I know I have been out of things for a bit, but honestly. I leave you lot alone for just a couple of years and the whole place goes to pot.
I had thought David Cameron would be booking the removals van whilst the country would be committing suicide by handing the piggy-bank back to the people who showed absolutely no financial sense (or restraint) last time around.
I had taken it as a given that financial armageddon was a certainity and, as such, I have dug a shelter under the back garden and lined it with essential supplies. Food, shoes (well ... boots, one must be practical), some hats, dresses and a decent full length mirror.
Mr Dancer - thanks for the hint that it could go either way. It means that there is a 50% chance my shelter investment has not been wasted.
So, again, YouGov weighted numbers assume turnout (as % of population, not just those registered) amongst 18 to 24s (7 year range) will be higher than amongst over 60s (21 year range; average life expectancy is 81).
As I posted a few days ago, this cannot be right.
I've asked YouGov on twitter. I'm not normally one for unskewing, but here the targets look wrong, not the sampling.
Edit: also, life expectancy at 60 is more like 83.5.
I used to have a lot of time for Lord Ashcroft - given he'd been defended by Cameron et al for yonks over his non-domism and donations - then he bit them and got all testy.
Nowadays - I see his commentary as more akin to a passive aggressive spiteful spouse. It's a loss in my book, but heyho - it's his money. I'd rather he was transparent who was doing each poll. It's a farce trying to compare one with another if he white labels them all and we've no steer.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible.
I'm guessing you don't remotely run your business like that?
I presume all spending has to be justified and spending 'because we did it last year' wouldn't get very far?
Why not the country?
Our business is not the country. We get to choose who works for us. But our general philosophy is certainly to invest rather than to cut. And we pay all our staff a living wage.
So Labour's promise on the minimum wage must be disappointing? (Its not far off an inflation increase...)
And Tory plans to take minimum wage earners out of tax encouraging?
Marco Rubio has an announcement scheduled at 6pm in Miami, with a 1 hour TV interview at 10pm, but reports are already coming in that he has told his financial backers in a conference call that he is running.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is driving in a bus from NYC to Des Moines, IA, where she will arrive at some time today for her first event tomorow. There is some conjecture that the bus has a Scooby Doo decor. In these days of social media being everywhere, there is no picture of the bus, which is curious. The only picture we've seen is of Hillary meeting folks at a PA truck stop. You would think a bus whistle stop tour would be a great way to get publicity, but apparently not.
A weird morning.
I stuck a Lay of Bush up at 2.98 on the exchanges. No idea if its been matched
Miliband needs to take this, if he doesn't - it's game over for his potential premiership. Good pointer for the Midlands.
487 Rutherglen & Hamilton West 02:00 345 Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath 02:00 269 Glenrothes 02:00
We'll broadly know SLAB's fate from these three.
38 Battersea 02:00
I expect CON Hold but will be instructive for London. If Labour are close here, could be a good night in the capital for them.
134 Castle Point 02:00
Earliest UKIP pointer
250 Fife North East 02:00
Scottish yellow peril pointer.
I need an almost-live xml feed of results on the night to plug into my spreadsheet. Anyone have any ideas?
A Python script that harvested the BBC election results page (or one of many others), or the Associated Press twitter feed, would probably do it, but they could do strange things with their formatting that might break your script.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Rotherham.
My life. My wife's life. The lives of everyone I know from the background I had - and a few more besides. Heck, your life even!
Children excepted, most people I know have managed to survive from a time when the state was smaller.
I guess they were just lucky to have beaten the odds. And not lived in Stafford.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Straight question, if your own business was overspending - what would you do? Run it into the ground/borrow/mortgage your home or cut back to maintain the core and rebuild?
That's the principle of it all. You aren't daft, and neither am I. That's the choice a CoE has to make.
Whilst the piss was taken - Mrs T was right about household budgets. Eventually, spending beyond your means catches up with you.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Is it permitted to refer to the story on page 36 of the Mail on sunday which refers to the LD Candidate in Westmorland and Lonsdale, Mr Timothy James Farron ?
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Rotherham.
My life. My wife's life. The lives of everyone I know from the background I had - and a few more besides. Heck, your life even!
Children excepted, most people I know have managed to survive from a time when the state was smaller.
I guess they were just lucky to have beaten the odds. And not lived in Stafford.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Advances in medicine, agriculture and nutrition can take the credit for increased life expectancy.
Someone said that there is an election soon? So I thought I would stick my head around the door and see what was happening.
Are you lot seriously suggesting that the tories will win? Good grief...
Welcome back, Beverley.
You didn't pick a good day though.
Indeed. The day has failed of its promise and the sunshine I started with earlier has gone only to be replaced by something of an icy blast. Oh wait... you mean politics? or betting? Surely uncertainity drives the odds up so you can make fortunes?
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible.
I'm guessing you don't remotely run your business like that?
I presume all spending has to be justified and spending 'because we did it last year' wouldn't get very far?
Under Labour, ''In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.'' Imagine running a business like that.
Or this, The IFS ''said: “[The lack of firm timetable] gives them an enormous amount of flexibility; it allows them to say well we would be cutting very little, but also that we would be cutting. But it really makes a big difference, there’s a huge difference between £18bn of cuts over the next three years and no cuts. Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were going to vote for Labour.” ''
Labour have produced an economic plan for everybody... which is as good as saying they have produced 30 million economic plans which can be in all places at the same time and have any value anyone likes. After weaponising the NHS, Miliband has quantumised economics. It will of course end up traumatising the nation.
Is it permitted to refer to the story on page 36 of the Mail on sunday which refers to the LD Candidate in Westmorland and Lonsdale, Mr Timothy James Farron ?
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible.
I'm guessing you don't remotely run your business like that?
I presume all spending has to be justified and spending 'because we did it last year' wouldn't get very far?
Why not the country?
Our business is not the country. We get to choose who works for us. But our general philosophy is certainly to invest rather than to cut. And we pay all our staff a living wage.
So Labour's promise on the minimum wage must be disappointing? (Its not far off an inflation increase...)
And Tory plans to take minimum wage earners out of tax encouraging?
Taking people out of tax is great if they do not then get hammered in other ways. I think all employers should pay a living wage and should not be subsidised by the state.
A gap of Tories 6 ahead vs 6 behind is just too wide. Someone's badly wrong. FWIW I think also the UKIP numbers depend critically on WHERE the support is coming from geographically. Labour have collapsed in Scotland as the Scots have realised it is the Islington Guardianista party for welfare immigrants (so to speak) and has utterly abandoned the WWC. UKIP is really a WWC party for the non-PC (left and right) - and may in the long run be more of a threat to Labour. If UKIP growth has really been in the North and retreat in the South then Labour are very fucked. If the UKIP numbers remain mainly in Tory seats and only very minimally eating into Labour WWC votes up north then Dave is in deep doodoo. I'm hoping the ex-Tory kippers are getting scared at the prospect of PM Miliband and holding their noses to vote blue.
Someone said that there is an election soon? So I thought I would stick my head around the door and see what was happening.
Are you lot seriously suggesting that the tories will win? Good grief...
Welcome back, Beverley.
You didn't pick a good day though.
Indeed. The day has failed of its promise and the sunshine I started with earlier has gone only to be replaced by something of an icy blast. Oh wait... you mean politics? or betting? Surely uncertainity drives the odds up so you can make fortunes?
I meant a good day in terms of sane and sensible discussion. But then perhaps it is never good in such respects.
@Pulpster I think that those 3 Fife seats will tell alot about how Scotland has voted. NE Fife has the potential of not going to the SNP only if there has been some tactical voting. If it does occur there then it may give a pointer towards several seats around the edges of Scotland. The other 2 seats are fairly similar to a lot of the Central Belt seats that Labour is defending with 10-20k majorities over the nationalists.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Advances in medicine, agriculture and nutrition can take the credit for increased life expectancy.
But wasn't there a combination of factors that might have led to the pollsters getting it so wrong in the 1992 GE? Yes, we had shy Tories, but we also had that Labour Shadow budget (tax bomb) as well. I remember hearing one Conservative MP on the night of election claiming there was definitely signs of a late swing towards the Conservatives on the doorsteps too. I think that OGH made a very good point recently about both phone and online polling facing their own individual challenges at this GE.
"So the question is not so much whether ICM have an outlier but are their methods right? And that, sadly, is unknowable until 8 May."
Absolutely agreed. Polling can only be calibrated against the actual results.
If the political landscape changes, then there is no guarantee that the polling methodology or weighting calibrated against the 2010 results (or whenever) is correct for 2015.
This error surely dominates sampling error in the total error budget.
I have never really believed the argument -- often made by OGH -- that the polling debacle in 1992 can never happen again because polling is more sophisticated nowadays.
So, again, YouGov weighted numbers assume turnout (as % of population, not just those registered) amongst 18 to 24s (7 year range) will be higher than amongst over 60s (21 year range; average life expectancy is 81).
As I posted a few days ago, this cannot be right.
I've asked YouGov on twitter. I'm not normally one for unskewing, but here the targets look wrong, not the sampling.
Edit: also, life expectancy at 60 is more like 83.5.
Sure I read that life expectancy is longer in Tory-voting areas....?
I assume the Glasgow numbers drag down Scotland as a whole. So should sample far fewer over 60's in Scotland?
Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...
Straight question, if your own business was overspending - what would you do? Run it into the ground/borrow/mortgage your home or cut back to maintain the core and rebuild?
That's the principle of it all. You aren't daft, and neither am I. That's the choice a CoE has to make.
Whilst the piss was taken - Mrs T was right about household budgets. Eventually, spending beyond your means catches up with you.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Labour retreats on bank break-up vow as it emerges two challenger banks it wants to see may already exist. http://t.co/cjlqXnAA4B
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Most people did not die in their 30s at any time in history. You had a very high chance of dying during your early years, and if you survived that, you had a good chance of living to old age.
In terms of the right role of the state, the ultra-libertarian view simply is not something that will fly in this country. People widely think that if you have worked hard and play by the rules, then you should be looked after if you fall upon hard times. However, people also feel that the state should be something that tides you over until you get back on your feet. It should not be a lifestyle choice. For example, you see far too many people deciding to have children at the taxpayer's expense knowing they can not afford to pay for them themselves.
Publicly listed companies will be required to report on whether or not they pay the Living Wage.
How about NHS Hospitals, Charities and Local Authorities?
Surely the 'let out' is that many minimum wage employees will be working for (e.g.) cleaning contractors - so won't be directly employed by the Publicly listed company?
So, again, YouGov weighted numbers assume turnout (as % of population, not just those registered) amongst 18 to 24s (7 year range) will be higher than amongst over 60s (21 year range; average life expectancy is 81).
As I posted a few days ago, this cannot be right.
I've asked YouGov on twitter. I'm not normally one for unskewing, but here the targets look wrong, not the sampling.
Edit: also, life expectancy at 60 is more like 83.5.
Sure I read that life expectancy is longer in Tory-voting areas....?
I assume the Glasgow numbers drag down Scotland as a whole. So should sample far fewer over 60's in Scotland?
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Labour retreats on bank break-up vow as it emerges two challenger banks it wants to see may already exist. http://t.co/cjlqXnAA4B
Twitter Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago Tories have said so little comparatively about its plans for 2015-20 its manifesto could be genuinely revealing.
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
My life. My wife's life. The lives of everyone I know from the background I had - and a few more besides. Heck, your life even!
Children excepted, most people I know have managed to survive from a time when the state was smaller.
I guess they were just lucky to have beaten the odds. And not lived in Stafford.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Labour has brought the State you claim to so admire to the point of bankruptcy on several occasions. Labour poses far more of threat to a well-funded state than any other UK
Not sure that anyone is seriously arguing that the state is rolled back to Victorian times.
There is a valid argument about the size of the state to be had, and many feel it is big enough already, and interferes too much in many areas. You disagree. Fair enough, but don;t caricature those who favour a smaller state as latter-day mill owners or some such.
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
Nothing has unravelled.
The Scottish subsample can't be looked at in isolation, however the England and Wales one can be.
My downthread analysis shows Con 38% vs Lab 36% in England using both Ashcroft and ICM.
Not sure that anyone is seriously arguing that the state is rolled back to Victorian times.
There is a valid argument about the size of the state to be had, and many feel it is big enough already, and interferes too much in many areas. You disagree. Fair enough, but don;t caricature those who favour a smaller state as latter-day mill owners or some such.
I am not. As I have said before on here it is a perfectly legitimate standpoint. It's just one do not share.
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
I just don't know what to say. Perhaps the absurdities just cancel one another out. With the fragmenting of the electorate I wonder whether a representative sample is becoming nigh on impossible to obtain.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
....
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Rotherham.
My life. My wife's life. The lives of everyone I know from the background I had - and a few more besides. Heck, your life even!
Children excepted, most people I know have managed to survive from a time when the state was smaller.
I guess they were just lucky to have beaten the odds. And not lived in Stafford.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
You are grossly oversimplifying. We had state education before the war. After the war we implemented an education system which was drawn up during the war. Education is not a manifestation of 'big state'. Nor is the NHS. Most countries have a state controlled national health system, usually it is funded by compulsory insurance by workers and employers. Where the NHS becomes big state is when, for purely political ideological reasons, socialists spit on people who want to pay extra and leave the NHS hamstrung by objecting to the private sector.
- How much they will spend - How much they will increase taxes by - How much they will reduce immigration
It is not a plan for government.
What was Cameron's 'plan' for net migration by the end of this Parliament again?
A number much lower than we achieved, and one of the failures of the last five years. Is the lesson from this really to repeat this failure and extend it to other areas?
Why not? How is UK plc not under the same constraints as your business or my household spending budget?
Money and expenditure are the same commodities whatever universe we're using them in. Only Bubble Market fools believe those basic rules don't apply and get burned by them.
Straight question, if your own business was overspending - what would you do? Run it into the ground/borrow/mortgage your home or cut back to maintain the core and rebuild?
That's the principle of it all. You aren't daft, and neither am I. That's the choice a CoE has to make.
Whilst the piss was taken - Mrs T was right about household budgets. Eventually, spending beyond your means catches up with you.
Tories must be heading into overall majority country now. Very depressing, but not unexpected.
I don't believe for a moment you are "very depressed" by a potential Tory win. Cameron with a narrow majority will be little different to Cameron in Coalition (with which you coped). Yes there will be an EU vote but IN will win easily (therefore not triggering another indyref).
All else will continue as now. Mildly competent. Fairly boring. Better than the lefty lunacies of Miliband (as you well know).
Anyway, cheer up. It's just one outlying poll. I still believe (for now) your guy will scrape home, needing SNP support to govern (and that's when we should all start worrying).
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
I meant a good day in terms of sane and sensible discussion. But then perhaps it is never good in such respects.
I suspect that given the apparent closeness and uncertainty, the supporters of each side will be shouting for their man to win and sensible discussion is unlikely. Most of the people I know expect a hung parliament and a second election, except that we now have fixed five year terms.
I presume, therefore, that the Heath and Wilson scenario of the 1970's cannot happen this time around and when I mention that people go "ummm.. err...". Of course it gets difficult when they then ask me what the answer is - how do we have a second election - and I have to admit I have no idea.
What are the chances of 1974 happening under current rules? Is it even remotely possible? I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a re-run.
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
I just don't know what to say. Perhaps the absurdities just cancel one another out. With the fragmenting of the electorate I wonder whether a representative sample is becoming nigh on impossible to obtain.
Focussing on England which is the main Con-Lab battleground:
Most people did not die in their 30s at any time in history. You had a very high chance of dying during your early years, and if you survived that, you had a good chance of living to old age.
Not quite correct, JEO. Although death in the 30s was not necessarily the norm (these things usually fluctuated until the last century) it wasn't unusual. True, high infant mortality did skew the figures a bit, but you are leaving out things like death in childbirth (which until the 18th century, was one of the commonest causes of death among women and obviously affected women in their 30s more than younger, fitter women in their 20s or older women who did not have children in their 40s). There was also TB, a major killer, war (which included deaths from disease incurred as a result of fighting) appendicitis (invariably fatal until the 20th century and dangerous until the invention of antibiotics) smallpox and other diseases.
All in all, it was very rare to find somebody who lived much beyond the age of fifty until the twentieth century. As late as 1904, life expectancy in this country was 45 and the average marriage (now this is an interesting one) lasted around 20 years due to the death of one or other of the partners, which immediately suggests that it wasn't simply infant mortality that was causing it (although this would of course include remarriages in later life).
If you got beyond that age, the chances of going on to 80 were probably a lot higher, but I don't have the hard data to prove it.
The ICM and Lord Ashcroft polls are very similar indeed. The only substantial difference between them is how to allocate the Con+UKIP share.
Right now I'd split the difference. For May 7th, I'd be leaning quite heavily ICM.
Really, if this is the way it goes down then the Tories will have played a blinder. Make Ed look like a dangerous lefty, have a centrist platform to win votes in the centre and then Tories on holiday in UKIP land come home a couple of weeks before the election meaning the Tories don't have to tack to the right and lose the centre ground.
If that is how it ends up going down then the Tories will win a majority in the most unlikely of circumstances, but that is what ICM is showing right now.
Nicola Sturgeon has predictably responded to Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna’s correction of Jim Murphy’s claims about no further spending cuts in Scotland. Sturgeon said the Scottish Labour leader had been “hung out to dry”, proving that his party is “no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour”:
The truth is out about Labour spending cuts. Jim Murphy’s false claims in the TV debates have been rubbished by his own party bosses at Westminster, who have hung him out to dry.
Labour would impose swingeing spending cuts on Scotland and the rest of the UK, carrying on with austerity where the Tories left off - that is the core aspect of the manifesto they have published. It sweeps away Jim Murphy’s pretence, and leaves him devoid of any credibility in this campaign.
Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna have just confirmed that Labour in Scotland continue to be no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour. That is why so many voters in Scotland are moving away from Labour and choosing the SNP, and we will continue to work hard to earn people’s trust.
I meant a good day in terms of sane and sensible discussion. But then perhaps it is never good in such respects.
I suspect that given the apparent closeness and uncertainty, the supporters of each side will be shouting for their man to win and sensible discussion is unlikely. Most of the people I know expect a hung parliament and a second election, except that we now have fixed five year terms.
I presume, therefore, that the Heath and Wilson scenario of the 1970's cannot happen this time around and when I mention that people go "ummm.. err...". Of course it gets difficult when they then ask me what the answer is - how do we have a second election - and I have to admit I have no idea.
What are the chances of 1974 happening under current rules? Is it even remotely possible? I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a re-run.
We get an early election if the incumbent government loses a vote of no confidence and no potential replacement government wins a vote of confidence within 14 days.
I think this means that the opposition to a minority PM now gets to choose when to hold an early election, rather than the incumbent PM - assuming that the opposition can assemble a majority to vote in such a way.
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
I think Plato is being clear enough.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...
I have a sneaky feeling Labour could be in for a shock in Wales. Nothing like Scotland, but enough to scare the bejeeesus out of them.....
@faisalislam: So @conservatives counterattack on #LabourManifesto focuses on national insurance thresholds as a stealth tax that Lab has not "ruled out"
What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
Scotland:
Con 16 Labour 5 Lib Dem 3 SNP 19 UKIP 1
Weighted Base 44
Con 7 Labour 8 Lib Dem 3 SNP 23 UKIP 3 Green 5 BNP 1 Others 1
Weighted Base 52
Con 23 Labour 13 Lib Dem 6 SNP 42 UKIP 4 Green 5 BNP 1 Others 1
I think this means that the opposition to a minority PM now gets to choose when to hold an early election, rather than the incumbent PM - assuming that the opposition can assemble a majority to vote in such a way.
Thank you.
It would certainly be entertaining to watch, I might even indulge myself. :-)
Is it permitted to refer to the story on page 36 of the Mail on sunday which refers to the LD Candidate in Westmorland and Lonsdale, Mr Timothy James Farron ?
Probably. In and amongst the sadness what stands out is that Farron privately supported the policy provided it did not apply to the LD dominated parts of the county.
Nationally, the LDs like to think its clever politics to fight on street parking charges in places where its not them who have to balance the books.
Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...
I have a sneaky feeling Labour could be in for a shock in Wales. Nothing like Scotland, but enough to scare the bejeeesus out of them.....
I would like to see ICM do a mega poll so we could get decent subsamples rather than all of these health warnings. It might also smooth out some of the over-polling of certain groups and require less manipulation to fit the 2010 weighting.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
What utter tosh, Southam!
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
Comments
I had thought David Cameron would be booking the removals van whilst the country would be committing suicide by handing the piggy-bank back to the people who showed absolutely no financial sense (or restraint) last time around.
I had taken it as a given that financial armageddon was a certainity and, as such, I have dug a shelter under the back garden and lined it with essential supplies. Food, shoes (well ... boots, one must be practical), some hats, dresses and a decent full length mirror.
Mr Dancer - thanks for the hint that it could go either way. It means that there is a 50% chance my shelter investment has not been wasted.
Edit: also, life expectancy at 60 is more like 83.5.
Nowadays - I see his commentary as more akin to a passive aggressive spiteful spouse. It's a loss in my book, but heyho - it's his money. I'd rather he was transparent who was doing each poll. It's a farce trying to compare one with another if he white labels them all and we've no steer.
And Tory plans to take minimum wage earners out of tax encouraging?
The phoney war is over. Let the polling commence....
That's the principle of it all. You aren't daft, and neither am I. That's the choice a CoE has to make.
Whilst the piss was taken - Mrs T was right about household budgets. Eventually, spending beyond your means catches up with you.
Well we have to get our priorities right
Thanks JohnO for sorting out the bet. I knew it had been registered with Peter but thought it was Richard I had bet with.
As I say, I want to make sure I am not welching if I lose so need to check my bets before the event.
Out of interest would you agree that Cameron has not moved to the right and so we are looking simply at whether he wins or not now?
Indeed. The day has failed of its promise and the sunshine I started with earlier has gone only to be replaced by something of an icy blast. Oh wait... you mean politics? or betting? Surely uncertainity drives the odds up so you can make fortunes?
Under Labour, ''In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.'' Imagine running a business like that.
Or this, The IFS ''said: “[The lack of firm timetable] gives them an enormous amount of flexibility; it allows them to say well we would be cutting very little, but also that we would be cutting. But it really makes a big difference, there’s a huge difference between £18bn of cuts over the next three years and no cuts. Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were going to vote for Labour.” ''
Labour have produced an economic plan for everybody... which is as good as saying they have produced 30 million economic plans which can be in all places at the same time and have any value anyone likes.
After weaponising the NHS, Miliband has quantumised economics.
It will of course end up traumatising the nation.
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Edit: and gone again, seemingly...
NE Fife has the potential of not going to the SNP only if there has been some tactical voting. If it does occur there then it may give a pointer towards several seats around the edges of Scotland. The other 2 seats are fairly similar to a lot of the Central Belt seats that Labour is defending with 10-20k majorities over the nationalists.
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
Advances in medicine, agriculture and nutrition can take the credit for increased life expectancy.
No - access to those improvements can.
Sky News might have something, though probably not xml.
I assume the Glasgow numbers drag down Scotland as a whole. So should sample far fewer over 60's in Scotland?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-13/busker-playing-ukulele-tells-david-cameron-f-off-back-to-eton-with-all-your-eton-chums/
In terms of the right role of the state, the ultra-libertarian view simply is not something that will fly in this country. People widely think that if you have worked hard and play by the rules, then you should be looked after if you fall upon hard times. However, people also feel that the state should be something that tides you over until you get back on your feet. It should not be a lifestyle choice. For example, you see far too many people deciding to have children at the taxpayer's expense knowing they can not afford to pay for them themselves.
Publicly listed companies will be required to report on whether or not they pay the Living Wage.
How about NHS Hospitals, Charities and Local Authorities?
Surely the 'let out' is that many minimum wage employees will be working for (e.g.) cleaning contractors - so won't be directly employed by the Publicly listed company?
18-24 = 131 weighted (of all respondents = 1042)
65+ = 211 weighted
The previous month was:
18-24 = 126 weighted (of all respondents = 1001)
65+ = 206 weighted
Really curious as to why this is happening.
Right now the Labour Party has not said:
- How much they will spend
- How much they will increase taxes by
- How much they will reduce immigration
It is not a plan for government.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago
Tories have said so little comparatively about its plans for 2015-20 its manifesto could be genuinely revealing.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
Not sure that anyone is seriously arguing that the state is rolled back to Victorian times.
There is a valid argument about the size of the state to be had, and many feel it is big enough already, and interferes too much in many areas. You disagree. Fair enough, but don;t caricature those who favour a smaller state as latter-day mill owners or some such.
The Scottish subsample can't be looked at in isolation, however the England and Wales one can be.
My downthread analysis shows Con 38% vs Lab 36% in England using both Ashcroft and ICM.
Edited extra bit: being serious, I wouldn't take one poll dreadfully seriously.
And of course. But it is a PB Tory's duty to be excited over one poll.
https://twitter.com/TimGatt/status/587640424828907520
Where the NHS becomes big state is when, for purely political ideological reasons, socialists spit on people who want to pay extra and leave the NHS hamstrung by objecting to the private sector.
Tories on 36%:
"It's an outlier".
ICM MARCH:
Tories maintain 36%:
"It's an outlier".
ICM APRIL:
Tories on 39%:
"It's...."
Money and expenditure are the same commodities whatever universe we're using them in. Only Bubble Market fools believe those basic rules don't apply and get burned by them.
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
I presume, therefore, that the Heath and Wilson scenario of the 1970's cannot happen this time around and when I mention that people go "ummm.. err...". Of course it gets difficult when they then ask me what the answer is - how do we have a second election - and I have to admit I have no idea.
What are the chances of 1974 happening under current rules? Is it even remotely possible? I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a re-run.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
Ashcroft
Tory 155
Labour 163
ICM
Tory 202
Labour 172
Con 357
Labour 335
Base: 491+451 = 942
36% Labour vs 38% Conservative in England
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/nyregion/on-national-television-de-blasio-declines-to-endorse-clinton-for-president.html?_r=0
All in all, it was very rare to find somebody who lived much beyond the age of fifty until the twentieth century. As late as 1904, life expectancy in this country was 45 and the average marriage (now this is an interesting one) lasted around 20 years due to the death of one or other of the partners, which immediately suggests that it wasn't simply infant mortality that was causing it (although this would of course include remarriages in later life).
If you got beyond that age, the chances of going on to 80 were probably a lot higher, but I don't have the hard data to prove it.
If that is how it ends up going down then the Tories will win a majority in the most unlikely of circumstances, but that is what ICM is showing right now.
Who says this election is dull?!
A poll that has UKIP on 7% is because the pollsters are biased/it was commissioned by a lefty newspaper.
On an unrelated note, where is Ave It these days??
I think this means that the opposition to a minority PM now gets to choose when to hold an early election, rather than the incumbent PM - assuming that the opposition can assemble a majority to vote in such a way.
I take it you've been on a plane in the last few hours?
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
Con 16
Labour 5
Lib Dem 3
SNP 19
UKIP 1
Weighted Base 44
Con 7
Labour 8
Lib Dem 3
SNP 23
UKIP 3
Green 5
BNP 1
Others 1
Weighted Base 52
Con 23
Labour 13
Lib Dem 6
SNP 42
UKIP 4
Green 5
BNP 1
Others 1
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
It would certainly be entertaining to watch, I might even indulge myself. :-)
In and amongst the sadness what stands out is that Farron privately supported the policy provided it did not apply to the LD dominated parts of the county.
Nationally, the LDs like to think its clever politics to fight on street parking charges in places where its not them who have to balance the books.
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.
Are you sure he wasn't outraged by your shocking ignorance of classical history?
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
Not all bad then