Estimates of 1st quarter GDP growth are being revised down, with potential implications for the election campaign, as they will be announced with about two weeks to go:
"Alan Clarke, UK economist at Scotia Bank, said the weak state of the economy would prove embarrassing for the coalition going into the election.
“Unless we get big revisions to these data, or a massive jump in services output in February and March, then GDP growth of just 0.4% quarter on quarter is looking like the most likely outcome.
“This is not going to make pleasant reading for the coalition government in the final days of the election campaign,” he said."
It might also provoke a "cling to nurse for fear or worse" response, and some people will argue that anything that puts the economy front and centre in the campaign is good for the Conservatives, but it at least represents a known unknown to come.
The economy is booming. Look at the number of people at Aintree yesterday. Ignore what these people say just look at the real world.
Or it could be people still living on the never never....
New car sales are at a record level for 15 years, proportion of new car sales made via finance also up.
I think it is why the message of deficit reduction vs we will just borrow more doesn't have that much of an impact. People just get stuff on credit, and with interest rates are artificially low lots of people are living in a fantasy world, where if interest rates return to 4-5% they will be absolutely screwed.
As a point of order @antifrank I don't think that @calum m posted the 125/1 odds on 0-5 SLab seats until after it had been cut and I had posted about getting 40/1 on it.
I first tipped the William Hill SLAB markets as soon as they opened in early December. I then flagged each time the odds were cut. The most significant cut came the day before the Survation in late December - I posted as soon as I spotted it:
"Just spotted that William Hill have slashed their SLAB GE 2015 odds e.g. 0-5 seats down from 125/1 to 66/1 and 11-15 down from 20/1 to 10/1."
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Limit the franchise further than we do now.
Is that a serious suggestion? Is that what you really think should happen?
Is that the logical, sensible solution to the problems in our country?
How far would you like to limit the franchise? Is it just to people who don't agree with you, or will you allow some dissent within the system?
Populus = Another VERY grim poll for the Tories...
I always think when people start dissecting the weightings of polls and trying to pick hole's it's a sign of desperation.
Bottom line is that Cameron, Osborne and Crosby are not currently getting the job done and the polls reflect that.
Not so much the Tories aren't getting the job done, they aren't doing anything. Today's big policy, you can have a few days off from work to volunteer for good causes. Big wooph.
Again that is the sort of policy that when in government and its a quiet week you bring out of the bag, a sort of "Thick of It", Olly Olly need a policy Olly....more quiet carriages on trains...great...lets announce that.
It isn't something that anybody is going to say right I must vote for them now.
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
So speaks the voice of entrenched privilege.
Here's the thing: the history of this country shows that before the state took control of things such as education, health and other forms of welfare, there was entrenched inequality that benefited a tiny minority but left the vast majority of people with nothing more to look forward to than grinding poverty and a short life. I was not the first person in my family to go to university because I was the first person clever enough to manage it; I was the first because I was the first to be born into a country that offered its citizens cradle to grave support. We tried a small state for hundreds of years. It did not work.
The fact is that the rich - individuals and companies - have never been richer. Companies such as Apple have cash reserves of tens of billions of dollars; the wealthiest individuals have fortunes that they could never hope to spend. But they prefer to hoard and hide this wealth away than share it. All this while living standards for many ordinary people stagnate or recede. You may think that is acceptable, others do not.
Yes, I know, something of which I've long been critical. They also revised the party ID targets that they weight to not too long ago.
If such a weighting results in more people in their weighted sample declaring that they voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 than Labour then it's a warning sign in my view. It also helps to explain why they produce a relatively high score of 6% for the Greens.
Which parties is it under/overstating.
They seem to have done a complete 180 on their UKIP weighting tbh.
I'm not trying to pull an unskewed polls by claiming that it is certainly over or understating particular parties. It's more part of my general campaign for people to pay less attention to the large number of online polls and more attention to the small number of phone polls.
Finding a random sample is hard, which is why weighting is required to correct for biases introduced by having a poor sample. I think that finding a random sample for online polls is even harder than for phone polls and it's in results like this that it shows.
Populus = Another VERY grim poll for the Tories...
I always think when people start dissecting the weightings of polls and trying to pick hole's it's a sign of desperation.
Bottom line is that Cameron, Osborne and Crosby are not currently getting the job done and the polls reflect that.
Not so much the Tories aren't getting the job done, they aren't doing anything. Today's big policy, you can have a few days off from work to volunteer for good causes. Big wooph.
Again that is the sort of policy that when in government and its a quiet week you bring out of the bag, a sort of "Thick of It", Olly Olly need a policy Olly....more quiet carriages on trains...great...lets announce that.
It isn't something that anybody is going to say right I must vote for them now.
Indeed.
There's no narrative. There's no vision. There's barely even any policies. Just EIC and Sam Cam.
Detroit, California, Quebec, the Winter of Discontent and many many more examples of elected lefty ruin. What interests me (as a rational human being who'd rather we collectively found a way of smoothing this cycle or damping the swings) is to understand why the fuck people vote for ruin. I think the answer must be in cognitive disconnect. Right now it is clear a large and probably winning chunk of the UK electorate simply don't care if we do serious damage to the economy, to jobs, to energy prices, to interest rates, to the national finances - just as long as those nasty rich people can get what's coming to them. It's certainly this gallery that Red Ed playing to (with much success). Inequality matters more to many than aggregate success. "I'm not sharing the success - so fuck you sunshine'. A ruinous but fair and understandable view.
See the classic psych experiment by Tajfel in 1971: "Minimal Group Paradigm"
Boys were divided into two groups. They were shown slides of reproductions of paintings by two artists, Klee and Kandinsky, with slides identified by number and painter by a letter. They were asked which ones they preferred, although the artist remained anonymous to them. Each of the groups were randomly assigned to either the "Klee" or the "Kandinsky" group, and the subjects were presented with matrices where they could assign monetary rewards to their own group and the other group.
The results showed marked in-group favouritism, even though there was no objective basis of the group (ie they were picked at random), this effect was noted the extent that team members assigned rewards that maximised the difference with the other group, even if it meant their own group got a worse outcome.
SeanT Cf the history of New York City in the 60s-80s. The people kept voting themselves benefits and lefty welfare until the City went bankrupt. Then they suddenly swang hard right, because they literally had no choice. Same with the UK and Thatcher.
It seems to be a natural pendulum effect, intrinsic to democracy. The time cycles vary, though, and there is a lot of ruin in a nation.
In this light you can see why the Chinese/Singaporean model is increasingly popular worldwide. Fuck the people, to hell with wélfare, let the technocrats and autocrats decide.
Detroit, California, Quebec, the Winter of Discontent and many many more examples of elected lefty ruin. What interests me (as a rational human being who'd rather we collectively found a way of smoothing this cycle or damping the swings) is to understand why the fuck people vote for ruin. I think the answer must be in cognitive disconnect. Right now it is clear a large and probably winning chunk of the UK electorate simply don't care if we do serious damage to the economy, to jobs, to energy prices, to interest rates, to the national finances - just as long as those nasty rich people can get what's coming to them. It's certainly this gallery that Red Ed playing to (with much success). Inequality matters more to many than aggregate success. "I'm not sharing the success - so fuck you sunshine'. A ruinous but fair and understandable view. And, on reflection, it is a core failing of the coalition not to have dealt better with the cliquey, corporatist, chummy, rent-seeking-at-the-top of British society in both private and public sectors. We certainly need the voting masses to get a smack upside the head with a big cluebat. I'd start with privatising the BBC!
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
I've come across another election forecasting website - http://electionsetc.com/ - set up by an Oxford politics professor.
They're currently predicting 34% Con, 32% Lab for votes and for seats: 289 Con, 266 Lab, 49 SNP, 22 Lib Dem.
They've also got estimated probabilities for the various possible outcomes on this data: 10% Con majority, 13% Con + Lib Dem majority, 14 % Con + Lib Dem + DUP majority, 6% Con largest party but Lab + SNP majority, etc
Do people think these predictions look reasonable, given the current polls?
This is the site featuring Stephen Fisher's projections which is reported on and much discussed on PB.com week after week after week!
Mr. Indigo, unfamiliar with that experiment, but I've heard of a similar one. People were divided into random groups and given a choice: every groups' members gets £10 each, or only their own group gets £5 each. The latter was the more popular choice.
Mind you, that reminds me of when the Athenians cleverly executed all their admirals (except two, who had wisely chosen to run off) towards the latter end of the Peloponnesian War.
Meanwhile YouGov also have a new Scottish poll, conducted after the first Scottish leaders debate and straddling the second one. Westminster voting intentions there are CON 18%(+2), LAB 25%(-4), LDEM 4%(+1), SNP 49%(+3). As ever, only one poll, but it looks as if any debate impact in Scotland has helped the SNP. Certainly, with only a month to go it shows no sign whatsoever of the SNP lead fading.
THE KEY TO THIS LATEST DISASTER FOR LAB IN SCOTLAND.
MURPHY PERSONAL RATINGS -18 STURGEON PERSONAL RATINGS +48 WHO WON DEBATE STURGEON 56% DAVIDSON 14% MURPHY 13% MILLIBAND PERSONAL RATING -46% CAMERON - 25% HOLYROOD RATINGS SNP LEAD 49% TO LAB 24%
Jim Murphy seems obsessed with "abolishing the Bedroom Tax".
Do you think he maybe doesn't actually know that it was abolished in 2013 by the SNP? It is quite possible that in the Westminster bubble that message never got through to him.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Limit the franchise further than we do now.
Is that a serious suggestion? Is that what you really think should happen?
Is that the logical, sensible solution to the problems in our country?
How far would you like to limit the franchise? Is it just to people who don't agree with you, or will you allow some dissent within the system?
Today's prophecy. The autocratic Asian states, and others following the Singapore model are going to out compete us because they don't have the frequent bursts of economic suicide that democracies do, when the public feels that anyone else should pay more tax so they can get more sweeties from the state. In economic terms they also have the benefit of an extremely short reaction time to world events because they don't have the inconvenience of having to consult anyone. The social contract actually works because the Singaporeans have essentially accepted giving up those freedoms in exchange for more or less perpetual prosperity. We can sit enviously in our hovels and pat ourselves on the back about our democratic credentials, as the rest of the world leave us behind.
SeanT Cf the history of New York City in the 60s-80s. The people kept voting themselves benefits and lefty welfare until the City went bankrupt. Then they suddenly swang hard right, because they literally had no choice. Same with the UK and Thatcher.
It seems to be a natural pendulum effect, intrinsic to democracy. The time cycles vary, though, and there is a lot of ruin in a nation.
In this light you can see why the Chinese/Singaporean model is increasingly popular worldwide. Fuck the people, to hell with wélfare, let the technocrats and autocrats decide.
Detroit, California, Quebec, the Winter of Discontent and many many more examples of elected lefty ruin. What interests me (as a rational human being who'd rather we collectively found a way of smoothing this cycle or damping the swings) is to understand why the fuck people vote for ruin. I think the answer must be in cognitive disconnect. Right now it is clear a large and probably winning chunk of the UK electorate simply don't care if we do serious damage to the economy, to jobs, to energy prices, to interest rates, to the national finances - just as long as those nasty rich people can get what's coming to them. It's certainly this gallery that Red Ed playing to (with much success). Inequality matters more to many than aggregate success. "I'm not sharing the success - so fuck you sunshine'. A ruinous but fair and understandable view. And, on reflection, it is a core failing of the coalition not to have dealt better with the cliquey, corporatist, chummy, rent-seeking-at-the-top of British society in both private and public sectors. We certainly need the voting masses to get a smack upside the head with a big cluebat. I'd start with privatising the BBC!
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
What do you mean by "the welfare state was far more generous?" Presumably there's some stat to back this up??
There weren't such things as working family tax credits, housing benefit was paid to far fewer people, the number of people on disability benefit was way lower, the amount spent on pensions way lower...
Not saying you are wrong, but is it a special SO way of defining it? :-)
@Dair, @Scotslass, @Alistair It's not over yet. Not a single vote has been cast yet. I expect you lot to be out and about getting every single SNP potential voter to the polls.
One of the characters in Journey to Altmortis is called Roger the Goat [not based on you, of course].
One recalls a certain Roger the Cabin Boy, does one not?
Along with Master Bates and Seaman Staines, Roger the Cabin Boy was an urban myth. IIRC The Guardian was successfully sued for publishing this Captain Pugwash myth as being fact.
Oh dear, any unfortunate allegations duly retracted (but what a shame). We'll just have to make do with Arthur Ransome.
Meanwhile YouGov also have a new Scottish poll, conducted after the first Scottish leaders debate and straddling the second one. Westminster voting intentions there are CON 18%(+2), LAB 25%(-4), LDEM 4%(+1), SNP 49%(+3). As ever, only one poll, but it looks as if any debate impact in Scotland has helped the SNP. Certainly, with only a month to go it shows no sign whatsoever of the SNP lead fading.
The above from UK Pollling Report, which has managed to feature this mornings YouGov Scottish poll in its headlines. It seems an act of supreme ingratitude or at least ungallant Mike that you somehow have not managed to squeeze it into your headlines given the amount of money you won from Ms Sturgeon's performance in the debate. I suppose this has nothing to do with your collapsing theory that Murphy is doing anything for Labour in Scotland except sending them further down the stanks.
UK Polling report produce thoughtful and considered analysis of polls rather than rushing nonsense out on twitter in nanoseconds.
Populus = Another VERY grim poll for the Tories...
I always think when people start dissecting the weightings of polls and trying to pick hole's it's a sign of desperation to be honest.
Bottom line is that Cameron, Osborne and Crosby are not currently getting the job done and the polls reflect that.
Today's Populus is a total no change poll from Monday. It is fairly consistently giving Labour leads when others don't. It may be right and the others wrong but today's figures really don't merit the phrase VERY grim for the Tories. Re - dissections of polls - people do it all the time, OGH has been doing it all morning on Twitter. Is he desperate? you need to get a grip. take a happy pill.
One of the characters in Journey to Altmortis is called Roger the Goat [not based on you, of course].
One recalls a certain Roger the Cabin Boy, does one not?
Along with Master Bates and Seaman Staines, Roger the Cabin Boy was an urban myth. IIRC The Guardian was successfully sued for publishing this Captain Pugwash myth as being fact.
Oh dear, any unfortunate allegations duly retracted (but what a shame). We'll just have to make do with Arthur Ransome.
"See the classic psych experiment by Tajfel in 1971: "Minimal Group Paradigm"
So the Tories decide to reduce taxes for the rich from 50p to 45p. Reasoning? Some vague hopes that it might (or might not) increase the tax take. Brilliant politics.
I'm a bit old to be a Spad but anyone over the age of twelve could have advised them better.
It was not only stupid, it was worrying. Should people like that be allowed anywhere near government? Sorry, but that shows the Tories are too stupid to be in power.
One of the characters in Journey to Altmortis is called Roger the Goat [not based on you, of course].
One recalls a certain Roger the Cabin Boy, does one not?
Swallows and Amazons features Salty Seaman, Able Seaman Titty, and Roger the Ship's Boy.
First and third were in fact Captain nPugwash were they not, if I might perhaps differ - but there was a Roger in Swallows and Amazons, yes. I was just thinking that a friend of mine discovered that modern children found it impossible to keep a straight face when he read S&A out loud to them and Titty and Roger came up - though they did settle down after a while ...
No, not Capn P after all - as corrected elsewhere. Sorry.
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Companies such as Apple have cash reserves of tens of billions of dollars
Actually hundreds of billions, terrifyingly enough. Lot of idiots paying the iTax out there.
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
SO I don't disagree with you. Inequality is an issue. I just also think that the average opinion on 'does not deliver for' is unrealistically high across most of the developed economies in a globalised and competitive world. Wealth and poverty are both absolute and relative measures. UK 'austerity' looks pretty damn nice to most of the world. But Gordon spent the money. What would you do? If we borrow forever we'll go Greek pretty damn quick. If we don't relative poverty will worsen for those most dependent on the state. There's no good answer - only least worse ones. And it's not going to get better until the developing world catches up. International inequality is falling rapidly - but this drives deepening in-country inequality everywhere. Ameliorating the one exacerbates the other.
The moral is that politicians should always push to: 1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive 2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can 3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face 4. and pigs might fly
I think you are correct, Southam, but the State has proved extraordinarily incompetent at getting at this true wealth.
If I thought Ed Miliband would get it, I might vote for him. But he won't. And so he will then come after people like me, who aren;t wealthy but have a little money, that they have worked for all their lives.
@Dair, @Scotslass, @Alistair It's not over yet. Not a single vote has been cast yet. I expect you lot to be out and about getting every single SNP potential voter to the polls.
SeanT Cf the history of New York City in the 60s-80s. The people kept voting themselves benefits and lefty welfare until the City went bankrupt. Then they suddenly swang hard right, because they literally had no choice. Same with the UK and Thatcher.
It seems to be a natural pendulum effect, intrinsic to democracy. The time cycles vary, though, and there is a lot of ruin in a nation.
In this light you can see why the Chinese/Singaporean model is increasingly popular worldwide. Fuck the people, to hell with wélfare, let the technocrats and autocrats decide.
Detroit, California, Quebec, the Winter of Discontent and many many more examples of elected lefty ruin. What interests me (as a rational human being who'd rather we collectively found a way of smoothing this cycle or damping the swings) is to understand why the fuck people vote for ruin. I think the answer must be in cognitive disconnect. Right now it is clear a large and probably winning chunk of the UK electorate simply don't care if we do serious damage to the economy, to jobs, to energy prices, to interest rates, to the national finances - just as long as those nasty rich people can get what's coming to them. It's certainly this gallery that Red Ed playing to (with much success). Inequality matters more to many than aggregate success. "I'm not sharing the success - so fuck you sunshine'. A ruinous but fair and understandable view. And, on reflection, it is a core failing of the coalition not to have dealt better with the cliquey, corporatist, chummy, rent-seeking-at-the-top of British society in both private and public sectors. We certainly need the voting masses to get a smack upside the head with a big cluebat. I'd start with privatising the BBC!
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
This is the same problem as with the recent pension changes. People in general are no good at looking long term and value cash, benefits, etc now much more highly than they should compared with cash, benefits in the future.
Democracy hard wires this problem as it requires frequent elections (eg. 5 year intervals) which is shorter than the time required to solve and implement infrastructure, complicated IT systems, etc.
Is this causing the growth differentials between developed democracies and others?
Meanwhile YouGov also have a new Scottish poll, conducted after the first Scottish leaders debate and straddling the second one. Westminster voting intentions there are CON 18%(+2), LAB 25%(-4), LDEM 4%(+1), SNP 49%(+3). As ever, only one poll, but it looks as if any debate impact in Scotland has helped the SNP. Certainly, with only a month to go it shows no sign whatsoever of the SNP lead fading.
The above from UK Pollling Report, which has managed to feature this mornings YouGov Scottish poll in its headlines. It seems an act of supreme ingratitude or at least ungallant Mike that you somehow have not managed to squeeze it into your headlines given the amount of money you won from Ms Sturgeon's performance in the debate. I suppose this has nothing to do with your collapsing theory that Murphy is doing anything for Labour in Scotland except sending them further down the stanks.
UK Polling report produce thoughtful and considered analysis of polls rather than rushing nonsense out on twitter in nanoseconds.
Populus = Another VERY grim poll for the Tories...
I always think when people start dissecting the weightings of polls and trying to pick hole's it's a sign of desperation to be honest.
Bottom line is that Cameron, Osborne and Crosby are not currently getting the job done and the polls reflect that.
Today's Populus is a total no change poll from Monday. It is fairly consistently giving Labour leads when others don't. It may be right and the others wrong but today's figures really don't merit the phrase VERY grim for the Tories. Re - dissections of polls - people do it all the time, OGH has been doing it all morning on Twitter. Is he desperate? you need to get a grip. take a happy pill.
As a Lib Dem supporter, OGH has very little to look forward to - let him have his fun.
Is he wittering on about most seats, indy ref bla bla ?
No, Miliband is just repeating the same mantra he's been saying for weeks about... tbh I switch off but it was nothing about Scotland. Barely a mention of Scotland till the end of his bit.
This is the site featuring Stephen Fisher's projections which is reported on and much discussed on PB.com week after week after week!
All I can say is that I didn't recognise the name, despite reading this site daily, and I didn't see it in the list of links either.
As the original brains behind this particular model, which was spectacularly accurate in forecasting the 2010 GE outcome, a fact largely ignored by *cough* certain individuals on PB.com, Stephen Fisher's name is used as shorthand for the website in question, in much the same way as "Baxter" is used as shorthand for Electoral Calculus.
Today's prophecy. The autocratic Asian states, and others following the Singapore model are going to out compete us because they don't have the frequent bursts of economic suicide that democracies do, when the public feels that anyone else should pay more tax so they can get more sweeties from the state. In economic terms they also have the benefit of an extremely short reaction time to world events because they don't have the inconvenience of having to consult anyone. The social contract actually works because the Singaporeans have essentially accepted giving up those freedoms in exchange for more or less perpetual prosperity. We can sit enviously in our hovels and pat ourselves on the back about our democratic credentials, as the rest of the world leave us behind.
Well, you can make the case that Taiwan, South Korea, and the like succeeded with autocratic leaders. But then they got rich, and they got democratic, and then they ceased to be different.
Also, don't forget that those Asian countries have appalling demographic cliffs ahead of them. Singapore's TFR is - what - 1.3. It's going to start suffering from Japan disease unless it continues to import people.
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Companies such as Apple have cash reserves of tens of billions of dollars
Actually hundreds of billions, terrifyingly enough. Lot of idiots paying the iTax out there.
Yep, Apple is a cancer on the technology industry, and a hideous carbuncle on society. Yet, because it is seen as trendy, idiots line up to buy its products at a large premium.
Labour really have nothing new. They have the New Three Amigos up in Edinburgh but they're just repeating the same mantras. Because they can;t even go outside they can;t even show a different backdrop,
That's such a huge advantage to Nicola Surge-On, doesn't matter if the message is being repeated, the narrative becomes the rock star reception she's getting on the streets and it's a different story every day.
Also Balls is a really terrible public speaker, he's all over the place when he makes a speech.
I notice that since mid February when Survation recorded it's lowest ever SNP lead over Labour of a mere 17 points - broken sleazy Nats on the slide Labour can take great heart revival- Survation have had two further polls which have shown a consistent rise in the SNP lead which puts them closer to their peak than their nadir.
@Dair, @Scotslass, @Alistair It's not over yet. Not a single vote has been cast yet. I expect you lot to be out and about getting every single SNP potential voter to the polls.
Complacency is the enemy here !
I'm not a member of the SNP.
Ah yes you're a Green - forgot that sorry. Just want to ensure Scottish Labour's casket is locked up firmly in the Clyde.
It was not only stupid, it was worrying. Should people like that be allowed anywhere near government? Sorry, but that shows the Tories are too stupid to be in power.
Politicians are by and large too stupid for government, the colour of the rosette doesn't make a lot of difference, they either do have the faintest idea about how social psychology works (Tories) or how economies work (Labour) or both (Greens). There would seem to be plenty of very clever people itching to offer very well qualified advice, but they seem to feel they know better. The problem is a party of geniuses might govern well, but they would score zero on the "people like me" tests, and never get elected.
@Dair, @Scotslass, @Alistair It's not over yet. Not a single vote has been cast yet. I expect you lot to be out and about getting every single SNP potential voter to the polls.
Complacency is the enemy here !
I'm not a member of the SNP.
Ah yes you're a Green - forgot that sorry. Just want to ensure Scottish Labour's casket is locked up firmly in the Clyde.
I'm not a member of any political party. I was a member of the SNP about 10 years ago and the Tories a long while before that.
@Dair, @Scotslass, @Alistair It's not over yet. Not a single vote has been cast yet. I expect you lot to be out and about getting every single SNP potential voter to the polls.
Complacency is the enemy here !
I'm not a member of the SNP.
Ah yes you're a Green - forgot that sorry. Just want to ensure Scottish Labour's casket is locked up firmly in the Clyde.
Did I mention I was canvassed for the SNP by a Green party member. Truly living the Dair "SNP Westminster, Green Holyrood" mantra to the max.
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
SO I don't disagree with you. Inequality is an issue. I just also think that the average opinion on 'does not deliver for' is unrealistically high across most of the developed economies in a globalised and competitive world. Wealth and poverty are both absolute and relative measures. UK 'austerity' looks pretty damn nice to most of the world. But Gordon spent the money. What would you do? If we borrow forever we'll go Greek pretty damn quick. If we don't relative poverty will worsen for those most dependent on the state. There's no good answer - only least worse ones. And it's not going to get better until the developing world catches up. International inequality is falling rapidly - but this drives deepening in-country inequality everywhere. Ameliorating the one exacerbates the other.
The moral is that politicians should always push to: 1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive 2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can 3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face 4. and pigs might fly
We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.
Watching Miliband, Balls and Murphy talking in Edinburgh they just seem so out of touch with Scots opinion and in reality are wasting their time. SNP have taken out labour and ironically the only opposition in Scotland is now the Scottish Conservatives run by Ruth Davidson who is proving extremely competent. And to put the cap on it Miliband has just said he is going to be in Scotland a lot !!
Today's prophecy. The autocratic Asian states, and others following the Singapore model are going to out compete us because they don't have the frequent bursts of economic suicide that democracies do, when the public feels that anyone else should pay more tax so they can get more sweeties from the state. In economic terms they also have the benefit of an extremely short reaction time to world events because they don't have the inconvenience of having to consult anyone. The social contract actually works because the Singaporeans have essentially accepted giving up those freedoms in exchange for more or less perpetual prosperity. We can sit enviously in our hovels and pat ourselves on the back about our democratic credentials, as the rest of the world leave us behind.
Well, you can make the case that Taiwan, South Korea, and the like succeeded with autocratic leaders. But then they got rich, and they got democratic, and then they ceased to be different.
Also, don't forget that those Asian countries have appalling demographic cliffs ahead of them. Singapore's TFR is - what - 1.3. It's going to start suffering from Japan disease unless it continues to import people.
Ceased to be different except the culture had been ingrained by then, there is still an ordered and organised society that place high value on education and respected achievement and success. South Korea also has 26% of GDP as tax, compared to our 39%, and more or less double our economic growth rate.
Labour really have nothing new. They have the New Three Amigos up in Edinburgh but they're just repeating the same mantras. Because they can;t even go outside they can;t even show a different backdrop,
That's such a huge advantage to Nicola Surge-On, doesn't matter if the message is being repeated, the narrative becomes the rock star reception she's getting on the streets and it's a different story every day.
Also Balls is a really terrible public speaker, he's all over the place when he makes a speech.
One small but interesting thing I noticed today - the National report on Gordon constituency: Labour have abandoned a serious effort there, it would seem (though there are two obvious, and not mutually incompatible, reasons for that - one being a Unionist grand alliance, tacit or not): .
'Labour’s Braden Davy – Braden is a Welsh name meaning “salmon” – talks a good game. This is a seat, he insists, that Labour can win.
“We got 20 per cent of the vote last time. Labour were only 2 per cent behind the SNP,” he says “There is a core Labour vote out there. It’s a four-way race. I think a Labour majority is still possible. We’re fighting for every possible vote. Our vote’s holding up quite strongly.”
But a local Labour source tells me that activists from the area have been told to go and campaign in Aberdeen instead, where the party hopes to hold on to Dame Anne Begg and elect Richard Baker to Westminster.'
If Alan Johnson or the slightly less unusual Miliband had forced Brown to resign, David would have been just another arse who led the Tory party for a while
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Companies such as Apple have cash reserves of tens of billions of dollars
Actually hundreds of billions, terrifyingly enough. Lot of idiots paying the iTax out there.
Yep, Apple is a cancer on the technology industry, and a hideous carbuncle on society. Yet, because it is seen as trendy, idiots line up to buy its products at a large premium.
The world would be better off without it.
It's largely a fashion/status symbol surely, particularly attractive therefore to the young who aren't burdened by mortgages, pension payments, etc and appear quite happy therefore to pay twice as much or more for a fancy would-be American phone or tablet (but probably made in China) instead of a very similar high quality Samsung product from South Korea.
Labour really have nothing new. They have the New Three Amigos up in Edinburgh but they're just repeating the same mantras. Because they can;t even go outside they can;t even show a different backdrop,
That's such a huge advantage to Nicola Surge-On, doesn't matter if the message is being repeated, the narrative becomes the rock star reception she's getting on the streets and it's a different story every day.
Also Balls is a really terrible public speaker, he's all over the place when he makes a speech.
One small but interesting thing I noticed today - the National report on Gordon constituency: Labour have abandoned a serious effort there, it would seem (though there are two obvious, and not mutually incompatible, reasons for that - one being a Unionist grand alliance, tacit or not): .
'Labour’s Braden Davy – Braden is a Welsh name meaning “salmon” – talks a good game. This is a seat, he insists, that Labour can win.
“We got 20 per cent of the vote last time. Labour were only 2 per cent behind the SNP,” he says “There is a core Labour vote out there. It’s a four-way race. I think a Labour majority is still possible. We’re fighting for every possible vote. Our vote’s holding up quite strongly.”
But a local Labour source tells me that activists from the area have been told to go and campaign in Aberdeen instead, where the party hopes to hold on to Dame Anne Begg and elect Richard Baker to Westminster.'
All about trying to deny Salmond the seat - Labour are quite right to give up here. I doubt it'll succeed but the Lib Dems chances of holding Gordon aren't zero.
Agree 100%. It's really depressing to see the general population being mainly statists.
The knee-jerk antagonism to anyone who is rich or successful (unless a "celebrity" or footballer) is very unpleasant and worrying.
It's a core failing of democracies. We live in 'rob Peter to pay Paul' welfare states. Paul has more votes than Peter. So democracies have a natural tendency towards statist, spendy, lefty bankruptopia. Some have got there already (Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, etc). Some are well on the way (Italy, Japan, France, etc). The occasional Reagan or Thatcher is I'm afraid not the norm. I don't know if there is a cure. If voters can help themselves to other people's money they'll run out of it sooner or later. Looks like we're going to go a bit sooner on current polling.
Maybe we need a written constitution which imposes limits on deficits, debt, the size of the state. In any event, it seems unlikely there are many votes in sensible, prudent, responsible stewardship of the state and its finances. All very depressing indeed.
Limit the franchise further than we do now.
Is that a serious suggestion? Is that what you really think should happen?
Is that the logical, sensible solution to the problems in our country?
How far would you like to limit the franchise? Is it just to people who don't agree with you, or will you allow some dissent within the system?
Today's prophecy. The autocratic Asian states, and others following the Singapore model are going to out compete us because they don't have the frequent bursts of economic suicide that democracies do, when the public feels that anyone else should pay more tax so they can get more sweeties from the state. In economic terms they also have the benefit of an extremely short reaction time to world events because they don't have the inconvenience of having to consult anyone. The social contract actually works because the Singaporeans have essentially accepted giving up those freedoms in exchange for more or less perpetual prosperity. We can sit enviously in our hovels and pat ourselves on the back about our democratic credentials, as the rest of the world leave us behind.
James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"
"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"
So good that BBC are sticking with this Labour debacle in Edinburgh.
Murphy really has lost the plot.
IN what respect? Just wondering, out of interest.
It's palpable how bad Labour are and how lacking of any message for Scotland. It also demonstrates that not one of them has the first clue about Scotland (i.e. including Murphy).
Every time the Labour party says "end the Bedroom Tax in Scotland" they just show how clueless they are.
If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.
SO I don't disagree with you. Inequality is an issue. I just also think that the average opinion on 'does not deliver for' is unrealistically high across most of the developed economies in a globalised and competitive world. Wealth and poverty are both absolute and relative measures. UK 'austerity' looks pretty damn nice to most of the world. But Gordon spent the money. What would you do? If we borrow forever we'll go Greek pretty damn quick. If we don't relative poverty will worsen for those most dependent on the state. There's no good answer - only least worse ones. And it's not going to get better until the developing world catches up. International inequality is falling rapidly - but this drives deepening in-country inequality everywhere. Ameliorating the one exacerbates the other.
The moral is that politicians should always push to: 1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive 2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can 3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face 4. and pigs might fly
We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.
Two things stand out over the past decade and a half. Real wages have been static; rates of home-ownership are declining (particularly among young people).
As you say, it's not surprising that people kick against this. I'm damned if I know what to do about it, though.
We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.
The converse is also true. If the very rich cease to feel they benefit from society is any way that is remotely connected to the amount they contribute, they will cease to contribute. If Atlas feels he is nothing more than a cow to be milked, he will shrug and walk away. There needs to be a social contract that provides interest to people at both ends of the scale. If the very rich think there is some incentive that makes it worth contributing to the system, something that benefits them personally, rather than just a nebulous feel good factor about being part of society, they are much more likely to put their hand in their pockets, rather than hiring better accountants.
Off topic: I'm switching my pension about a bit and going a bit longer US equities whilst shortening my exposure to FTSE All Share.
Remember, the UK Market may go down as well as up after May's election (I wouldn't back out completely especially if you are a fair way off retirement)... but bear in mind there is a potential sterling risk out there.
I'd urge everyone to review their stocks and/or pensions right about now as Nabavi has repeatedly said.
James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"
"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"
I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)
The problem is not welfare per se. The problem is that none of the parties in most countries are honest about it. It only takes another 5% on the tax take to fund the level of welfare dependency that seems wanted in Western European countries.
The parties in Scandinavia sold this, it's accepted and paid. The problem is the parties not the model.
A simple average of 12 post-debate polls gives Con 32.3%, Lab 33.9%, UKIP 15.0%. But, it should be noted that a lot of those polls (Survation, Populus, TNS, Panelbase) are very UKIP-friendly, usually at the Conservatives' expense.
James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"
"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"
I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)
The problem is not welfare per se. The problem is that none of the parties in most countries are honest about it. It only takes another 5% on the tax take to fund the level of welfare dependency that seems wanted in Western European countries.
5% on the basic rate of tax is £30bn, roughly what we need to spend to keep pace with spending on the NHS every year by 2020, never mind any extra welfare.
How does nationalisation make more sense? I'm all for it if it did make sense, but I am far from convinced. And the arguments for (as seen earlier on this thread) tend to be based on nonsensical points and bad data.
Watching Miliband, Balls and Murphy talking in Edinburgh they just seem so out of touch with Scots opinion and in reality are wasting their time. SNP have taken out labour and ironically the only opposition in Scotland is now the Scottish Conservatives run by Ruth Davidson who is proving extremely competent. And to put the cap on it Miliband has just said he is going to be in Scotland a lot !!
If your last sentence is correct I'm baffled. It can only mean they don't expect to get enough net gains in the rUK - a pretty damning admission that they know they can't win without Scotland. It seems very unlikely that they can do much to stem the Nat tide in Scotland so it looks like we've abandoned strategy and are down to the last redoubt in tactics - 'do something/anything'
There was a time when success in business was applauded.
As it should be. However, with Apple (or Google in search) it's more of a Standard Oil or East India Company situation.
Its also going to become more common. Market share is going to win in many other parts of the "sharing" economy. Airbnb and Uber are another couple of examples you will see a lot of press complaints about in the next few years...
Watching Miliband, Balls and Murphy talking in Edinburgh they just seem so out of touch with Scots opinion and in reality are wasting their time. SNP have taken out labour and ironically the only opposition in Scotland is now the Scottish Conservatives run by Ruth Davidson who is proving extremely competent. And to put the cap on it Miliband has just said he is going to be in Scotland a lot !!
If your last sentence is correct I'm baffled. It can only mean they don't expect to get enough net gains in the rUK - a pretty damning admission that they know they can't win without Scotland. It seems very unlikely that they can do much to stem the Nat tide in Scotland so it looks like we've abandoned strategy and are down to the last redoubt in tactics - 'do something/anything'
It's actually baffling because him spending more time in Scotland will make Labour's standing worse, not better. Did he try and talk about 'virtual parties' again? That would go down a storm up there, I'm sure.
Watching Miliband, Balls and Murphy talking in Edinburgh they just seem so out of touch with Scots opinion and in reality are wasting their time. SNP have taken out labour and ironically the only opposition in Scotland is now the Scottish Conservatives run by Ruth Davidson who is proving extremely competent. And to put the cap on it Miliband has just said he is going to be in Scotland a lot !!
If your last sentence is correct I'm baffled. It can only mean they don't expect to get enough net gains in the rUK - a pretty damning admission that they know they can't win without Scotland. It seems very unlikely that they can do much to stem the Nat tide in Scotland so it looks like we've abandoned strategy and are down to the last redoubt in tactics - 'do something/anything'
That is exactly what he said - he just doesn't understand how unpopular he is in Scotland
SO I don't disagree with you. Inequality is an issue. I just also think that the average opinion on 'does not deliver for' is unrealistically high across most of the developed economies in a globalised and competitive world. Wealth and poverty are both absolute and relative measures. UK 'austerity' looks pretty damn nice to most of the world. But Gordon spent the money. What would you do? If we borrow forever we'll go Greek pretty damn quick. If we don't relative poverty will worsen for those most dependent on the state. There's no good answer - only least worse ones. And it's not going to get better until the developing world catches up. International inequality is falling rapidly - but this drives deepening in-country inequality everywhere. Ameliorating the one exacerbates the other.
The moral is that politicians should always push to: 1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive 2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can 3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face 4. and pigs might fly
We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.
Two things stand out over the past decade and a half. Real wages have been static; rates of home-ownership are declining (particularly among young people).
As you say, it's not surprising that people kick against this. I'm damned if I know what to do about it, though.
Everybody knows what to do about house prices: 1) Get rid of all the planning permission craziness and let people build things where people want to live. 2) Roll back the tax breaks on (first) homes.
The problem is that nobody knows how to get reelected after they've done it.
Two things stand out over the past decade and a half. Real wages have been static; rates of home-ownership are declining (particularly among young people).
As you say, it's not surprising that people kick against this. I'm damned if I know what to do about it, though.
Actually for some times are pretty good. Mortgage holders generally have saved a fortune because of low interest rates. Pensioners and especially those with Public sector deals have seen continual rises - I'm considerably better off since 2009 - and benefited hugely from the rising personal allowance. Other groups - especially the 'squeezed middle' have done much less well - but they, along with the young, have needed a reality check about living on the never never - ever since the advent of credit cards and later 110% mortgages. I find it hard to be very sympathetic as I learned my lesson about credit cards in the 80s. Not pleasant but I've never used them for credit since.
Demand for homes is huge, but it takes a long while for supply to respond in this particular market. There is a massive stack of property in the pipeline for London, it just takes a while for it to get through the conveyor belt.
So good that BBC are sticking with this Labour debacle in Edinburgh.
Murphy really has lost the plot.
IN what respect? Just wondering, out of interest.
It's palpable how bad Labour are and how lacking of any message for Scotland. It also demonstrates that not one of them has the first clue about Scotland (i.e. including Murphy).
Every time the Labour party says "end the Bedroom Tax in Scotland" they just show how clueless they are.
Thanks. Technically it's still there I suppose (the Scottish Gmt is paying it out of its overall budget allocation) but I presume that is not what he means.
Are Jim Messina and Lynton Crosby in some sort of competition to work out who can come up with the worst election strategy ?
It's baffling. The Conservatives have come up with proposals of footling triviality.
One can but hope that the manifesto itself will be replete with goodies.
I still believe that we will emerge comfortably with most seats on May 7th and that Cameron will remain PM but the campaign this week at least has been less than impressive.
Comments
New car sales are at a record level for 15 years, proportion of new car sales made via finance also up.
I think it is why the message of deficit reduction vs we will just borrow more doesn't have that much of an impact. People just get stuff on credit, and with interest rates are artificially low lots of people are living in a fantasy world, where if interest rates return to 4-5% they will be absolutely screwed.
You truly are PBTOTY.
Is that the logical, sensible solution to the problems in our country?
How far would you like to limit the franchise? Is it just to people who don't agree with you, or will you allow some dissent within the system?
I always think when people start dissecting the weightings of polls and trying to pick hole's it's a sign of desperation to be honest.
Bottom line is that Cameron, Osborne and Crosby are not currently getting the job done and the polls reflect that.
Again that is the sort of policy that when in government and its a quiet week you bring out of the bag, a sort of "Thick of It", Olly Olly need a policy Olly....more quiet carriages on trains...great...lets announce that.
It isn't something that anybody is going to say right I must vote for them now.
Here's the thing: the history of this country shows that before the state took control of things such as education, health and other forms of welfare, there was entrenched inequality that benefited a tiny minority but left the vast majority of people with nothing more to look forward to than grinding poverty and a short life. I was not the first person in my family to go to university because I was the first person clever enough to manage it; I was the first because I was the first to be born into a country that offered its citizens cradle to grave support. We tried a small state for hundreds of years. It did not work.
The fact is that the rich - individuals and companies - have never been richer. Companies such as Apple have cash reserves of tens of billions of dollars; the wealthiest individuals have fortunes that they could never hope to spend. But they prefer to hoard and hide this wealth away than share it. All this while living standards for many ordinary people stagnate or recede. You may think that is acceptable, others do not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/australia/11526725/Richie-Benauds-5-best-cricket-commentary-moments.html
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNJG26rkdwk&
Finding a random sample is hard, which is why weighting is required to correct for biases introduced by having a poor sample. I think that finding a random sample for online polls is even harder than for phone polls and it's in results like this that it shows.
There's no narrative. There's no vision. There's barely even any policies. Just EIC and Sam Cam.
Mr. Indigo, unfamiliar with that experiment, but I've heard of a similar one. People were divided into random groups and given a choice: every groups' members gets £10 each, or only their own group gets £5 each. The latter was the more popular choice.
Mind you, that reminds me of when the Athenians cleverly executed all their admirals (except two, who had wisely chosen to run off) towards the latter end of the Peloponnesian War.
THE KEY TO THIS LATEST DISASTER FOR LAB IN SCOTLAND.
MURPHY PERSONAL RATINGS -18 STURGEON PERSONAL RATINGS +48
WHO WON DEBATE STURGEON 56% DAVIDSON 14% MURPHY 13%
MILLIBAND PERSONAL RATING -46% CAMERON - 25%
HOLYROOD RATINGS SNP LEAD 49% TO LAB 24%
THIS IS GAME SET AND MATCH TO NICOLA
Do you think he maybe doesn't actually know that it was abolished in 2013 by the SNP? It is quite possible that in the Westminster bubble that message never got through to him.
There weren't such things as working family tax credits, housing benefit was paid to far fewer people, the number of people on disability benefit was way lower, the amount spent on pensions way lower...
Not saying you are wrong, but is it a special SO way of defining it? :-)
Complacency is the enemy here !
'Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher'
Which taxes?
Income tax,VAT, National Insurance, council tax?
So why is he bleating on about David Cameron?
The man is a joke.
"See the classic psych experiment by Tajfel in 1971: "Minimal Group Paradigm"
So the Tories decide to reduce taxes for the rich from 50p to 45p. Reasoning? Some vague hopes that it might (or might not) increase the tax take. Brilliant politics.
I'm a bit old to be a Spad but anyone over the age of twelve could have advised them better.
It was not only stupid, it was worrying. Should people like that be allowed anywhere near government? Sorry, but that shows the Tories are too stupid to be in power.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/02/apple-cash-mountain-grows
The moral is that politicians should always push to:
1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive
2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can
3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face
4. and pigs might fly
I think you are correct, Southam, but the State has proved extraordinarily incompetent at getting at this true wealth.
If I thought Ed Miliband would get it, I might vote for him. But he won't. And so he will then come after people like me, who aren;t wealthy but have a little money, that they have worked for all their lives.
The true wealthy ALWAYS get away with it.
Democracy hard wires this problem as it requires frequent elections (eg. 5 year intervals) which is shorter than the time required to solve and implement infrastructure, complicated IT systems, etc.
Is this causing the growth differentials between developed democracies and others?
Would have been one for the white coats a year back.
He may as well not have turned up.
Also, don't forget that those Asian countries have appalling demographic cliffs ahead of them. Singapore's TFR is - what - 1.3. It's going to start suffering from Japan disease unless it continues to import people.
The world would be better off without it.
That's such a huge advantage to Nicola Surge-On, doesn't matter if the message is being repeated, the narrative becomes the rock star reception she's getting on the streets and it's a different story every day.
Also Balls is a really terrible public speaker, he's all over the place when he makes a speech.
There was a time when success in business was applauded.
I await a graph with bated breath.
Seriously, AGAIN? Have they not learned. They tried that 6 months ago. the SNP (by proxy) still got 45%.
Maybe that's the strategy now, try to limit the SNP to 45% so they can hold half a dozen seats?
SNP Seat rush. I've bought at a pound a point @ 40 for a bit more excitement on GE night.
The moral is that politicians should always push to:
1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive
2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can
3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face
4. and pigs might fly
We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.
"Mr. CD13, a charge that can be levelled not uniquely at the Conservatives."
Indeed so. We end up voting for the least idiotic - a difficult decision.
'Labour’s Braden Davy – Braden is a Welsh name meaning “salmon” – talks a good game. This is a seat, he insists, that Labour can win.
“We got 20 per cent of the vote last time. Labour were only 2 per cent behind the SNP,” he says “There is a core Labour vote out there. It’s a four-way race. I think a Labour majority is still possible. We’re fighting for every possible vote. Our vote’s holding up quite strongly.”
But a local Labour source tells me that activists from the area have been told to go and campaign in Aberdeen instead, where the party hopes to hold on to Dame Anne Begg and elect Richard Baker to Westminster.'
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/the-peoples-election-part-six-gordon---more-than-just-the-alex-salmond-factor.1915
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/cameron-realising-britain-just-really-hated-gordon-brown-2015041097247
If Alan Johnson or the slightly less unusual Miliband had forced Brown to resign, David would have been just another arse who led the Tory party for a while
Murphy really has lost the plot.
Miliband's question responses almost seem pro-SNP - they certainly do to me.
"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations
I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)
Every time the Labour party says "end the Bedroom Tax in Scotland" they just show how clueless they are.
Two things stand out over the past decade and a half. Real wages have been static; rates of home-ownership are declining (particularly among young people).
As you say, it's not surprising that people kick against this. I'm damned if I know what to do about it, though.
Remember, the UK Market may go down as well as up after May's election (I wouldn't back out completely especially if you are a fair way off retirement)... but bear in mind there is a potential sterling risk out there.
I'd urge everyone to review their stocks and/or pensions right about now as Nabavi has repeatedly said.
TINIA, DYOR, IANA"IFA" etc etc.
The parties in Scandinavia sold this, it's accepted and paid. The problem is the parties not the model.
(And that's half the problem).
Party leaders were flitting about everywhere and not spending enough time in one place
Convince me.
I read this on the train this morning and it provides food for thought for blue red and yellow alike.
Excellent article
1) Get rid of all the planning permission craziness and let people build things where people want to live.
2) Roll back the tax breaks on (first) homes.
The problem is that nobody knows how to get reelected after they've done it.
Two things stand out over the past decade and a half. Real wages have been static; rates of home-ownership are declining (particularly among young people).
As you say, it's not surprising that people kick against this. I'm damned if I know what to do about it, though.
Actually for some times are pretty good. Mortgage holders generally have saved a fortune because of low interest rates. Pensioners and especially those with Public sector deals have seen continual rises - I'm considerably better off since 2009 - and benefited hugely from the rising personal allowance. Other groups - especially the 'squeezed middle' have done much less well - but they, along with the young, have needed a reality check about living on the never never - ever since the advent of credit cards and later 110% mortgages. I find it hard to be very sympathetic as I learned my lesson about credit cards in the 80s. Not pleasant but I've never used them for credit since.
Thought it was Jim
I think there's a time lag effect here too.
Demand for homes is huge, but it takes a long while for supply to respond in this particular market. There is a massive stack of property in the pipeline for London, it just takes a while for it to get through the conveyor belt.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/10/ed-miliband-politician-genitals-shocker-daily-mail-labour-love-life?CMP=share_btn_tw
Bit of a "Fire up the Quattro" for Ed there tbh...
And by "funny", I mean, "you have to laugh at these people, or else you'd surely cry", of course.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/General-Election-predictions-seats-Bristol-area/story-26308556-detail/story.html
Might amuse some punters here, or alarm them.