I learned on here that The King's Fund is historically a very interesting organisation. It gave them a lot of credits in my book as an opinion former.
Founded as the Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund for London in 1897,[4] the fund changed its name in 1902 to King Edward's Hospital Fund after the accession to the throne of King Edward VII.[5] In 1907, Parliament incorporated the fund as the King's Fund.
George Stephen, 1st Baron Mount Stephen worked closely with the future George V in building the charity's endowment fund. Lord Mount Stephen was the charity's most important benefactor, having made gifts to the amount of £1,315,000.[6]
The fund was originally set up to contribute to London's voluntary hospitals. It later started to inspect hospitals. After the NHS was created in 1948, the fund re-purposed itself as think tank.[5]
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.
But you are making a false dichotomy. There is hardly a person on this earth - and certainly not in the Conservative Party - who thinks the state should have no role. You seem to have jumped from the statement that 'the state has a vital role' to 'and therefore by definition higher public spending advocated by Labour is better than lower public spending advocated by the Conservatives, irrespective of anything else and irrespective of the country's financial position' without the necessary intermediate logical steps of demonstrating why and how.
I think what that shows more than anything else is how strong the Lib Dem brand still is and how loathed Clegg is by the 2010 LD > Lab switchers. From 8 > 21 points with an unknown person in charge. It also goes against common perception that Labour is a stronger pull than Ed, they would do worse without him. Interesting poll.
That is interesting. It suggests that once (if?) Clegg walks away in just under four weeks time, and the Lib Dems return to the Opposition benches, that they will recover quite rapidly in the polls. Perhaps a few Lib Dem by-election gains in the next Parliament, just like in the old days?
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.
SO: but what you're saying is that the state should step in where the private sector is inadequate. I agree. But that doesn't mean that a large state is a good in itself, which is what you seem to be saying - and forgive me if I've misunderstood you. It's not the size of the state which matters but what it does and, I would add, that what it does it does as well as possible. You seem to be saying today that you want a large state - almost regardless of whether that large state is (a) effective; (b) spends the money sensibly; and (c) its size does not have unintended consequences.
That's what I don't understand about your argument. If a smaller state did all the things you want it to do are you still staying that you'd want the state to be larger?
Indeed. It is quite possible to have a small state that sets the framework of acceptable behaviour and minimum standards by private companies based upon the will of the electorate but which does not involve itself in the day to day running of businesses or services.
Many European countries do this for example, with their health services which are effectively privately run within a public framework. And in many cases their clinical outcomes are far better than the UK's.
After the election there will be no pollsters to abuse - so the tin foil hats will really come out.
I mean there is a Scotch Nat poster on here with the moniker "it was rigged" or somesuch - Kippers should avoid such a path if the results do not meet their hopes.
SO: but what you're saying is that the state should step in where the private sector is inadequate. I agree. But that doesn't mean that a large state is a good in itself, which is what you seem to be saying - and forgive me if I've misunderstood you. It's not the size of the state which matters but what it does and, I would add, that what it does it does as well as possible. You seem to be saying today that you want a large state - almost regardless of whether that large state is (a) effective; (b) spends the money sensibly; and (c) its size does not have unintended consequences.
That's what I don't understand about your argument. If a smaller state did all the things you want it to do are you still staying that you'd want the state to be larger?
No. I am interested in outcomes. My direct experience, though, is that you tend to get better outcomes with a more active state. How the state is active is a different matter. I am not a Labour supporter and remain very open to a strong, regulated role for the private sector in service provision. But in this country, at least, I don't think the private sector has been managed by the state to do as well as it could in areas as diverse as social care, welfare provision, prisons and utilities.
Thank you for your response. I don't think there is much between us. Social care, welfare, prisons are, it seems to me, classic public goods where the state should be involved - though given what one reads about the appalling way in which children in state care have been treated, I'm beginning to have my doubts, though I don't know what the alternative is.
An active state does not need to be a large state. I wish, though, that there was a political party which focused on outcomes. Labour seems to have fetishized the state as an end in itself - they've certainly done this with the NHS - and have (or sometimes give) given the impression that outcomes are an irrelevance. Until they can be weaned away from this view to understand that what matters is whether we get good educational outcomes, health etc not the structure/ownership of the body providing it we will, I fear, continue to have a sterile debate.
George Mountstephen and another 1st cousin Donald Strathcona built the Canadian Pacific Railway. Donald also founded large parts of McGill University and paid for and promoted women undergarduates and he was Governor General of the Hudson Bay Company.
I do love your geneology expertise. My mother did a family tree back in the 70s on a roll of wallpaper backing.
Apparently I'm related to a Sheriff of Newcastle and a bishop. I have no knowledge of my family tree bar my brothers so have no idea. I'd love to know but alas I've no data to work from.
I learned on here that The King's Fund is historically a very interesting organisation. It gave them a lot of credits in my book as an opinion former.
Founded as the Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund for London in 1897,[4] the fund changed its name in 1902 to King Edward's Hospital Fund after the accession to the throne of King Edward VII.[5] In 1907, Parliament incorporated the fund as the King's Fund.
George Stephen, 1st Baron Mount Stephen worked closely with the future George V in building the charity's endowment fund. Lord Mount Stephen was the charity's most important benefactor, having made gifts to the amount of £1,315,000.[6]
The fund was originally set up to contribute to London's voluntary hospitals. It later started to inspect hospitals. After the NHS was created in 1948, the fund re-purposed itself as think tank.[5]
After the election there will be no pollsters to abuse - so the tin foil hats will really come out.
I mean there is a Scotch Nat poster on here with the moniker "it was rigged" or somesuch - Kippers should avoid such a path if the results do not meet their hopes.
Who abuses pollsters??
Is ICM a sacred cow a la NHS? Questioning = abuse?
It would be worth looking at the other stats from the ICM poll. Why has it not moved SPIN ?
On it's own ICM hasn't removed any uncertainty - only added to it, really. Lab and Con seem to me to be trading at the mid-point of a plausible range of respective outcomes: Lab 270 +/- 30 and Con 281 +/- 30. There is potential for a lot of volatility, but I suspect we won't see it until very late on.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Come off it, are you seriously suggesting 35% is a credible polling figure for the Tories in Scotland, just 9 points behind the SNP and 23 points ahead of Labour?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
It would be worth looking at the other stats from the ICM poll. Why has it not moved SPIN ?
On it's own ICM hasn't removed any uncertainty - only added to it, really. Lab and Con seem to me to be trading at the mid-point of a plausible range of respective outcomes: Lab 270 +/- 30 and Con 281 +/- 30. There is potential for a lot of volatility, but I suspect we won't see it until very late on.
Today's polls really aren't as bad for Labour as the face value, 2% behind in England if you combine Ashcroft and ICM.
After the election there will be no pollsters to abuse - so the tin foil hats will really come out.
I mean there is a Scotch Nat poster on here with the moniker "it was rigged" or somesuch - Kippers should avoid such a path if the results do not meet their hopes.
Who abuses pollsters??
Is ICM a sacred cow a la NHS? Questioning = abuse?
That chap on twitter was abusing the poll reporter.
I love this stuff - and @Charles family history - it's so intriguing and rich with exploits.
I'm a total Obits nut and this is just more of the same. I adore it.
My grandparents were Irish cabbage/potato farmers and Bury cotton mill mercers and then grocers. It's the whole Industrial Revolution/ancient Tories writ large within my living memory.
George Mountstephen and another 1st cousin Donald Strathcona built the Canadian Pacific Railway. Donald also founded large parts of McGill University and paid for and promoted women undergarduates and he was Governor General of the Hudson Bay Company.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
After the election there will be no pollsters to abuse - so the tin foil hats will really come out.
I mean there is a Scotch Nat poster on here with the moniker "it was rigged" or somesuch - Kippers should avoid such a path if the results do not meet their hopes.
Who abuses pollsters??
Is ICM a sacred cow a la NHS? Questioning = abuse?
That chap on twitter was abusing the poll reporter.
Oh right.
But really, anyone who can be bothered to give someone unnecessary stick like that just deserves to be ignored don't they?
Miss Plato, I was lucky. My grandfather and his siblings were regaled with family history by an elderly spinster aunt who lived near them. She knew her father's cousins Strathcona and Mountstephen long before they were made Peers of the Realm.
The old families around the Moray Firth have hardly moved and extensively intermarried over the last 9 centuries so we are all just about related to one another. I was an adult before people in Nairn called me by my name instead of "Willie's grandson".
The local museum is full of pictures of my grandfather and his brothers (and their friends) as boys between the wars and one of his childhood golfing friends was the late Lord Whitelaw who spent most summers in Nairn as a boy.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Come off it, are you seriously suggesting 35% is a credible polling figure for the Tories in Scotland, just 9 points behind the SNP and 23 points ahead of Labour?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
OTT for sure, but let's wait and see what the next ComRes and Mori polls show in terms of the general direction of traffic...
Apologies for being late to the party - a lot on at the moment.
ICM. Gosh. Reputations on the line here. Yes, a lot can happen in three weeks - events and all that - but if it's not a rogue then they've either picked up on movement early or, more likely, they're out of line with the rest on methodological grounds. In which case, who's right?
I suspect this is a high-side poll but not a rogue on ICM's methodology. Even so, it's their best Tory score since March 2013 and - I think - the biggest Tory lead by any pollster since November 2010 (Opinium, 9/11/10).
As for Ashcroft, variable as ever but notable that he too has shown a significant Tory bounce over the last few weeks. Through most of last year, he had the Blues typically on 30%, plus or minus a bit); 33-34 is more the norm now.
'Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. '
Massive taxation on everything that moves but you get to die in a luxury care home.
They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
In terms of life expectancy the Scandinavian countries have tumbled down the rankings since the 60s.
In 1964 the top 5 countries in order for males were Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. For women it was Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and France.
In 2012 the top country for overall life expectancy was Japan. Iceland was 6th, Sweden 8th, Norway 15th and Denmark 37th.
50 years of socialist Utopia doesn't seem to have done much for their life expectancy compared to the rest of the world.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
The Scandinavians also have a higher suicide rate than the UK, so much for being happier.
Miss Plato, I was lucky. My grandfather and his siblings were regaled with family history by an elderly spinster aunt who lived near them. She knew her father's cousins Strathcona and Mountstephen long before they were made Peers of the Realm.
The old families around the Moray Firth have hardly moved and extensively intermarried over the last 9 centuries so we are all just about related to one another. I was an adult before people in Nairn called me by my name instead of "Willie's grandson".
The local museum is full of pictures of my grandfather and his brothers (and their friends) as boys between the wars and one of his childhood golfing friends was the late Lord Whitelaw who spent most summers in Nairn as a boy.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.
You mean the same Scandinavia that has a massive issue with alcoholism and suicide rates? Extremely happy.
About time for a decent Tory poll again. Not on its own enough to change the prevailing narrative, but means the door is not yet closed on their chances.
'Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. '
Massive taxation on everything that moves but you get to die in a luxury care home.
They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
In terms of life expectancy the Scandinavian countries have tumbled down the rankings since the 60s.
In 1964 the top 5 countries in order for males were Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. For women it was Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and France.
In 2012 the top country for overall life expectancy was Japan. Iceland was 6th, Sweden 8th, Norway 15th and Denmark 37th.
50 years of socialist Utopia doesn't seem to have done much for their life expectancy compared to the rest of the world.
It is mostly a ceiling effect, with other countries catching up.
Though Scandinavia is changing quickly.
This book was one of my summer reads. Quite recommend it:
...Twitter's useful and interesting in lots of ways, but there's a lot of uncivil behaviour there too. ...
I am sure there is but I never see any of it, save for the occasional re-tweet when someone is trying to make a point. I suppose its like pubs, if you go to the rough ones in rough areas you will see bad behaviour but if you go to nice places you are most unlikely to do so,
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-224085,
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.
...Twitter's useful and interesting in lots of ways, but there's a lot of uncivil behaviour there too. ...
I am sure there is but I never see any of it, save for the occasional re-tweet when someone is trying to make a point. I suppose its like pubs, if you go to the rough ones in rough areas you will see bad behaviour but if you go to nice places you are most unlikely to do so,
Hours on and I'm still bemused at Miliband's comments this morning. I can't actually believe he said the Tories were going to "spend recklessly" with Labour contrasting as frugal. What exactly is supposed to be the rationale for voting Labour now? What is the argument that's going to get the many people who hate the Tories fired up enough to turn out and vote?
Talk about the triumph of short-term tactics over strategy.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.
You mean the same Scandinavia that has a massive issue with alcoholism and suicide rates? Extremely happy.
I don't think it's the government's job to make sure its citizens are happy.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Come off it, are you seriously suggesting 35% is a credible polling figure for the Tories in Scotland, just 9 points behind the SNP and 23 points ahead of Labour?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
Fitalass.. I saw you still tweet to tim.. Why do you bother. I just looked at his account and he is even more barking than he used to be. Best to leave him well alone imho
...Twitter's useful and interesting in lots of ways, but there's a lot of uncivil behaviour there too. ...
I am sure there is but I never see any of it, save for the occasional re-tweet when someone is trying to make a point. I suppose its like pubs, if you go to the rough ones in rough areas you will see bad behaviour but if you go to nice places you are most unlikely to do so,
No, can't say I did. I am not good with this Vanilla thing, unless there is somewhere that tells me there is a message I wouldn't know to look. Wait one.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.
You mean the same Scandinavia that has a massive issue with alcoholism and suicide rates? Extremely happy.
I don't think it's the government's job to make sure its citizens are happy.
Me neither, I just don't think this idea that countries with big governments are happier than those with small governments.
Actually read the Labour manifesto, the first time I've properly gone through a manifesto bit by bit (in 2005 I don't think I looked at one, in 2010 I flicked through the big three's manifestos). Presentationally it seem a bit poor, a bit too heavy on unnumbered text paragraphs making it harder to flick through and find the detail (although bullet pointing the main promises at the end of each section helped).
My main thoughts were it was very insistent that Labour would be economically sensible, the message rang through the entire thing.
The only bit that really surprised me was on page 48 with the guaranteed job for people long term out of work, and that they would have to take that job or lose their benefits. It sounded like something they would criticise the Tories for. Otherwise the not unsurprising mix of vague promises on some things, harder promises on others and the Tories being the equivalent of baby eaters (but if you cannot imply like that in a manifesto, when can you? So fair game I guess).
This poll feels to me like an outlier in terms of the Tory lead, but about right in terms of the UKIP vs ecofascist figures.
Direction of travel probably correct though.
Miliband is the oiliest creep I can recall in politics in a long, long time. Roll on his replacement by Umunna, who is equally oily but lacks Miliband's modesty and likeable niceness.
In an interview with BBC Newsnight presenter Evan Davis, Mr Clegg said he "could not countenance" recommending to his party they join a coalition with "a Labour Party that's not serious about balancing the books".
'Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. '
Massive taxation on everything that moves but you get to die in a luxury care home.
They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
In terms of life expectancy the Scandinavian countries have tumbled down the rankings since the 60s.
In 1964 the top 5 countries in order for males were Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. For women it was Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and France.
In 2012 the top country for overall life expectancy was Japan. Iceland was 6th, Sweden 8th, Norway 15th and Denmark 37th.
50 years of socialist Utopia doesn't seem to have done much for their life expectancy compared to the rest of the world.
It is mostly a ceiling effect, with other countries catching up.
Though Scandinavia is changing quickly.
This book was one of my summer reads. Quite recommend it:
I quite fancy Finland myself. You can tell when a Finn likes you because he looks at your shoes rather than his own.
Having spent 15 years working in Norway I can assure you that if you like personal freedom and privacy from the State then that is not the place to go. The use of taxation as a means of social engineering (and a failed means to boot) is not conducive with the better things in life.
Not sure I agree with the ceiling effect either. Norway and Denmark have made very poor progress in increasing life expectancy when other countries have leap frogged them and now substantially exceed them. Japan for example has a life expectancy 5 years greater than Norway and 7 years greater than Denmark. These are not small differences.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Come off it, are you seriously suggesting 35% is a credible polling figure for the Tories in Scotland, just 9 points behind the SNP and 23 points ahead of Labour?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
Isn't the problem for Plaid also one of Geography?
North and South Wales have very different economic interests and links, and even the Welsh that is spoken differs hugely. So I am told.
Not to mention that the Marches are almost wholly anglicized. Plaid has no traction here (I live in Monmouthshire).
I'd add that from personal experience NHS Wales oncology and mental health services are a disgrace; if it were more widely publicised Labour would suffer terribly.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
Outliers and incorrect polls will always get a lot of attention I should think, especially when otherwise there has been little substantive movement for a long time, and only edging up and time at all. Everyone's looking for a decisive moment, desperately hoping for it in some cases, and at the least it gives everyone something to talk about, even if it is to rubbish it. We shall see.
Here is a serious thought for you all. Given the way things appear to be heading in Scotland and it is the SLAB vote which is imploding, could the SCons actually get as many votes as SLAB even if fewer seats.
If the SCons get as many votes as SLAB then Scons will have 1 or 2 seats whereas Labour will have zip.
Labour are racking up alot of useless 30 -> 40% scores, whereas DCT is a bastion.
Less Scottish Labour MP's than Loch Ness Monsters - there's a chance Nessie might still be sighted in June.....
You'll get good odds on the Scottish Conservative vote being less than Labour, but if it is at 16.7% again - well that will be enough to kill Labour off.
If it drops sub 10 then Labour will do relatively well and may hold around 10 seats. But Ruth is doing a stirling job.
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss?? The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Come off it, are you seriously suggesting 35% is a credible polling figure for the Tories in Scotland, just 9 points behind the SNP and 23 points ahead of Labour?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
Is he? Can you link please?
I know there is another thread but, the poll sub sample as I read it was Tories 24, up 7 on 2010.
??!! I blocked him months ago, but he still apparently trolls me on twitter, and that occasionally means that others I have interacted with respond to him. I had to point out to one follower just recently that I had blocked this tweeter long ago.
Fitalass.. I saw you still tweet to tim.. Why do you bother. I just looked at his account and he is even more barking than he used to be. Best to leave him well alone imho
This is what I call the BS5750 Commitment. Back in the 80s - it became VERY fashionable to be *dedicated to quality*. IIRC this then turned into ISO 9000 - this was a long time ago so apols if I've got the details wrong.
The mantra popped up everywhere and morphed into Investors In People. It was mostly cobblers. And Quality Through Exhortation = posters telling everyone This Is A Quality Organisation.
Obviously saying it didn't make it so, ever. In fact the obverse was often true.
So when I see any political party claiming anything as a virtue - I'm reminded of this. A lot. Spouting toss is still tosh. Which is why I get very irked at the blame laid at PR experts. We'd never ever indulge in this tripe - authenticy is our currency, not flimsy tripe like this.
Actually read the Labour manifesto, the first time I've properly gone through a manifesto bit by bit (in 2005 I don't think I looked at one, in 2010 I flicked through the big three's manifestos). Presentationally it seem a bit poor, a bit too heavy on unnumbered text paragraphs making it harder to flick through and find the detail (although bullet pointing the main promises at the end of each section helped).
My main thoughts were it was very insistent that Labour would be economically sensible, the message rang through the entire thing.
The only bit that really surprised me was on page 48 with the guaranteed job for people long term out of work, and that they would have to take that job or lose their benefits. It sounded like something they would criticise the Tories for. Otherwise the not unsurprising mix of vague promises on some things, harder promises on others and the Tories being the equivalent of baby eaters (but if you cannot imply like that in a manifesto, when can you? So fair game I guess).
'Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. '
Massive taxation on everything that moves but you get to die in a luxury care home.
Of course back in the 19th century the world was so much poorer that the tax take and hence the spend was of necessity lower.
The idea that there weren't enough skoolzanospitals in 1815 because we were in the middle of some vast right-wing small-state experiment is simply laughable.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
The Scandinavians also have a higher suicide rate than the UK, so much for being happier.
Howdy Jed Llama
loaded up the truck and moved to Sandbanks yet ? :-)
It beggars belief that Labour can have controlled the Welsh Assembly since inception, and have not suffered any real political damage from the colossal failures in health and education on their watch.
Surely that's backwards. Labour controls the Welsh Assembly because of the colossal failures in education on their watch, which have rendered the electorate too stupid to do other than vote Labour.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
The Scandinavians also have a higher suicide rate than the UK, so much for being happier.
The effects of S.A.D. have nothing to do with general happiness.
I thought during GE time that all media outlets had to be OTT when it came to balance....
Just listened to 15 mins of R5, John Pienaar giving Ed Miliband massive thumbs up, all rosy, all great, what a man, fiscially responsible, Tories unfunded, etc etc etc...15sec at the end, IFS say not so sure about the figures, and back to you.
Now I know John is a signed up Labour man and that Ed tried to hire him as his spokesman, but at least pretend to be impartial, not come out with things like "I was shocked, absolutely shocked at the announcements, in a really good way"...I think he only just managed not to come out with a "when we are back in government" moment in all his excitement.
It looks like a fun bit of game theory where both sides analyse their position and come up with the same solution.
Tories: where are we weak? NHS! Right lets show everyone we are the party of the NHS. Labour: where are we weak? Spending! Right lets show we are the party of responsible finances.
The tories couldn't persuade people they were the party of the NHS - although Labour just having declared they won't match Tory NHS spending plans (I can't believe I wrote that!) might help.
Will Labour persuade floating voters they are the party of prudence (yet again?)
??!! I blocked him months ago, but he still apparently trolls me on twitter, and that occasionally means that others I have interacted with respond to him. I had to point out to one follower just recently that I had blocked this tweeter long ago.
Fitalass.. I saw you still tweet to tim.. Why do you bother. I just looked at his account and he is even more barking than he used to be. Best to leave him well alone imho
Good.. but he still replies to you. I have seen it.. I don't really understand twiiter, just saw your name appear.. Since my wife died, I pretty much have a completely different outlook on life and things that used to get to me no longer do, as I don't listen/do/watch...or rarely...
I have hardly watched any politics this election, and I cannot bear the politicians arguing with each other.
It looks like a fun bit of game theory where both sides analyse their position and come up with the same solution.
Tories: where are we weak? NHS! Right lets show everyone we are the party of the NHS. Labour: where are we weak? Spending! Right lets show we are the party of responsible finances.
The tories couldn't persuade people they were the party of the NHS - although Labour just having declared they won't match Tory NHS spending plans (I can't believe I wrote that!) might help.
Will Labour persuade floating voters they are the party of prudence (yet again?)
I notice that the media are too thick as usual to pick up on Labour "balanced the books....mumble mumble except for investment"....given Brown used to call everything "investment", that basically can mean anything you fancy, just like Gordon's "Golden Rules" that as soon as it started to go South on those, he just fiddled the start / finish period.
After a decade of listening to R5 20hrs a day, I stopped and lost nothing. I had no idea that VDerbyshire or Sheila Thingy had been dropped. Or Peter Allen was in the mid-morning slot until this week.
I thought during GE time that all media outlets had to be OTT when it came to balance....
Just listened to 15 mins of R5, John Pienaar giving Ed Miliband massive thumbs up, all rosy, all great, what a man, fiscially responsible, Tories unfunded, etc etc etc...15sec at the end, IFS say not so sure about the figures, and back to you.
Now I know John is a signed up Labour man and that Ed tried to hire him as his spokesman, but at least pretend to be impartial, not come out with things like "I was shocked, absolutely shocked at the announcements, in a really good way"...I think he only just managed not to come out with a "when we are back in government" moment in all his excitement.
@faisalislam: So @conservatives counterattack on #LabourManifesto focuses on national insurance thresholds as a stealth tax that Lab has not "ruled out"
There's a good few quid to be had out of reducing or abolishing the £151 per week Employers National Insurance threshold.
As we know, NI, unlike the spare room subsidy reduction, is not a tax. Read my lips.
Yes, I know, but I don't ever interact with him at all and I blocked him many months ago. So despite the fact he still trolls me on twitter, I very rarely have to see his responses.
I am very sorry to hear of your tragic loss, cannot even begin to comprehend how difficult it must be for you adjusting right now. Thoughts are with you.
??!! I blocked him months ago, but he still apparently trolls me on twitter, and that occasionally means that others I have interacted with respond to him. I had to point out to one follower just recently that I had blocked this tweeter long ago.
Fitalass.. I saw you still tweet to tim.. Why do you bother. I just looked at his account and he is even more barking than he used to be. Best to leave him well alone imho
Good.. but he still replies to you. I have seen it.. I don't really understand twiiter, just saw your name appear.. Since my wife died, I pretty much have a completely different outlook on life and things that used to get to me no longer do, as I don't listen/do/watch...or rarely...
I have hardly watched any politics this election, and I cannot bear the politicians arguing with each other.
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!
It hasn't unravelled.
Consider: The subsamples have very small numbers involved, so percentage representation of, say "C2"s on their own looks bigger than it should be. Using the raw numbers, Labour actually make up for it on the C1s, so random sample variation seems to cancel out.
I had a look at MORI's figures for how each demographic went last time, and then applied a swing to get to what we'd expect for a poll of 39-33. ABs - in ICM: 71 Con; 57 Lab We'd expect somewhere close to 69:49, so they found 2 more Cons than we'd expect and 8 more Lab. All within normal variance, albeit a more Labour sample than expected.
C1s: 58 Con; 67 Lab We'd expect 67:51. So they found 9 fewer Tories and 16 extra Labourites amongst the C1s. Again, within sample variation, but definitely a Labour tinge.
C2s: 47 Con; 23 Lab We'd expect 36:29. So 11 extra Tories and 6 fewer Labourites than the perfect sample; again not really an issue; a subsample with a Tory tinge.
DEs: 47 Con, 41 Lab We'd expect 38 Con to 50 Lab. So 11 extra Tories and 9 fewer Labour; another subsample with a Tory tinge.
Conclusions: - The numbers of respondents are small enough that these variations are not huge. - Labour does better than expected among AB and C1; Tories better than expected among C2s and DEs (Hmm. Interesting that no-one highlighting the C2s and DEs bothered to mention the ABs and C1s...)
Overall, across the demographics, there are 13 more Conservative respondents than you'd expect - and 9 more Labour ones. So if it distorted the result, it's by 4 respondents out of over a thousand!
"And with this manifesto, I seek to follow in the footsteps of the Labour Prime Ministers who have built the great institutions of our country.
All of them called time on the old way of doing things. In 1945, Clement Attlee called time on the dark days of the depression. In 1964, Harold Wilson beckoned in the white heat of the scientific revolution. In 1997, Tony Blair called time on a decaying public realm and said that our hospitals, our schools, and all our public services could once again be the best in the world. " Ed Miliband
Oh dear, what did Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown do to upset him
Comments
Isn't the problem for Plaid also one of Geography?
North and South Wales have very different economic interests and links, and even the Welsh that is spoken differs hugely. So I am told.
Lord Mount Stephen I am proud to say was 1st cousin of my 3x great grandfather. I think NPXMP is also related to him.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/04/tns-bmrb-put-snp-on-equal-record-high/
I mean there is a Scotch Nat poster on here with the moniker "it was rigged" or somesuch - Kippers should avoid such a path if the results do not meet their hopes.
..and he talks of obsession.. you want my number?? x
An active state does not need to be a large state. I wish, though, that there was a political party which focused on outcomes. Labour seems to have fetishized the state as an end in itself - they've certainly done this with the NHS - and have (or sometimes give) given the impression that outcomes are an irrelevance. Until they can be weaned away from this view to understand that what matters is whether we get good educational outcomes, health etc not the structure/ownership of the body providing it we will, I fear, continue to have a sterile debate.
Apparently I'm related to a Sheriff of Newcastle and a bishop. I have no knowledge of my family tree bar my brothers so have no idea. I'd love to know but alas I've no data to work from. Lord Mount Stephen I am proud to say was 1st cousin of my 3x great grandfather. I think NPXMP is also related to him.
Is ICM a sacred cow a la NHS? Questioning = abuse?
ICM have messed-up, big style. Their own boss is rubbishing his own poll, embarrassed by its obviously wrong findings.
I don't know why the ICM poll is even getting coverage, when everyone can see it is patently and self-evidently wrong!
I'm a total Obits nut and this is just more of the same. I adore it.
My grandparents were Irish cabbage/potato farmers and Bury cotton mill mercers and then grocers. It's the whole Industrial Revolution/ancient Tories writ large within my living memory.
'They are better educated, live longer and are happier !
UK life expectancy 80.17 years Norway 80.32 Sweden 81.18 Denmark 78.78.
Yes, a massive difference.
'www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240855
This colour-coded map reveals the startling difference in life expectancies across 222 of the world's countries. The map shows how people are likely to live the ...
But really, anyone who can be bothered to give someone unnecessary stick like that just deserves to be ignored don't they?
"I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a rerun"
Why? The SNP % increased from 22% to 30% in the two 1974 elections
The old families around the Moray Firth have hardly moved and extensively intermarried over the last 9 centuries so we are all just about related to one another. I was an adult before people in Nairn called me by my name instead of "Willie's grandson".
The local museum is full of pictures of my grandfather and his brothers (and their friends) as boys between the wars and one of his childhood golfing friends was the late Lord Whitelaw who spent most summers in Nairn as a boy.
ICM. Gosh. Reputations on the line here. Yes, a lot can happen in three weeks - events and all that - but if it's not a rogue then they've either picked up on movement early or, more likely, they're out of line with the rest on methodological grounds. In which case, who's right?
I suspect this is a high-side poll but not a rogue on ICM's methodology. Even so, it's their best Tory score since March 2013 and - I think - the biggest Tory lead by any pollster since November 2010 (Opinium, 9/11/10).
As for Ashcroft, variable as ever but notable that he too has shown a significant Tory bounce over the last few weeks. Through most of last year, he had the Blues typically on 30%, plus or minus a bit); 33-34 is more the norm now.
In 1964 the top 5 countries in order for males were Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. For women it was Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and France.
In 2012 the top country for overall life expectancy was Japan. Iceland was 6th, Sweden 8th, Norway 15th and Denmark 37th.
50 years of socialist Utopia doesn't seem to have done much for their life expectancy compared to the rest of the world.
Push me to the Sauna please darling and scrub my back; so much better than Stafford....
Though Scandinavia is changing quickly.
This book was one of my summer reads. Quite recommend it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Almost-Nearly-Perfect-People/dp/0224089625
I quite fancy Finland myself. You can tell when a Finn likes you because he looks at your shoes rather than his own.
There's plenty of time to sleep when I'm dead. As they say.
You really do pick some weird things to make a point about it.
Talk about the triumph of short-term tactics over strategy.
I'm with SO and am grateful for him making the case so eloquently.
My main thoughts were it was very insistent that Labour would be economically sensible, the message rang through the entire thing.
The only bit that really surprised me was on page 48 with the guaranteed job for people long term out of work, and that they would have to take that job or lose their benefits. It sounded like something they would criticise the Tories for. Otherwise the not unsurprising mix of vague promises on some things, harder promises on others and the Tories being the equivalent of baby eaters (but if you cannot imply like that in a manifesto, when can you? So fair game I guess).
'A boring sod like you could not come up with any stats for education and happiness. I think you found them but decided not to put it in here.'
Life expectancy wrong,happiness wrong, maybe you should do some research before opening your mouth ?
Direction of travel probably correct though.
Miliband is the oiliest creep I can recall in politics in a long, long time. Roll on his replacement by Umunna, who is equally oily but lacks Miliband's modesty and likeable niceness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32293670
Not sure I agree with the ceiling effect either. Norway and Denmark have made very poor progress in increasing life expectancy when other countries have leap frogged them and now substantially exceed them. Japan for example has a life expectancy 5 years greater than Norway and 7 years greater than Denmark. These are not small differences.
I'd add that from personal experience NHS Wales oncology and mental health services are a disgrace; if it were more widely publicised Labour would suffer terribly.
Which will help the SNP in Stirling.
The mantra popped up everywhere and morphed into Investors In People. It was mostly cobblers. And Quality Through Exhortation = posters telling everyone This Is A Quality Organisation.
Obviously saying it didn't make it so, ever. In fact the obverse was often true.
So when I see any political party claiming anything as a virtue - I'm reminded of this. A lot. Spouting toss is still tosh. Which is why I get very irked at the blame laid at PR experts. We'd never ever indulge in this tripe - authenticy is our currency, not flimsy tripe like this.
The idea that there weren't enough skoolzanospitals in 1815 because we were in the middle of some vast right-wing small-state experiment is simply laughable.
If nobody earns a bean you can't tax it.
loaded up the truck and moved to Sandbanks yet ? :-)
Just listened to 15 mins of R5, John Pienaar giving Ed Miliband massive thumbs up, all rosy, all great, what a man, fiscially responsible, Tories unfunded, etc etc etc...15sec at the end, IFS say not so sure about the figures, and back to you.
Now I know John is a signed up Labour man and that Ed tried to hire him as his spokesman, but at least pretend to be impartial, not come out with things like "I was shocked, absolutely shocked at the announcements, in a really good way"...I think he only just managed not to come out with a "when we are back in government" moment in all his excitement.
Tories: where are we weak? NHS! Right lets show everyone we are the party of the NHS.
Labour: where are we weak? Spending! Right lets show we are the party of responsible finances.
The tories couldn't persuade people they were the party of the NHS - although Labour just having declared they won't match Tory NHS spending plans (I can't believe I wrote that!) might help.
Will Labour persuade floating voters they are the party of prudence (yet again?)
Since my wife died, I pretty much have a completely different outlook on life and things that used to get to me no longer do, as I don't listen/do/watch...or rarely...
I have hardly watched any politics this election, and I cannot bear the politicians arguing with each other.
It was an epiphany. I'd recommend it.
As we know, NI, unlike the spare room subsidy reduction, is not a tax. Read my lips.
I am very sorry to hear of your tragic loss, cannot even begin to comprehend how difficult it must be for you adjusting right now. Thoughts are with you.
Actually, "love" is way overstating my intrigue.....
Consider:
The subsamples have very small numbers involved, so percentage representation of, say "C2"s on their own looks bigger than it should be. Using the raw numbers, Labour actually make up for it on the C1s, so random sample variation seems to cancel out.
I had a look at MORI's figures for how each demographic went last time, and then applied a swing to get to what we'd expect for a poll of 39-33.
ABs - in ICM: 71 Con; 57 Lab
We'd expect somewhere close to 69:49, so they found 2 more Cons than we'd expect and 8 more Lab. All within normal variance, albeit a more Labour sample than expected.
C1s: 58 Con; 67 Lab
We'd expect 67:51. So they found 9 fewer Tories and 16 extra Labourites amongst the C1s. Again, within sample variation, but definitely a Labour tinge.
C2s: 47 Con; 23 Lab
We'd expect 36:29. So 11 extra Tories and 6 fewer Labourites than the perfect sample; again not really an issue; a subsample with a Tory tinge.
DEs: 47 Con, 41 Lab
We'd expect 38 Con to 50 Lab. So 11 extra Tories and 9 fewer Labour; another subsample with a Tory tinge.
Conclusions:
- The numbers of respondents are small enough that these variations are not huge.
- Labour does better than expected among AB and C1; Tories better than expected among C2s and DEs (Hmm. Interesting that no-one highlighting the C2s and DEs bothered to mention the ABs and C1s...)
Overall, across the demographics, there are 13 more Conservative respondents than you'd expect - and 9 more Labour ones. So if it distorted the result, it's by 4 respondents out of over a thousand!
All of them called time on the old way of doing things. In 1945, Clement Attlee called time on the dark days of the depression. In 1964, Harold Wilson beckoned in the white heat of the scientific revolution. In 1997, Tony Blair called time on a decaying public realm and said that our hospitals, our schools, and all our public services could once again be the best in the world. " Ed Miliband
Oh dear, what did Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown do to upset him