring private or pragmatic than I thought, and not far off parity with those preferring public. The one big one missing here is private telecommunications/mobile phone companies.
I suspect this set-up is because he holds so many policy seminar meetings at his house (a true kitchen cabinet?) and wants to keep all that away from the family living area upstairs.
I'm after a good rule of thumb, backed my some evidence. I want to avoid drinking from the sub-sample cup, if i can.
He lives in Dartmouth park, what did people expect his house to be like? A council flat?
Some 5 weeks prior to the election the Tory lead over Labour began to improve. Then along came the TV debates, and everything changed rather dramatically.
Once the Cleggasm had subsided, things did begin to get back on track, but not quickly enough for the Tories to reassert their lead.
The final tick on this chart is not a moving average, but the actual election result.
I think the chart clearly explains Cameron’s reluctance to engage in any TV debates this time around. Click the chart to see a large version...
If I were in Broxtowe, I'd feel i'd have no choice other than to vote UKIP even though that'd probably make Nick's re-election more likely.
The first smaller kitchen is there for everyday use.
Originally it was backed up to the main dining room, however my mum wanted a large kitchen and didn't want it encroaching on the main dining room, so we built her a new one and a new dining room.
He will give no such guarantee on his own behalf or anyone else's and will look foolish and hypocritical again.
I love the idea of a tax on second kitchens to fund more nurses for our NHS though. There'd be an exemption for those who have one for religious reasons obvs.
Which makes his £20 bet worth about £40.
And that's being generous. The main bookies would offer a cashout of ~£35
Until recently I'd never heard of people having such things, thinking it an affectation for those with more money than sense. I thought it was something limited to Orthodox Jews, Russian billionaires who never cook and Royals.
There is no political impact of this story but it is good fun mocking politicians. We all know he lives in a big house with probably a big kitchen. Why not just film himself in it (if he has to do it all)?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11466651/Spider-that-can-give-men-four-hour-erections-found-in-Tesco-bananas.html
So what?
CON + LD + DUP + UKIP + North Down = 321
LAB + SNP + PC + GREEN + SDLP + Respect = 324
Ahem, so I am told.
But scared stiff
He's a rich back-stabbing tax hypocrite; these qualities speak to why he's unfit for any position in public life.
Its amusing to see people falling over themselves to toe a labour propaganda lie.
Equally rabbiting on about kitchens seem pretty silly. I know Miliband talked about bringing the recovery to the kitchen table but the real point about that is that inflation is falling, food prices have fallen, real wages have been rising and job numbers increasing and unemployment falling. And more British workers are finding British jobs.