Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And as Marf reminds us today was the day when LAB published

13

Comments

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    The Tories are going to make a lot of people in London very rich. Lucky them. Meanwhile those who don't live in housing association properties can look on and wonder why they aren't getting any help.

    Terrible, isn't it?

    Some relatively poor people being made wealthy.

    Lets tax properties in London annually to the point that they are economically cleansed so that Miliband and pals can snap them up on the cheap.

  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Tabman said:

    Ed just said that they would cut the deficit and cut the debt. You can't do the latter until you've eliminated the former, Ed.

    And did anybody pick him up on it?
    What do you think. :-(


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Tabman said:

    Ed just said that they would cut the deficit and cut the debt. You can't do the latter until you've eliminated the former, Ed.

    They are going to increase the debt, but hope the economy grows faster than the debt
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Conservatives ‏@Conservatives · 14m14 minutes ago
    BREAKING: The next Conservative Government will extend the Right to Buy and help build 400,000 new houses. pic.twitter.com/b6c13GzSb3

    40000, 400000, 4000000 - what's in another 0 ? Pluck it out.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Danny565 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The polling issue is really the old question about whether ICM's distinctive assumptions are a good guide or not. As I understand it, they (partly?) discount people who didn't vote last time and assign half the "doubtfuls" to their previous party, on the baiss that people who aren't sure tend to do what they did before. I think the former is shaky (there were a lot of people who didn't vote last time for specific reasons who seem to plan to vote this time) - it's better rto use "certainty to vote" data. The latter seems a reasonable guess - but it's a guess which works against newly-popular parties, in particluar UKIP.

    Didn't ICM come to this methodology after the 1992 polling disaster?

    It's certainly served them well from 97-10....

    ICM underestimated Labour in 1997. A week before the election, they had the Lab lead down to 5%.
    Interesting - Over ? Reaction to 1992 ?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    This election is turning more and more into back to the future...Labour "soak the rich / ban everything we deem is bad" vs Tories "right to buy". If that is the Tories big big policy for this GE, they ain't going to be winning over many new people in the next 3 weeks.

    I know what you mean. We've had reinforcing the Falklands, Trident II, Right to Buy Mark II, and IHT cut Take II.

    Perhaps Osborne and Cameron are trawling through the archives picking out any Tory policies that proved electorally popular over the last 35 years, and sticking them in the manifesto.

    Next: Tell Sid.
    You missed out referendum on the EU
    EVEL

    I'm not sure that we should expect anything too different in elections. Labour are Labour and The Conservatives are Conservatives.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    The Tories are going to make a lot of people in London very rich. Lucky them. Meanwhile those who don't live in housing association properties can look on and wonder why they aren't getting any help.

    The hole is what the Tories offer young people in the private rented sector. Help with saving for a house deposit isn't really enough, prices will just increase faster. It's like trying to drive faster to get home before the petrol runs out.

    There really is no way round building a lot more homes, each and every year, and controlling net immigration numbers.

    A lot of these places will quickly end up in the private rental sector, especially in places like London. People are going to make an absolute killing.
  • Kate Winslet

    Coming out as a Tory?
    Her coming out as a Tory isn't in my fantasies.
    Do you want to paint her like one of your French girls?
    Yup
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    edited April 2015
    Danny565 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The polling issue is really the old question about whether ICM's distinctive assumptions are a good guide or not. As I understand it, they (partly?) discount people who didn't vote last time and assign half the "doubtfuls" to their previous party, on the baiss that people who aren't sure tend to do what they did before. I think the former is shaky (there were a lot of people who didn't vote last time for specific reasons who seem to plan to vote this time) - it's better rto use "certainty to vote" data. The latter seems a reasonable guess - but it's a guess which works against newly-popular parties, in particluar UKIP.

    Didn't ICM come to this methodology after the 1992 polling disaster?

    It's certainly served them well from 97-10....

    ICM underestimated Labour in 1997. A week before the election, they had the Lab lead down to 5%.
    No, what actually happened is that the 92-97 Parliament saw all pollsters except ICM giving Labour 20-30% leads.

    ICM generally had the lead lower, between between 10-20%.

    During the election campaign, ICM did throw out that 5% Lab lead on 21st April 1997, but it soon reverted to Labour lead between 10-15% again.

    It's "eve of poll" poll gave Labour a 10% lead against nearly all the other pollsters who vastly over-did how much Labour was ahead;

    (MORI for example gave Labour an 18% lead on it's final poll, NOP Lab 22% ahead etc...)

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The polling issue is really the old question about whether ICM's distinctive assumptions are a good guide or not. As I understand it, they (partly?) discount people who didn't vote last time and assign half the "doubtfuls" to their previous party, on the baiss that people who aren't sure tend to do what they did before. I think the former is shaky (there were a lot of people who didn't vote last time for specific reasons who seem to plan to vote this time) - it's better rto use "certainty to vote" data. The latter seems a reasonable guess - but it's a guess which works against newly-popular parties, in particluar UKIP.

    Didn't ICM come to this methodology after the 1992 polling disaster?

    It's certainly served them well from 97-10....

    ICM underestimated Labour in 1997. A week before the election, they had the Lab lead down to 5%.
    Interesting - Over ? Reaction to 1992 ?
    Yes I remember that! (I was Labour then!)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    kingbongo said:

    Tabman said:

    Tabman said:

    PB Anecdote time:

    1) My junior doctor today was away last week visiting parents.in Eastbourne where they run a B and B. I tasked her with looking out for posters. She saw six LD and no others.

    Fox's anecdote predictor: comfortable LD hold.

    on that basis OXWAB is a nailed on gain; you can't move for orange diamonds

    Oh yes you can. I have seen 1. Just one in and around the relevant parts of Central Oxford. Have seen more Green posters!
    Go to abingdon via Cumnor Hill, or down the side roads in North Oxford.

    Well that is North Oxford for you...

    But OxWAb is not really in play for the LDs - according to my well-placed source in the party. Moran really isn't making any headway. And the Blackwood team is working much harder in terms of leaflets
    I walk the side roads of north oxford every day - compared to 2010 number of orange diamonds way down - and anecdotally I am surprised how positive some of my colleagues are about Nicola Blackwood - both Ox seats are notionally marginal but Lab will cruise home in Ox East and CON will build a bigger buffer in OxW
    I am no fan of Blackwood but she has been working the constituency throughout her time as MP - and that hasn't gone unnoticed. She is certainly more present than Evan Harris was 2005-10.
    Nicola Blackwood is an elitist, anti abortionist, happy clapper, funded by the hunting lobby and gungho about slaughtering badgers- about as appealing to me as the POX. Other than that she would get my vote.
    What is it with you and badgers?!

    If I pledged to protect every badger in the country, and put them up in a five-star hotel, would you vote for me?
    I would absolutely vote for the Tories if they had a strong focus on animal welfare. The 1970-74 Heath Govt I think put more statutory protections in place for wildlife than any other government. Animal welfare and old school Toryism fit very nicely together.
    Lord Liverpool was old school Toryism. Heath was a nasty interloper.
    I can't help but agree with luckyguy in this instance.
    Snaring gassing shooting poisoning of foxes is horribly cruel.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....
    The Green candidate is a pretty strong one. Very Norwich:

    http://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/councillors/lesley-grahame-city-councillor-for-thorpe-hamlet-ward.html
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Tried to do a @Jeremy_Hunt today & try to pay for a round using "confidence" & "efficiency savings"

    Was told to F**K off

    You could have paid by credit card confident that you would make some efficiency savings from your personal budget
    Twas a ploy to not buy a round.

    Although I did once offer to buy TSE a burger as long as we went to handmade where my Cineworld card gets BOGOF
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    Brits?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @paulwaugh: Apart frm citing council schemes, Hunt struggling to explain how volunteers will make 'parental right' to 8am-6pm childcare work in practice
  • Tried to do a @Jeremy_Hunt today & try to pay for a round using "confidence" & "efficiency savings"

    Was told to F**K off

    You could have paid by credit card confident that you would make some efficiency savings from your personal budget
    Twas a ploy to not buy a round.

    Although I did once offer to buy TSE a burger as long as we went to handmade where my Cineworld card gets BOGOF
    We should meet up again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Tyson One thing you could say for Adolf Hitler was he was strong on animal rights, just a little less so on human rights
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @krishgm: Why call it National Childcare Service other than to make us think of free NHS? Except parents will have to pay for childcare. A bit cheeky?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Tried to do a @Jeremy_Hunt today & try to pay for a round using "confidence" & "efficiency savings"

    Was told to F**K off

    You could have paid by credit card confident that you would make some efficiency savings from your personal budget
    Twas a ploy to not buy a round.

    Although I did once offer to buy TSE a burger as long as we went to handmade where my Cineworld card gets BOGOF
    We should meet up again.
    Indeed I will PM you
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB Quite a few Tories have defected to UKIP over defence cuts and ringfencing aid, just as Labour have lost voters to the Greens and SNP over austerity

    I will never consider voting Tory as long as they pursue their current foreign aid policy. Only the other day the Mail ran a piece on wasting 500k on decorating their office in India which will close at the end of the year. It is wasteful and there is a huge argument to be had that it doesn't help many of the recipients. Polling suggests a majority of the public want to see aid cut. Only out of touch metro elites would think it is a good idea.
    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.

    The average person thinks we spend ten or twenty times more on foreign aid than we do, it's unsurprising they think it ought to be cut.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    The Tories are going to make a lot of people in London very rich. Lucky them. Meanwhile those who don't live in housing association properties can look on and wonder why they aren't getting any help.

    The hole is what the Tories offer young people in the private rented sector. Help with saving for a house deposit isn't really enough, prices will just increase faster. It's like trying to drive faster to get home before the petrol runs out.

    There really is no way round building a lot more homes, each and every year, and controlling net immigration numbers.

    A lot of these places will quickly end up in the private rental sector, especially in places like London. People are going to make an absolute killing.
    I have no problem with people making money from it. It will make lower income people property owners, who otherwise would not be. Thatcher's Right to Buy policy was correct.

    My issue with it is in the replacement housing stock. I doubt it will be anything like 1:1.

    We don't build enough private sector (market/rental) housing, or social housing. That is my issue.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    chestnut said:

    The Tories are going to make a lot of people in London very rich. Lucky them. Meanwhile those who don't live in housing association properties can look on and wonder why they aren't getting any help.

    Terrible, isn't it?

    Some relatively poor people being made wealthy.

    Lets tax properties in London annually to the point that they are economically cleansed so that Miliband and pals can snap them up on the cheap.

    If it means reducing the overall amount of social housing, yes it is terrible. Replacement costs in places where land is expensive to buy will be huge. Miliband's place - like many others in Dartmouth Park - used to be divided into flats, many of them council owned. Then they got sold off, converted and now go for £3 million or so. That's what will happen again. Great for those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time; not so great for everyone else.

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    Conservatives ‏@Conservatives · 14m14 minutes ago
    BREAKING: The next Conservative Government will extend the Right to Buy and help build 400,000 new houses. pic.twitter.com/b6c13GzSb3

    300,000 new house *per year* - a million for the parliament. Then I'll believe it's serious.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015
    Mail and Express both have Maggie in their main or sub headline and opening paragraph.

    That might encourage the odd UKIPer back.

    Telegraph front page looks like a Con leaflet.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    GIN1138 said:

    Danny565 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The polling issue is really the old question about whether ICM's distinctive assumptions are a good guide or not. As I understand it, they (partly?) discount people who didn't vote last time and assign half the "doubtfuls" to their previous party, on the baiss that people who aren't sure tend to do what they did before. I think the former is shaky (there were a lot of people who didn't vote last time for specific reasons who seem to plan to vote this time) - it's better rto use "certainty to vote" data. The latter seems a reasonable guess - but it's a guess which works against newly-popular parties, in particluar UKIP.

    Didn't ICM come to this methodology after the 1992 polling disaster?

    It's certainly served them well from 97-10....

    ICM underestimated Labour in 1997. A week before the election, they had the Lab lead down to 5%.
    No, what actually happened is that the 92-97 Parliament saw all pollsters except ICM giving Labour 20-30% leads.

    ICM generally had the lead lower, between between 10-20%.

    During the election campaign, ICM did throw out that 5% Lab lead on 21st April 1997, but it soon reverted to Labour lead between 10-15% again.

    It's "eve of poll" poll gave Labour a 10% lead against nearly all the other pollsters who vastly over-did how much Labour was ahead;

    (MORI for example gave Labour an 18% lead on it's final poll, NOP Lab 22% ahead etc...)

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
    At the time I always thought it was interesting during the 92-97 parliament how all the pollsters (except ICM) vastly over-did Labour's position through that Parliament but nobody really noticed because Labour still did well enough to secure a 180 seat majority.

    If it had been a much tighter election 97 could easily have resulted in another polling disaster...)

    All ancient history now though.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....
    The Green candidate is a pretty strong one. Very Norwich:

    http://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/councillors/lesley-grahame-city-councillor-for-thorpe-hamlet-ward.html
    I'm currently buying a house in Norwich South- a bastion of green, liberal, utopian loveliness. I'm not kidding, I surveyed the whole English property scene, and saw that Norwich South ticked most of my liberal, lefty boxes.
    Oxford North has been tainted by Blackwood. and having to walk past the research lab on my way into town.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited April 2015
    GIN1138 said:

    MP_SE said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%

    GOLD STANDARD. ICM is clearly an outlier.
    ICM is OTT, but it's given the Tories a lead in the polls every month since February where as all the other pollsters have favoured "neck and neck" or Lab slightly ahead.

    Will ICM still have the Tories at 39% and 6% ahead when they update next week? No, almost certainly not. But they may have the Conservatives at 37% and 3-4% ahead.

    ICM is the UK's best pollster over successive general elections and IMO it seems to me they are telling us something the other polling companies aren't (although we wait for Mori)

    I look forward to seeing how the phone pollsters shape up against the online ones. As more and more people move to using mobile phones over landlines it will be interesting to see how accurate phone polling is. Particularly because a lot of people do not answer unknown/random numbers on their mobile phone.

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB Quite a few Tories have defected to UKIP over defence cuts and ringfencing aid, just as Labour have lost voters to the Greens and SNP over austerity

    I will never consider voting Tory as long as they pursue their current foreign aid policy. Only the other day the Mail ran a piece on wasting 500k on decorating their office in India which will close at the end of the year. It is wasteful and there is a huge argument to be had that it doesn't help many of the recipients. Polling suggests a majority of the public want to see aid cut. Only out of touch metro elites would think it is a good idea.
    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.
    I suppose it depends on whether they ever actually want to win a general election again.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    GIN1138 said:

    MP_SE said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%

    GOLD STANDARD. ICM is clearly an outlier.
    ICM is OTT, but it's given the Tories a lead in the polls every month since February where as all the other pollsters have favoured "neck and neck" or Lab slightly ahead.

    Will ICM still have the Tories at 39% and 6% ahead when they update next week? No, almost certainly not. But they may have the Conservatives at 37% and 3-4% ahead.

    ICM is the UK's best pollster over successive general elections and IMO it seems to me they are telling us something the other polling companies aren't (although we wait for Mori)

    I think you make a fair point. I for one cannot tell if ICM are right or not. However if their methodology makes them more right than wrong compared to a pollster who polls more frequently then the it matters not how frequently the latter conducts its polls - they will all be more wrong that right. All we would get then is a circle of shotgun poll-pellets wide of the target compared to a poll-sniper bullet on the bull.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    This election is turning more and more into back to the future...Labour "soak the rich / ban everything we deem is bad" vs Tories "right to buy". If that is the Tories big big policy for this GE, they ain't going to be winning over many new people in the next 3 weeks.

    I know what you mean. We've had reinforcing the Falklands, Trident II, Right to Buy Mark II, and IHT cut Take II.

    Perhaps Osborne and Cameron are trawling through the archives picking out any Tory policies that proved electorally popular over the last 35 years, and sticking them in the manifesto.

    Next: Tell Sid.
    You missed out referendum on the EU
    EVEL

    I'm not sure that we should expect anything too different in elections. Labour are Labour and The Conservatives are Conservatives.
    I'm a right-winger. But not an unthinking one.

    I broadly agree with all those policies. However, what I want to see is some lateral thinking by the Conservatives to address the problems of *tomorrow* not a tour of past glories.

    I think the current government get it on education, welfare, energy and transport. They do not on immigration, europe, defence, and housing.
  • MP_SE said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MP_SE said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%

    GOLD STANDARD. ICM is clearly an outlier.
    ICM is OTT, but it's given the Tories a lead in the polls every month since February where as all the other pollsters have favoured "neck and neck" or Lab slightly ahead.

    Will ICM still have the Tories at 39% and 6% ahead when they update next week? No, almost certainly not. But they may have the Conservatives at 37% and 3-4% ahead.

    ICM is the UK's best pollster over successive general elections and IMO it seems to me they are telling us something the other polling companies aren't (although we wait for Mori)

    I look forward to seeing how the phone pollsters shape up against the online ones. As more and more people move to using mobile phones over landlines it will be interesting to see how accurate phone polling is. Particularly because a lot of people do not answer unknown/random numbers on their mobile phone.

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB Quite a few Tories have defected to UKIP over defence cuts and ringfencing aid, just as Labour have lost voters to the Greens and SNP over austerity

    I will never consider voting Tory as long as they pursue their current foreign aid policy. Only the other day the Mail ran a piece on wasting 500k on decorating their office in India which will close at the end of the year. It is wasteful and there is a huge argument to be had that it doesn't help many of the recipients. Polling suggests a majority of the public want to see aid cut. Only out of touch metro elites would think it is a good idea.
    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.
    I suppose it depends on whether they ever actually want to win a general election again.
    All the phone pollsters ring mobile numbers as well as landlines.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.

    It dates back to William Hague's leadership, and was confirmed under the leadership of IDS and Michael Howard.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    tyson said:

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.



    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....
    The Green candidate is a pretty strong one. Very Norwich:

    http://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/councillors/lesley-grahame-city-councillor-for-thorpe-hamlet-ward.html
    I'm currently buying a house in Norwich South- a bastion of green, liberal, utopian loveliness. I'm not kidding, I surveyed the whole English property scene, and saw that Norwich South ticked most of my liberal, lefty boxes.
    Oxford North has been tainted by Blackwood. and having to walk past the research lab on my way into town.
    But isn't it hideously white?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Lord Ashcroft ✔ @LordAshcroft

    Quite something politics. Tories now promising unfunded policies while Labour working hard at fully costing policies #topsyturvy

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.

    It dates back to William Hague's leadership, and was confirmed under the leadership of IDS and Michael Howard.
    The policy was to 'work toward it', and that was before a great recession. I seem to recollect you think % GDP targets are a little silly too?

    Anyway, must head off to bed. Goodnight.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Live stream of Rubio's presidential announcement just started
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/238668-watch-live-rubio-announces-run
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    HYUFD said:

    Tyson One thing you could say for Adolf Hitler was he was strong on animal rights, just a little less so on human rights

    I don't quite think Hitler was that strong on animal rights- driving huge swathes of Europe to starvation and forced to feed whatever protein was available, never mind the Blitzkreig. I think animals fared much worse than humans during the Nazi era, and that is saying alot because humans suffered miserably.

    Respect for human beings, the environment and animals all come together. The fact that Hitler was a veggie and loved his dog doesn't quite stand the test for the others.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2015

    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.

    It dates back to William Hague's leadership, and was confirmed under the leadership of IDS and Michael Howard.
    The policy was to 'work toward it', and that was before a great recession. I seem to recollect you think % GDP targets are a little silly too?

    Anyway, must head off to bed. Goodnight.
    Yes, I do think arbitrary spending targets are silly, but it's a mis-statement of history to ignore the fact that this particular target predates the Cameron modernisation project.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

    Hang on, I'm confused - I thought it was the policy of the Left not to penalise those who don't need the taxpayer to subsidise their spare bedrooms. Are you now claiming they are, after all, less deserving of taxpayer subsidy than families on the waiting list?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JGForsyth: Tory pledge to extend right to buy to housing association properties is the most politically potent policy of the GE http://t.co/mf0bDZVIpe
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Can't wait for Thursday night, and for the pit bull terrier (Nicola Sturgeon) to savage the poodle Miliband over the 'austerity' commitments as she would see it in the Labour manifesto today - its going to be a hoot.

    I've expressed the view here before that Ed Balls doesn't want Labour to win this election....as I believe he is mindful of what lies in wait with the global sovereign debt crisis beginning from the start of October this year. I'm more firmly of that opinion after the manifesto launch today.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Tyson I was being a little sarcastic, although the Nazis did ban vivisection, sending offenders to concentration camps, and banned animal trapping amongst other things
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    As for the ICM poll, it looks to be as badly skewed as those Labour 4% poll leads last week which had unreal weightings for younger voters v older voters. I am firmly in the telephone pollsters camp, not because I'm a Tory anymore, but because the weightings are so much easier. Sorry, but with internet pollsters you're still not going to capture adequately the over 60's. And remember they've been spared any cuts for the past 5 years, and have been positively wooed by Osborne with the utterly ridiculous pensioner bonds bribe. Hence I think the internet pollsters not picking up enough of the over 60's even with their weightings adjustments is prone to error given how much the coalition government has attempted to placate the wishes of this particular demographic. It will be interesting to see if the internet pollsters fall into line with the telephone pollsters over the next 3 weeks and a bit - I suspect they will, rather than there being any large movement to the Tories over that time, although people will ascribe to that theory if this is the case no doubt, including the Tory PB'ers on here!
  • jahodgesjahodges Posts: 12


    "All the phone pollsters ring mobile numbers as well as landlines."

    i think whole swathes of people are more likely to ignore these calls as all calls to mobile phones are displayed so you have the option to ignore them if you don't recognise the number. Calls to landlines are only visible if you pay for caller display.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Sadly, I think any change to the 0.7% GDP target is off the table.

    This is one of the defining policies of the Cameron modernisation project that he'll always stick to his guns on.

    It dates back to William Hague's leadership, and was confirmed under the leadership of IDS and Michael Howard.
    0.7% as a target goes back donkeys years. In the last 5 years we have seen UK international aid skyrocket from the shockingly low 0.55% of GDP to the absurdly disgraceful heights of 0.7%.
    Strewth... who would believe it.

    And...
    http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Review-of-the-Conflict-Pool.pdf

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21528464
    '' "We have our moral responsibilities for tackling poverty in the world. We also have national security responsibilities for mending conflict states and helping with development around the world and we should see DfID in that context," he added.
    Officials said hundreds of millions of pounds could be diverted from aid to peacekeeping and stabilisation operations, particularly in fragile states.
    A Downing Street source said one option under consideration was a significant increase in the size of the Conflict Pool - a fund jointly managed by the MoD, Foreign Office and DfID that supports conflict prevention, stabilisation and peacekeeping.''

    A good proposal. One purpose of overseas aid in my book is to stop our soldiers being blown up overseas.
    Its another good reason to keep the LDs out of government too.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    Sold off properties will, the Tories say, be replaced on an at least one to one basis; addressing one of the big criticism of the Thatcher-era version of the scheme.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/cameron-declares-that-the-tories-are-the-party-of-working-people-as-he-pledges-to-extend-right-to-buy/

    I will see that when I believe it. Also, I don't buy why it is a genius policy for the Tories. I would be for 5 years time, when people have actually taken advantage of the scheme and bought their own home.

    Now, and especially in the current climate, I don't see how it shifts a single vote. Jam today, or jam in several years time, people are really short term-ist these days.

    Look at the explosion in new car sales, driven by more people than ever taking credit. In Thatcher time, when this policy worked, it was because people weren't all about getting Chinese plastic crap on credit, more about saving to be able to afford things and investing in your future.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    The other polling issue is the sheer length of polls. I do them for fun and the vague amusement of contrinuting 0.1% to Labour's share, but BOTH phone and online polls tend to go on forever, asking about 15 different things. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an inherent bias to whatever people with most spare time may think, if that escapes the weighting fators. For instance, over-65 who have fully retired seem much more likely to do them than those who are still working - and perhaps vote differently, though I wouldn't like to guess which way. It would be helpful if a pollster tried a split sample with a short and long poll to see if there was a significant difference.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    hunchman said:

    Can't wait for Thursday night, and for the pit bull terrier (Nicola Sturgeon) to savage the poodle Miliband over the 'austerity' commitments as she would see it in the Labour manifesto today - its going to be a hoot.

    I've expressed the view here before that Ed Balls doesn't want Labour to win this election....as I believe he is mindful of what lies in wait with the global sovereign debt crisis beginning from the start of October this year. I'm more firmly of that opinion after the manifesto launch today.

    The prophet of gloom and doom..(you are), but this time I think that you are probably right whomever wins, a whole pile of shit is going to be dumped on the British economy. Osborne's boom is looking as though its faltering and once interest rates start to rise....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

    Hang on, I'm confused - I thought it was the policy of the Left not to penalise those who don't need the taxpayer to subsidise their spare bedrooms. Are you now claiming they are, after all, less deserving of taxpayer subsidy than families on the waiting list?

    No, I'm saying to be condistent the Tories should not offer housing association tenants with bedrooms they don't need heavy discounts to buy their properties.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Sold off properties will, the Tories say, be replaced on an at least one to one basis; addressing one of the big criticism of the Thatcher-era version of the scheme.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/cameron-declares-that-the-tories-are-the-party-of-working-people-as-he-pledges-to-extend-right-to-buy/

    I will see that when I believe it. Also, I don't buy why it is a genius policy for the Tories. I would be for 5 years time, when people have actually taken advantage of the scheme and bought their own home.

    Now, and especially in the current climate, I don't see how it shifts a single vote. Jam today, or jam in several years time, people are really short term-ist these days.

    Look at the explosion in new car sales, driven by more people than ever taking credit. In Thatcher time, when this policy worked, it was because people weren't all about getting things on credit, saving to be able to afford things etc.

    Houses do not magically appear every time one is sold. Land costs in London are huge. £430,000 was the average price of a single plot back in 2012.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @TimesNewsdesk: Scotland will be spared from cuts by cash raised in south, says Balls
    http://t.co/6oSJonONpO

    Directly contradicting his boss...
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

    Hang on, I'm confused - I thought it was the policy of the Left not to penalise those who don't need the taxpayer to subsidise their spare bedrooms. Are you now claiming they are, after all, less deserving of taxpayer subsidy than families on the waiting list?

    No, I'm saying to be condistent the Tories should not offer housing association tenants with bedrooms they don't need heavy discounts to buy their properties.

    The tenants will still be finding money to buy all those bedrooms - giving money to the taxpayer. Mr Nabavi strikes again.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Read some comments about Crewe and Nantwich, thinking this could go red. 2005 was quite a misleading result there with Gwyneth Dunwoody's 7,500 majority - we know on the same day that Labour were only 2,500 ahead in the wards that made up the seat for local elections in the seat on the same day - ie Dunwoody had around 2,500 Tories voting for her personally, and upping her majority by 5,000 such was her popularity in the town after being the MP since 1983 - hence 2,500 in 2005 is the baseline to work from, although there has been a lot of Polish immigrants arrived since then. Timpson has deep roots in the area and the large scale Polish immigration seems to have slightly favoured the Tories if anything. Against that you have the effects of the 2008 by-election wearing off when the Tories were at their high water mark, but Timpson is effectively a 1 and a bit term incumbent.

    As a result I think he'll have a 3-4% swing against if I had to put my head on the chopping block, but not near the nigh on 6% swing that Labour and Adrian Heald will need to take it. Mr Heald's consituency office is on the corner of Gresty Road, which I've passed a fair few times when I get back up north to support my beloved football team.
  • GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Danny565 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The polling issue is really the old question about whether ICM's distinctive assumptions are a good guide or not. As I understand it, they (partly?) discount people who didn't vote last time and assign half the "doubtfuls" to their previous party, on the baiss that people who aren't sure tend to do what they did before. I think the former is shaky (there were a lot of people who didn't vote last time for specific reasons who seem to plan to vote this time) - it's better rto use "certainty to vote" data. The latter seems a reasonable guess - but it's a guess which works against newly-popular parties, in particluar UKIP.

    Didn't ICM come to this methodology after the 1992 polling disaster?

    It's certainly served them well from 97-10....

    ICM underestimated Labour in 1997. A week before the election, they had the Lab lead down to 5%.
    No, what actually happened is that the 92-97 Parliament saw all pollsters except ICM giving Labour 20-30% leads.

    ICM generally had the lead lower, between between 10-20%.

    During the election campaign, ICM did throw out that 5% Lab lead on 21st April 1997, but it soon reverted to Labour lead between 10-15% again.

    It's "eve of poll" poll gave Labour a 10% lead against nearly all the other pollsters who vastly over-did how much Labour was ahead;

    (MORI for example gave Labour an 18% lead on it's final poll, NOP Lab 22% ahead etc...)

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
    At the time I always thought it was interesting during the 92-97 parliament how all the pollsters (except ICM) vastly over-did Labour's position through that Parliament but nobody really noticed because Labour still did well enough to secure a 180 seat majority.

    If it had been a much tighter election 97 could easily have resulted in another polling disaster...)

    All ancient history now though.
    OTOH the betting markets at the time, IIRC, had the Labour lead much lower (in terms of seats) than eventuated.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Under a Conservative government the minimum wage will be linked to the personal allowance, which the Tories want to increase to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament.

    It means that if the minimum wage increases faster than expected, workers will always be exempt from paying income tax.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11533924/David-Cameron-revives-right-to-buy-and-says-Tories-are-the-party-of-working-people.html

    I would say, although I think it has been one of the best policies of the Coalition, from purely political point of view it is a terrible policy. Ask yourself, why did Brown introduce tax credits, rather than take people out of tax all together?

    There are more background reasons, but one of them is people don't notice what they lost in tax, but they do notice when they fill a form in start getting cheques for £100's (even though they are just been given their own money back).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Scotland could be protected from its share of government cuts by Labour using taxes raised in the southeast of England, Ed Balls said yesterday.

    I'm hearing "Fuck the English" from one party.

    And it ain't the SNP.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited April 2015
    jahodges said:



    "All the phone pollsters ring mobile numbers as well as landlines."

    i think whole swathes of people are more likely to ignore these calls as all calls to mobile phones are displayed so you have the option to ignore them if you don't recognise the number. Calls to landlines are only visible if you pay for caller display.

    Indeed. A lot of people avoid answering withheld/unknown numbers. They are of the opinion that if its important they will leave a message.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    I cant believe that Murphy turned down interviews with a complaint and toadying Scottish Media tonight. He might as well hide out in a Greggs for the rest of the campaign, he will be good company for Iain Gray who never recovered from his Greggs moment.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2015
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
    They were also one of the more inaccurate pollsters in the 2005 election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
    They were also one of the more inaccurate pollsters in the 2005 election.
    Labour is 2% behind in England using both the Ashcroft and ICM today. Low Labour Scottish subsamples and High Tories skewing the ICM in particular.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Scott_P said:

    @TimesNewsdesk: Scotland will be spared from cuts by cash raised in south, says Balls
    http://t.co/6oSJonONpO

    Directly contradicting his boss...

    But BBC Scotland has Ed Balls saying the exact reverse:

    Balls: Scots 'not exempt' from cuts is the headline at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
    There's a huge difference between polling for a silly European protest election and a general election...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    LMAO at that Times story. It actually quotes Ed Balls saying: "I can’t say to Scotland that you will be exempted from cuts in unprotected areas." Directly contradicting their own headline.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    This is an odd election now.

    Conservatives are going for bribes, bribes and more bribes.

    Labour cutting the deficit.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    hunchman said:

    Can't wait for Thursday night, and for the pit bull terrier (Nicola Sturgeon) to savage the poodle Miliband over the 'austerity' commitments as she would see it in the Labour manifesto today - its going to be a hoot.

    I've expressed the view here before that Ed Balls doesn't want Labour to win this election....as I believe he is mindful of what lies in wait with the global sovereign debt crisis beginning from the start of October this year. I'm more firmly of that opinion after the manifesto launch today.

    The prophet of gloom and doom..(you are), but this time I think that you are probably right whomever wins, a whole pile of shit is going to be dumped on the British economy. Osborne's boom is looking as though its faltering and once interest rates start to rise....
    Thanks Square Root! I'm personally optimistic - I think you can do well out of the next 5 years, but it won't be done by following the herd that's for sure!

    The problems facing the next government are not just economic as I said last week though - you've got the Chilcott enquiry - Cameron lost my respect on this by not standing up to the cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood who was Blair's principal private secretary in 2003. Then you've got the child abuse inquiry, which has every sign of being a complete whitewash for anybody still alive, and more importantly people at the top of the BBC, the Royal Family and Westminster where it ultimately leads being protected. And the whole AGW crowd will finally fall flat on their faces, as if they haven't already by all the cold weather around in the world recently and with the rapidly cooling world over the next 5 years as we fall off the cliff in terms of the declining side of solar cycle 24 whose peak recently has been way below previous solar cycles in terms of sunspot activity - in the last week it snowed on the desert road between Alexandra and Cairo - it went completely unreported by the mainstream media surprise surprise. And the massive ice cover over the Great Lakes in the US as well as the very cold winter that central / eastern parts of the USA have had is just completely ignored. Greece, Turkey and eastern Europe in general have had very snowy winters too - we've been lucky in avoiding it all given the jetstream patterns over the past 6 months.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Pulpstar said:

    This is an odd election now.

    Conservatives are going for bribes, bribes and more bribes.

    Labour cutting the deficit.

    Fixed for you...

    Labour pretending to cut the deficit
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Danny565 said:

    LMAO at that Times story. It actually quotes Ed Balls saying: "I can’t say to Scotland that you will be exempted from cuts in unprotected areas." Directly contradicting their own headline.

    Labour's messaging is in a mess over Scotland now - and despite the inaccuracies of the headline it mirrors almost precisely what Murphy said in one of the debates.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Pulpstar said:

    Scotland could be protected from its share of government cuts by Labour using taxes raised in the southeast of England, Ed Balls said yesterday.

    I'm hearing "Fuck the English" from one party.

    And it ain't the SNP.

    Except Balls said exactly the opposite
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    edited April 2015
    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
    They were also one of the more inaccurate pollsters in the 2005 election.
    Nobody covered themselves with glory in 2005 given that they all overstated Labour by 3-4% however ICM's "eve of poll" poll had Lab at 38% and Con at 32%, within the margin for error of the eventual Con 32%/Lab 35% that was the result.

    But 2005 was a poorer year for ICM.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited April 2015
    AndyJS said:

    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...

    So not another Staffordshire South on our hands then? I didn't realise it was a different procedure for independents as opposed to named candidates here?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    Scotland could be protected from its share of government cuts by Labour using taxes raised in the southeast of England, Ed Balls said yesterday.

    I'm hearing "Fuck the English" from one party.

    And it ain't the SNP.

    Except Balls said exactly the opposite
    Sorry can't read the rest of the article... somewhat miseleading - Balls message VERY different to Murphy then.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    LMAO at that Times story. It actually quotes Ed Balls saying: "I can’t say to Scotland that you will be exempted from cuts in unprotected areas." Directly contradicting their own headline.

    Labour's messaging is in a mess over Scotland now - and despite the inaccuracies of the headline it mirrors almost precisely what Murphy said in one of the debates.
    Labour in blind incoherent panic over the unfolding catastrophe in Scotland.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    LMAO at that Times story. It actually quotes Ed Balls saying: "I can’t say to Scotland that you will be exempted from cuts in unprotected areas." Directly contradicting their own headline.

    Labour's messaging is in a mess over Scotland now - and despite the inaccuracies of the headline it mirrors almost precisely what Murphy said in one of the debates.
    Labour in blind incoherent panic over the unfolding catastrophe in Scotland.
    I don't think that BNB poll figure of the SNP being on 52% is accurate, but I certainly think high 40's is certainly feasible right now, with the SNP vote so efficiently distributed. I was on 50 seats in my latest prediction, even I may be forced to raise that call right now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

    Hang on, I'm confused - I thought it was the policy of the Left not to penalise those who don't need the taxpayer to subsidise their spare bedrooms. Are you now claiming they are, after all, less deserving of taxpayer subsidy than families on the waiting list?

    No, I'm saying to be condistent the Tories should not offer housing association tenants with bedrooms they don't need heavy discounts to buy their properties.

    The tenants will still be finding money to buy all those bedrooms - giving money to the taxpayer. Mr Nabavi strikes again.

    Dear me, no. The bedroom tax is not about money, apparently, it is about need. People living in social accommodation with an extra bedroom they don't need do not receive housing benefit to pay for it. Likewise, people should not be offered heavy discounts to buy social accommodation with more bedrooms than they need. That would be the consistent approach.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2015
    The change was instituted by Patrick Cormack, the MP for South Staffs, who pointed out that an independent could stand against each member of the cabinet and shadow cabinet and then commit suicide during the election campaign which would make it very difficult to form a government after the election, since the election would be delayed in each of those constituencies.
    hunchman said:

    AndyJS said:

    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...

    So not another Staffordshire South on our hands then? I didn't realise it was a different procedure for independents as opposed to named candidates here?
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154

    Pulpstar said:

    Scotland could be protected from its share of government cuts by Labour using taxes raised in the southeast of England, Ed Balls said yesterday.

    I'm hearing "Fuck the English" from one party.

    And it ain't the SNP.

    Except Balls said exactly the opposite
    Labour in utter disarray. It will be fun watching how to try to spin their way out of this one.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    hunchman said:

    hunchman said:

    Can't wait for Thursday night, and for the pit bull terrier (Nicola Sturgeon) to savage the poodle Miliband over the 'austerity' commitments as she would see it in the Labour manifesto today - its going to be a hoot.

    I've expressed the view here before that Ed Balls doesn't want Labour to win this election....as I believe he is mindful of what lies in wait with the global sovereign debt crisis beginning from the start of October this year. I'm more firmly of that opinion after the manifesto launch today.

    The prophet of gloom and doom..(you are), but this time I think that you are probably right whomever wins, a whole pile of shit is going to be dumped on the British economy. Osborne's boom is looking as though its faltering and once interest rates start to rise....
    Thanks Square Root! I'm personally optimistic - I think you can do well out of the next 5 years, but it won't be done by following the herd that's for sure!

    The problems facing the next government are not just economic as I said last week though - you've got the Chilcott enquiry - Cameron lost my respect on this by not standing up to the cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood who was Blair's principal private secretary in 2003. Then you've got the child abuse inquiry, which has every sign of being a complete whitewash for anybody still alive, and more importantly people at the top of the BBC, the Royal Family and Westminster where it ultimately leads being protected. And the whole AGW crowd will finally fall flat on their faces, as if they haven't already by all the cold weather around in the world recently and with the rapidly cooling world over the next 5 years as we fall off the cliff in terms of the declining side of solar cycle 24 whose peak recently has been way below previous solar cycles in terms of sunspot activity - in the last week it snowed on the desert road between Alexandra and Cairo - it went completely unreported by the mainstream media surprise surprise. And the massive ice cover over the Great Lakes in the US as well as the very cold winter that central / eastern parts of the USA have had is just completely ignored. Greece, Turkey and eastern Europe in general have had very snowy winters too - we've been lucky in avoiding it all given the jetstream patterns over the past 6 months.
    Cold weather for a few weeks and snow in the interior of a continental landmass prove that global warming is a myth.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    GIN1138 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    ICM had labour 15% ahead of ukip a month before the euros
    They had the Tories in the lead with a fortnight to go
    They had yes in the lead in the Indy ref

    Conveniently ignored here... Completely wrong on all the most recent big calls
    There's a huge difference between polling for a silly European protest election and a general election...
    Is there? and the indy ref? Why should there be?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    118 small parties are standing in the election. This is a list of them I compiled myself from my candidates spreadsheet:

    (An) Independence From Europe
    30-50 Coalition
    Above and Beyond / Demanding a
    Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG
    All People's Party
    Alliance For Green Socialism
    Alter Change
    Animal Welfare Party
    Apni Party
    Beer, Baccy and Scratchings
    BNP
    Bournemouth Independent Alliance (BIA)
    British Democrats
    British Independents
    Campaign Party
    Children of the Atom
    Christian Movement for GB
    Christian Party
    CISTA (Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol)
    City Independents (Stoke-on-Trent)
    Class War
    Common Sense Party
    Communist League
    Communist Party GB
    Communities United Party
    CPA (Christian People's Alliance)
    Democratic Party
    Democratic Reform Party
    Digital Democracy
    Eccentric Party of GB
    English Democrats
    Europeans Party
    Evolution Party
    for Politics
    Free Public Transport Party
    Guildford Greenbelt Group
    Hoi Polloi
    Humanity
    Independent - Tell It Like It Is
    Independent Political Alliance Party
    Independent Save Withybush Save Lives
    Independents Against Social Injustice
    Independents For Bristol
    Islam Zinda Baad Platform
    Justice for Men and Boys
    Land Party
    Let every child have both parents
    Let's Keep It Real
    Liberal
    Liberty GB / No to terrorism, Yes to Britain
    Lincolnshire Independents
    Locally Informed Health and Social Care
    Loony (OMRLP)
    Magna Carta Conservation Party Great Britian
    Mainstream
    Manston Airport Independent Party
    Mebyon Kernow
    Movement for Active Democracy
    National Front
    National Health Action Party
    National Liberal Party
    New Independent Centralists
    New Vision
    North East Party
    Party for a United Thanet
    Patria
    Patriotic Socialist Party
    Peace Party
    People Before Profit
    People First
    Pirate Party
    Poole People
    Population Party UK
    Putting Croydon First!
    Reality Party
    Red Flag - Anti-Corruption
    Reduce VAT in Sport
    Removing The Politicians
    Republican Socialist
    Residents For Uttlesford
    Respect
    Rochdale First
    Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)
    SDP
    Socialist Equality Party / For socialism, Against austerity and war
    Socialist Labour Party
    Socialist Party GB
    Something New
    Southport Party
    Stop emotional child abuse, Vote Elmo
    Sustainable Population Party
    The Birthday Party
    The Justice & Anti-Corruption Party
    The New Society of Worth
    The Northern Party
    The Pluralist Party - Liverpool's People's Party"
    The Principles Of Politics Party
    The Realists' Party
    The Roman Party.AVE
    The UK Progressive Democracy Party
    The Workers Party
    Trying to fix a broken system
    TUSC / Left Unity
    TUV (Traditional Unionist Voice)
    U Party
    Ubuntu PartyApolitical
    Vapers In Power
    Vote for real people, not politicians!
    War Veteran's Pro-Traditional Family Party
    Wessex Regionalists
    Whig
    Wigan Independents
    Worker's Party
    Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP)
    World Peace Through Song
    Yorkshire First
    Young People's Party
    Your Vote Could Save Our Hospital
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Thought 'tetchy' was a good description of Clegg's interview today. That arrogant dismissive tone that he adopts whenever any interviewer seriously questions his pro-EU credentials annoys the hell out of me. Clegg can be very personable and engaging on other subjects, but its almost as though the red mist descends whenever anything connected with Europe or immigration is mentioned. It's almost an aloof 'I'm a politician and I know far better than you' attitude that is so off putting personally, not as though I would vote Lib Dem. Although I do have a lot of time for some Lib Dem MP's - David Laws, John Hemming and Steve Webb mainly.

    It's going to be fascinating to see the degree to which the obnoxious Mike Hancock splits the Lib Dem vote in Portsmouth South allowing Flick Drummond to win on a very low percentage - or at least that's how I see things going there.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/13/farages-comments-on-hiv-tourists-so-contemptible-that-the-government-had-to-steal-his-policy/

    Finally, in this dullest and most dishonest of general elections, I’ve spotted a clear campaign winner. It’s the Get UKIP party.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    hunchman said:

    Can't wait for Thursday night, and for the pit bull terrier (Nicola Sturgeon) to savage the poodle Miliband over the 'austerity' commitments as she would see it in the Labour manifesto today - its going to be a hoot.

    I've expressed the view here before that Ed Balls doesn't want Labour to win this election....as I believe he is mindful of what lies in wait with the global sovereign debt crisis beginning from the start of October this year. I'm more firmly of that opinion after the manifesto launch today.

    The prophet of gloom and doom..(you are), but this time I think that you are probably right whomever wins, a whole pile of shit is going to be dumped on the British economy. Osborne's boom is looking as though its faltering and once interest rates start to rise....
    Manufacturing 'picked up pace' in February 1, according to CBI survey. ''is expected to grow faster still in the next three months''
    In April 14 and Nov as examples, the BBC reported strong manufacturing growth.
    You might need to discount oil when looking at industrial production (unless you are campaigning for the SNP). The low oil price is a goody according to the CBI.
    We are such a mess of a country that South Korea is building a base here to manufacture wind turbines for Europe. Assuming Farage lets them. Somewhere near Hull.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    AndyJS said:

    The change was instituted by Patrick Cormack, the MP for South Staffs, who pointed out that an independent could stand against each member of the cabinet and shadow cabinet and then commit suicide during the election campaign which would make it very difficult to form a government after the election, since the election would be delayed in each of those constituencies.

    hunchman said:

    AndyJS said:

    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...

    So not another Staffordshire South on our hands then? I didn't realise it was a different procedure for independents as opposed to named candidates here?
    What's stopping them forming the suicide squad party? Or, marginally less distastefully, signing up some terminally ill candidates?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    AndyJS said:

    The change was instituted by Patrick Cormack, the MP for South Staffs, who pointed out that an independent could stand against each member of the cabinet and shadow cabinet and then commit suicide during the election campaign which would make it very difficult to form a government after the election, since the election would be delayed in each of those constituencies.

    hunchman said:

    AndyJS said:

    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...

    So not another Staffordshire South on our hands then? I didn't realise it was a different procedure for independents as opposed to named candidates here?
    Thanks for that - I remember Cormack being quite prickly at the time that the delay between the GE and the by-election wasn't going to count against his continual service of goodness knows how many years in the house. Cormack like Richard Shepherd in Aldridge Brownhills was quite a stickler for parliamentary tradition!
  • DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?

    DavidL said:

    I am not saying ICM are right but if they are a lot of Internet pollsters are going to have to tear up their records and their panels and start again. The gaps are just too big now. Someone is seriously wrong. ICM have the track record but they are at the far end of a minority. Will we discover that the political record we have spent so long discussing was just a fantasy or has the King lost his Crown?


    The 4 questions I have posted on here before which I think will determine which pollster comes out best are as follows:

    1) How well will past vote weighting when we have had a lot of elections and a volatile electorate? (e.g. in Scotland you might be able to find someone who voted LD in 2010, Lab in 2011 locals, UKIP in 2014 and now SNP. How do you make sure they don't get the elections muddled up)
    2) UKIP and the SNP are attracting people who didn't vote in 2010. How many of these will actually turn out to vote this time round?
    3) Will the LDs seat total be more like the national polling or Lord A's individual seat polling?
    4) How will the pollsters take into account the fact that some people may intend to vote but are not in fact registered?

    My best guess is that we will end up with a result somewhere in the middle. ICM is probably downweighting UKIP too much while some of the online panels will probably overstate Labour/Greens due to point 4
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    AndyJS said:

    118 small parties are standing in the election. This is a list of them I compiled myself from my candidates spreadsheet:

    (An) Independence From Europe
    30-50 Coalition
    Above and Beyond / Demanding a
    Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG
    All People's Party
    Alliance For Green Socialism
    Alter Change
    Animal Welfare Party
    Apni Party
    Beer, Baccy and Scratchings
    BNP
    Bournemouth Independent Alliance (BIA)
    British Democrats
    British Independents
    Campaign Party
    Children of the Atom
    Christian Movement for GB
    Christian Party
    CISTA (Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol)
    City Independents (Stoke-on-Trent)
    Class War
    Common Sense Party

    Your Vote Could Save Our Hospital

    Was surprised to see that Colin Fox (leader of the SSP) is standing in Edinburgh South - thought he would stand in their best seat somewhere in Glasgow, unless he has particularly strong roots there.

    Personally I'll be interested to see how the independents go on in Stoke-on-Trent - they've won quite a few seats on the council there and Tristram Hunt is most definitely not well suited to SOT Central - he'll win for sure but like 2010 I'm not expecting an especially impressive result for him there given what my sources there tell me.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I guess they would start to come under a bit more scrutiny if they formed a party. But it's still possible.

    AndyJS said:

    The change was instituted by Patrick Cormack, the MP for South Staffs, who pointed out that an independent could stand against each member of the cabinet and shadow cabinet and then commit suicide during the election campaign which would make it very difficult to form a government after the election, since the election would be delayed in each of those constituencies.

    hunchman said:

    AndyJS said:

    The independent candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn, The Eurovisionary Carroll, has died, four days after nominations closed.

    There won't be a postponed poll or by-election since he was an independent. I'm not sure what would happen if he were to win the election...

    So not another Staffordshire South on our hands then? I didn't realise it was a different procedure for independents as opposed to named candidates here?
    What's stopping them forming the suicide squad party? Or, marginally less distastefully, signing up some terminally ill candidates?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.

    The net change is that the house is no longer available for social housing. Good point about the bedrooms.

    Hang on, I'm confused - I thought it was the policy of the Left not to penalise those who don't need the taxpayer to subsidise their spare bedrooms. Are you now claiming they are, after all, less deserving of taxpayer subsidy than families on the waiting list?

    No, I'm saying to be condistent the Tories should not offer housing association tenants with bedrooms they don't need heavy discounts to buy their properties.

    The tenants will still be finding money to buy all those bedrooms - giving money to the taxpayer. Mr Nabavi strikes again.

    Dear me, no. The bedroom tax is not about money, apparently, it is about need. People living in social accommodation with an extra bedroom they don't need do not receive housing benefit to pay for it. Likewise, people should not be offered heavy discounts to buy social accommodation with more bedrooms than they need. That would be the consistent approach.

    The unfulfilled need is costing money. People are offering money to buy houses and that money is proposed to be used in turn to meet the need.
    By giving people a stake in their community the community will benefit.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited April 2015
    RossM said:

    isam said:

    @RossM

    If you are still lurking and want to repeat what you said you can call me or meet up and say it to my face.

    Message me

    Why would I want to repeat it? I posted it twice, each time after you had a tangential dig at the object of your obsession. You should understand it by now.

    Nice keyboard warrior act though.
    I understand it and to prove I am not a keyboard warrior I will meet you in person so you can repeat it

    Whereabouts do you want to meet? Or is it you that's the keyboard warrior?

    Mug
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Bad day for the old guard of snooker - both Jimmy White and Steve Davis beaten in their attempts to make it to the Crucible....I don't think we'll see either of them grace the biggest stage of all again. At least the snooker will be a nice distraction from this increasingly tedious election campaign over the 17 days from Saturday....providing Ronnie wins it (I hope). Personally favour Trump this year, Murphy seems to have gone off the boil of recent times and Ronnie hasn't really produced since winning the UK championship in December - I hope I'm wrong.

    Annoyed that I didn't put anything on Spieth to win the Masters, I personally tipped him at work on Wednesday and then was too lazy to do anything - arrrggghhhh.

    Good night all.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    This is now getting truly bizarre.

    The Labour Party are going into the election with dogmatically right policy of public spending cuts which are unnecessary according to economists.

    The Tory Party are going into the election with the idiotic Socialist extremist of Right To Buy.

    Everything is arse about face, no-one has any idea what either of these parties actually stands for any more.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....

    bunnco said:

    Been out on the doorstep in Gt Yarmouth [UKIP deflating fast] and Norwich North [Chloe Smith has made remarkable progress getting 1800 youngsters into work with her 'Norwich for Jobs' campaign].

    In Yarmouth, Labour's candidate has terrible name-recognition and could hardly string two words together coherently on a recent Radio Norfolk debate. Meanwhile the Labour-run Council has closed the public toilets in this holiday town... and hired a Council chief exec on a grand-a-day. Tory Hold.

    In Norwich North, Labour's Jess Asato has sometimes benefitted from the halo-effect from front benchers visiting to bolster ex-BBC hack Clive Lewis [no skeletons in his cupboard, oh no! :winks:] in Norwich South but has still been absent without leave for the last few months. It's easy to forget that most of Norwich North is quite comfy surburbia and solidly Tory even if the bits close to the centre that the journos visit are blocks of flats with Labour posters. Tight but Chloe will hang on.

    Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

    Clive Lewis, he's a right charmer...not....
    The Green candidate is a pretty strong one. Very Norwich:

    http://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/councillors/lesley-grahame-city-councillor-for-thorpe-hamlet-ward.html
    I don't see any mention of a relationship with his sister, how is he very Norwich?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2015
    There is a serious question of principle about introducing a right to buy housing association properties. A social landlord may be a company, need not be charitable, and may now make a profit of sorts (Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, s. 79). Furthermore, it is liable to be assessed to corporation tax on rents whether or not it makes a profit if it is not charitable (Helena Partnerships Ltd v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs [2012] PTSR 1409 (CA)). Giving tenants a right to buy seems a naked act of appropriation. In fact, it seems a resurrection of the appalling policy of land reform.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    weejonnie said:


    Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

    Flogging off what remaining social housing we have when 5 million Brits languish on social housing waiting lists. So stupid, I can’t even.

    It makes no difference - house gets sold - 1 family is removed from total social housing requirements - 1 house is removed from social housing. Net change: NIL.

    Mind you I would not allow this for people who have not been using all the bedrooms in their house.
    Net change is nil UNTIL the point the social tenant would have vacated the unit. Net change in 30 years time, when there is a high propensity that the social housing unit would have been vacated by the family in it - MINUS 1.

    How long ago did Right To Buy really kick off?

    Oh.
This discussion has been closed.