Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even with Scotland will LAB still be able to win more seat

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even with Scotland will LAB still be able to win more seats than CON for the same national vote share?

One of the massive questions hanging over the May 7th outcome is the impact of what we are all familiar with – electoral bias that has meant that there’s a long history of LAB getting more seats for the same vote share than the Tories.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • So Mike you're basically saying EICIPM?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Thread Picture

    Balding Men's Forum Fight Over Comb

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    It's looking increasingly likely that EICCBPM. He's negotiated the debates fine. The Right Wing Press campaign is having little effect on the polls which look decidedly steady. Deadlocked parliament looks the likely outcome. I still wonder whether a second election within a year is the real nap.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    There are a lot of seats that Labour won in 2005 that look out of reach, now, even if the parties were to reach parity in England and Wales. 8 in Kent, Harlow, NE Somerset, Loughborough, Blackpool North, Dudley South, Kingswood, for example, plus the Conservatives are far better placed, relative to the Lib Dems, than they were in 2005. The latter won't be taking back any of the seats they lost in 2010, and will likely lose another dozen to the Tories. There may still be a Labour advantage, but I think it's a small one.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @TimGatt: Fascinating analysis from election experts at PSA on the likely make-up of the next government http://t.co/Qvo1pXkn9l http://t.co/wqxJ7jbwTD
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    ***Anecdote Alert***

    My taxi driver on the way in to work today, who voted UKIP at the Euros, is going to vote Labour at the General (Hendon), on the basis that "Dismal was a good MP last time around, and that Farage is a bit shouty." He was a lifelong Labour supporter, who's 2010 vote for the Conservatives, and 2014 vote for UKIP were the only two times he's ever "crossed the line".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    Can't quite believe potentially losing 40 odd seats in Scotland won't affect this.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    FPT

    Roger said:
    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is a mystery.

    But he is surrounded by back slapping public schoolboys who think politics is a jolly jape.

    Witness the crowing on here when the new debate formats were announced.
    "Game, set and match to Cameron" they said
    "Miliband has been outplayed" they said

    Same mentality as led to a botched coup attempt against Bercow on the last day of parliament
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    This year's YouGov polls vs telephone polls. Click charts to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    As I have been saying for months on here I think the bias will still be there but it will be less. It will be reduced by:
    Scotland
    Tories picking up Lib Dem seats.
    UKIP reducing some silly Tory majorities.
    Labour picking up red Liberals in seats they can't actually win.
    Probably a marginally better turnout in safe Labour seats than we saw the last time.

    But when the turnout in safe Labour seats is struggling to break 60% and turnout in safe Tory seats is pushing 70% "bias" is inevitable. This is added to by the existing boundaries which make an Inner City vote worth so much more than a rural one.

    If the 2 main parties end up with a tie I expect Labour to be 20-30 seats ahead despite Scotland. A much smaller bias than Blair enjoyed in 2005 but a bias none the less. It is why I have gone for a smallish Labour plurality in our competition.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Sean_F said:

    There are a lot of seats that Labour won in 2005 that look out of reach, now, even if the parties were to reach parity in England and Wales. 8 in Kent, Harlow, NE Somerset, Loughborough, Blackpool North, Dudley South, Kingswood, for example, plus the Conservatives are far better placed, relative to the Lib Dems, than they were in 2005. The latter won't be taking back any of the seats they lost in 2010, and will likely lose another dozen to the Tories. There may still be a Labour advantage, but I think it's a small one.

    I think the LibDems will lose more than a dozen to the Conservatives, and only half a dozen to Labour.

    My estimates:

    LibDems 57
    - Labour losses 7
    - Conservative losses 19
    - SNP losses 8
    = 23

    Labour losses could be as high as 11; Conservative losses could be as high as 25; UKIP losses could be as high as 11.

    However, on my model the LibDems only lose 9 to the Conservatives at 11%, but lose 25 at 9%. Lots of squeaky bums on May 7th and 8th!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    F1: unfortunately P1 isn't broadcast on 'proper' telly, but is online/red button from 11.55 to 13.35. P2 is on BBC2 from 16.00 to 17.40.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Remind me, where was the bet on the party to whom the LibDems would lose the most seats?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Good morning, everyone.

    Can't quite believe potentially losing 40 odd seats in Scotland won't affect this.

    Sean_F said:

    There are a lot of seats that Labour won in 2005 that look out of reach, now, even if the parties were to reach parity in England and Wales. 8 in Kent, Harlow, NE Somerset, Loughborough, Blackpool North, Dudley South, Kingswood, for example, plus the Conservatives are far better placed, relative to the Lib Dems, than they were in 2005. The latter won't be taking back any of the seats they lost in 2010, and will likely lose another dozen to the Tories. There may still be a Labour advantage, but I think it's a small one.

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    There are a lot of seats that Labour won in 2005 that look out of reach, now, even if the parties were to reach parity in England and Wales. 8 in Kent, Harlow, NE Somerset, Loughborough, Blackpool North, Dudley South, Kingswood, for example, plus the Conservatives are far better placed, relative to the Lib Dems, than they were in 2005. The latter won't be taking back any of the seats they lost in 2010, and will likely lose another dozen to the Tories. There may still be a Labour advantage, but I think it's a small one.

    I think the LibDems will lose more than a dozen to the Conservatives, and only half a dozen to Labour.

    My estimates:

    LibDems 57
    - Labour losses 7
    - Conservative losses 19
    - SNP losses 8
    = 23

    Labour losses could be as high as 11; Conservative losses could be as high as 25; UKIP losses could be as high as 11.

    However, on my model the LibDems only lose 9 to the Conservatives at 11%, but lose 25 at 9%. Lots of squeaky bums on May 7th and 8th!
    Gap between lab seats and PM Ed is potentially v v big
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Love the photo. The geezer in the middle looks like the original mad prof
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    It's now certain that JackW's ARSE will crap itself on the real results of the GE. How I will laugh. :D
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    DavidL said:

    As I have been saying for months on here I think the bias will still be there but it will be less. It will be reduced by:
    Scotland
    Tories picking up Lib Dem seats.
    UKIP reducing some silly Tory majorities.
    Labour picking up red Liberals in seats they can't actually win.
    Probably a marginally better turnout in safe Labour seats than we saw the last time.

    But when the turnout in safe Labour seats is struggling to break 60% and turnout in safe Tory seats is pushing 70% "bias" is inevitable. This is added to by the existing boundaries which make an Inner City vote worth so much more than a rural one.

    If the 2 main parties end up with a tie I expect Labour to be 20-30 seats ahead despite Scotland. A much smaller bias than Blair enjoyed in 2005 but a bias none the less. It is why I have gone for a smallish Labour plurality in our competition.

    Agree David.

    Still some bias left, mostly due to boundaries, but some of the dafter bias within exisitng constituencies are due a shake up.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    Depressing viewing last night in terms of the amount of clapping for unfunded public spending commitments. All parties (Tories included) relying on the magic money tree.

    We need a "none of the above" box!

    With Grexit looming though, might be a good election to lose even though I know that is omertà. And one day soon some party or other will have to actually address the structure of the NHS instead of just chucking more borrowed money at it and wondering why demand is still outstripping supply.
  • The Five Year Act looks the deadest of ducks. I suggest a Grand Coalition for as long as it takes to persuade the Scots to vote for independence and so wind up Great Britain. In that case, I wonder who the Ulster Prods would want to go with...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Stephen Fishers latest prediction may calm some of these Labour rampers juices.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?

    BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    rcs1000 said:

    Remind me, where was the bet on the party to whom the LibDems would lose the most seats?

    4-7 Tories Taunton Deane with Coral, though I'm sure you've already got on that one.
  • Depressing viewing last night in terms of the amount of clapping for unfunded public spending commitments. All parties (Tories included) relying on the magic money tree.

    We need a "none of the above" box!

    With Grexit looming though, might be a good election to lose even though I know that is omertà. And one day soon some party or other will have to actually address the structure of the NHS instead of just chucking more borrowed money at it and wondering why demand is still outstripping supply.

    Piece of cake. Shoot all the pensioners...

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    There are a lot of seats that Labour won in 2005 that look out of reach, now, even if the parties were to reach parity in England and Wales. 8 in Kent, Harlow, NE Somerset, Loughborough, Blackpool North, Dudley South, Kingswood, for example, plus the Conservatives are far better placed, relative to the Lib Dems, than they were in 2005. The latter won't be taking back any of the seats they lost in 2010, and will likely lose another dozen to the Tories. There may still be a Labour advantage, but I think it's a small one.

    I think the LibDems will lose more than a dozen to the Conservatives, and only half a dozen to Labour.

    My estimates:

    LibDems 57
    - Labour losses 7
    - Conservative losses 19
    - SNP losses 8
    = 23

    Labour losses could be as high as 11; Conservative losses could be as high as 25; UKIP losses could be as high as 11.

    However, on my model the LibDems only lose 9 to the Conservatives at 11%, but lose 25 at 9%. Lots of squeaky bums on May 7th and 8th!
    I think that you corrected yourself earlier re: "UKIP losses could be as high as 11". For UKIP read SNP.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Anecdote alerts:

    My good lady tells me her work colleagues, public sector and mostly female, are mostly intent on abstaining.

    My daughter's facebook was largely clogged up last night with 'we're screwed if Sturgeon and Miliband get in' and 'why does Miliband keep ducking questions and saying 'what about Cameron?'

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Tyson

    "Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?"

    The answer is a long one but the short version is that it's a rook that has been living with my cousin in Aberdeen for the last 24 years and which is documented here

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corvus-Life-Birds-Esther-Woolfson/dp/1847080804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429255113&sr=8-1&keywords=corvus#reader_1847080804
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Fractionally more than a 50% chance EICIPM though. For me a Labour government with tacit SNP support is looking increasingly inevitable. The tories needed a big swing back to prevent it and it has not happened.
  • ukelectukelect Posts: 140
    Using UK-Elect I can simulate the election using most of the common methods, adjusting key parameters and assumptions and seeing what happens. In most cases the electoral bias to Labour is still there, but much smaller than before - perhaps 10 to 20 seats. It is fairly difficult to achieve a Conservative majority for the same vote share, especially when the Ashcroft polls are taken into consideration (and when some ComRes polls aren't).
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    If the parties reach parity in England, then UNS of 5.6% to Labour puts them 35 seats ahead of the Conservatives, assuming that the Lib Dems lose no seats. In reality, Lib Dem losses, and first time incumbency would reduce that gap.

    Back in 2001, it was estimated that on equal vote shares, Labour would be 140 seats ahead of the Conservatives.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Fractionally more than a 50% chance EICIPM though. For me a Labour government with tacit SNP support is looking increasingly inevitable. The tories needed a big swing back to prevent it and it has not happened.
    Depends what you call a swing back, more likley the can't be arsed factor is their best friend, Miliband doesn't exactly inspire and this is the apathy election.
  • ukelectukelect Posts: 140
    Some people may be interested in the following: UK Election Forecasting Theory, Techniques, and Controversial Discussions
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?

    BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    The economic indicators show that the ruling party should win the election by 2 to 3 points, so no I don't think they should be romping home. I think they can and should outperform the model but some poor choices have been made.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    TGOHF said:

    Stephen Fishers latest prediction may calm some of these Labour rampers juices.

    MikeK said:

    It's now certain that JackW's ARSE will crap itself on the real results of the GE. How I will laugh. :D



    That ARSE could take quite a beating
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Fractionally more than a 50% chance EICIPM though. For me a Labour government with tacit SNP support is looking increasingly inevitable. The tories needed a big swing back to prevent it and it has not happened.
    It would at least be a hamstrung EICIPM, supported by a SNP he does not like, and who he cannot give too much to without jumping on the grave of SLAB next year at Holyrood. There is also the risk of such a pact collapsing after a year or so once Holyrood is out of the way.

    LD and UKIP will be navel gazing as to future direction and the Tories infighting over Europe and the Election.

    But: polls have been wrong many times and they only need to be a few % out to give a very different result, either a Lab majority or a Con one. Polls in 2010 at this stage did not accurately predict the result. They were mid Cleggasm and that turned out to be a fiction.
  • CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Weren't you taught to work hard at school so that you could go to Uni and never have to work hard again? I can't be the only Peebie who was - and my parents were True Blue!

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    Sean_F said:

    If the parties reach parity in England, then UNS of 5.6% to Labour puts them 35 seats ahead of the Conservatives, assuming that the Lib Dems lose no seats. In reality, Lib Dem losses, and first time incumbency would reduce that gap.

    Back in 2001, it was estimated that on equal vote shares, Labour would be 140 seats ahead of the Conservatives.

    It seems as if there is a broad consensus on here that the bias is going to be something like 20 seats this time around. @ukelect says the same.

    My one caveat is that this is if the votes are broadly equal. If Labour are ahead they will still get much heavier and more dramatic rewards for that than the Tories do with large slews of the 2010 Tory gains falling Labour's way making their vote ever more efficient. Labour last time were only lightly penalised for losing. The Tories would pay a much heavier price in terms of seats.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    Off-topic:

    Moore's law is fifty years old this weekend.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32335003

    I remember, about 25 years ago when I first got really interested in chip design (*), people predicting that it would not last another five or ten years.

    For me, the saddest thing about Moore's law is that chips have got so complex that it's virtually impossible for an outsider to understand how modern chips work in detail. Caches are easy, so is pipelining. I even *think* I understood how the early GPUs worked.

    But it has got so complex that, even if you can get the information, I give up and just go with the abstracted specs, rather than trying to understand how it works underneath the hood.

    (*) At the time of the great RISC vs CISC religious wars. ;-)
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Roger said:

    Tyson

    "Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?"

    The answer is a long one but the short version is that it's a rook that has been living with my cousin in Aberdeen for the last 24 years and which is documented here

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corvus-Life-Birds-Esther-Woolfson/dp/1847080804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429255113&sr=8-1&keywords=corvus#reader_1847080804

    I


    A charming and very compassionate story. I am a sucker for anyone who sees wildlife as anything more than vermin, or something to take pleasure in killing.

  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    I see that there was fulsome praise from Christine Lagarde for UK economic policy, short of saying "Vote Conservative" it couldn't have been better for Osborne and Cameron.

    "It's clearly also delivering results because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Dave simply doesn't want it enough. That infamous kitchen interview was revealing. Any other Tory leader would instead be throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign.

    I am imagine Dave is looking at five years of pain and thinking "nah".
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I say I say I say... What's worse than a white person sitting back and doing nothing as a Muslim is racially abused?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-im-being-racially-abused-i-dont-need-a-white-stranger-with-a-saviour-complex-to-rescue-me-10182308.html
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    glw said:

    I see that there was fulsome praise from Christine Lagarde for UK economic policy, short of saying "Vote Conservative" it couldn't have been better for Osborne and Cameron.

    "It's clearly also delivering results because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

    GDP per capita is the only GDP measure that counts. Let's not overstate how well the economy is doing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Jessop, that's the doubling of computing power, right?

    Now long until the singularity marks the beginning of our overthrow by superior artificial intelligence.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Off-topic:

    Moore's law is fifty years old this weekend.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32335003

    I remember, about 25 years ago when I first got really interested in chip design (*), people predicting that it would not last another five or ten years.

    For me, the saddest thing about Moore's law is that chips have got so complex that it's virtually impossible for an outsider to understand how modern chips work in detail. Caches are easy, so is pipelining. I even *think* I understood how the early GPUs worked.

    But it has got so complex that, even if you can get the information, I give up and just go with the abstracted specs, rather than trying to understand how it works underneath the hood.

    (*) At the time of the great RISC vs CISC religious wars. ;-)

    I remember when the Sinclair Scientific Calculator came out - my father bought one (£49.99 self assembled) and told me that "one day calculators will be s cheap as transistor radios" "old fool", I thought!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027

    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Fractionally more than a 50% chance EICIPM though. For me a Labour government with tacit SNP support is looking increasingly inevitable. The tories needed a big swing back to prevent it and it has not happened.
    Depends what you call a swing back, more likley the can't be arsed factor is their best friend, Miliband doesn't exactly inspire and this is the apathy election.
    I agree with that although it is weird. In reality this is the most interesting election I can recall with a huge range of possible outcomes and remarkable levels of uncertainty. The problem, as I think you said earlier, is that the choices available to people are really not as different as they are trying to make out.

    It is perhaps the soap powder election. All the parties are dressed up in different coloured boxes claiming remarkable results but they are all pretty much going to do the same thing.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.
  • SeanT said:

    Whodathunk it. A Labour policy I vehemently support. Banning unpaid internships.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/intern

    An end to posh thickos getting yet another unfair advantage. Good.

    How will Labour pay for their staff?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Blimey - quite close to my current prediction!

    However, if their current poll average includes the latest ICM, it is skewed.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    FalseFlag said:

    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?

    BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    The economic indicators show that the ruling party should win the election by 2 to 3 points, so no I don't think they should be romping home. I think they can and should outperform the model but some poor choices have been made.
    OK- the economic indicators should give an advantage. Add to this incumbency- and the narrative to finish the job, add to this a popular leader, add to this an unpopular leader of the opposition, add to this an opposition that is still very much tarnished by it's economic reputation. This election should be a run of the 1987 election- the conditions are much more favourable to the Tories than they were in 1992.
    As said, why are they not well ahead in the polls? They bloody well should be.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2015
    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    Disagree. What I think we're seeing very clearly is an electorate that for the most part simply doesn't see the challenges this country faces. I found the questions and responses last night to be pretty scary on the whole. Magicmoneytreeism is alive and well in UK lalaland. And this puts CCHQ in a big quandary - is it about getting elected or talking sense? The two seem diametrically opposed to me. If Dave starts saying the things he might need to say to get elected he'll be torn apart by the 'sound money / common sense' world and if he talks sound money and common sense he's going to get torn apart by the spendy mob. I have almost no symapthy for Greece or Venezuela or Argentina etc because they have elected their lunatics again and again and again for decades. A fucked up general public attitude to financial sound management, wealth creation and how advanced economies can survive and compete will lead to their countries getting fucked up. Our general public attitudes in the UK are fucked up and naive too - as was so lamentably on display last night. I fear we're going to elect some very economically fucked up bozos to run the place and when it all goes pear shaped, as it inevitably will, somehow it's going to be Fatcha's fault. Maybe we should blame the BBC and our education system. In a world where knowledge is at everyone's fingertips how is it possible for so many to be so very misguided?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    DavidL said:

    As I have been saying for months on here I think the bias will still be there but it will be less. It will be reduced by:
    Scotland
    Tories picking up Lib Dem seats.
    UKIP reducing some silly Tory majorities.
    Labour picking up red Liberals in seats they can't actually win.
    Probably a marginally better turnout in safe Labour seats than we saw the last time.

    But when the turnout in safe Labour seats is struggling to break 60% and turnout in safe Tory seats is pushing 70% "bias" is inevitable. This is added to by the existing boundaries which make an Inner City vote worth so much more than a rural one.

    If the 2 main parties end up with a tie I expect Labour to be 20-30 seats ahead despite Scotland. A much smaller bias than Blair enjoyed in 2005 but a bias none the less. It is why I have gone for a smallish Labour plurality in our competition.

    Spot on.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    edited April 2015
    Miss Vance, I saw a mechanical calculator once. Had a quick fiddle with it, but the operations were quite dissimilar to a normal, electronic calculator. It was akin to a small cylinder, a little shorter than a coffee mug. I think (it was a while ago) little levers around the base were moved to indicate what numbers were involved, and then a handle was wound so that the cogs could perform the necessary operations.

    Although I didn't really get to grips with it, the machine was an interesting one. Stuff like that only existed for a brief time, and seems really rather alien now.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    John Rentoul's review:

    It brought it all back. The earnest left-wingers, intimidating in their different brands of moral certainty. The facetious right-winger who goes along, sometimes in a bow tie, to wind them up. While most normal students have essays to write, French subtitles to read or pizza to eat.

    Ed Miliband was back in the Corpus Christi Junior Common Room.

    [...]

    Nicola Sturgeon was more progressive than Miliband, because she has a Scottish accent. As was Leanne Wood, because she has a Welsh one, and Natalie Bennett because she is an immigrant from Australia. But Ed is a member of the student council and so he has to take difficult decisions.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-catchup-are-you-coming-to-the-student-union-no-ive-got-something-better-to-do-10183682.html
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    John Rentoul's review:

    It brought it all back. The earnest left-wingers, intimidating in their different brands of moral certainty. The facetious right-winger who goes along, sometimes in a bow tie, to wind them up. While most normal students have essays to write, French subtitles to read or pizza to eat.

    Ed Miliband was back in the Corpus Christi Junior Common Room.

    [...]

    Nicola Sturgeon was more progressive than Miliband, because she has a Scottish accent. As was Leanne Wood, because she has a Welsh one, and Natalie Bennett because she is an immigrant from Australia. But Ed is a member of the student council and so he has to take difficult decisions.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-catchup-are-you-coming-to-the-student-union-no-ive-got-something-better-to-do-10183682.html

    When all you have predicted has failed to come to pass, resort to the patronising "politics of the JCR" dismissal as last resort.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Patrick said:

    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    Disagree. What I think we're seeing very clearly is an electorate that for the most part simply doesn't see the challenges this country faces. I found the questions and responses last night to be pretty scary on the whole. Magicmoneytreeism is alive and well in UK lalaland. And this puts CCHQ in a big quandary - is it about getting elected or talking sense? The two seem diametrically opposed to me. If Dave starts saying the things he might need to say to get elected he'll be torn apart by the 'sound money / common sense' world and if he talks sound money and common sense he's going to get torn apart by the spendy mob. I have almost no symapthy for Greece or Venezuela or Argentina etc because they have elected their lunatics again and again and again for decades. A fucked up general public attitude to financial sound management, wealth creation and how advanced economies can survive and compete will lead to their countries getting fucked up. Our general public attitudes in the UK are fucked up and naive too - as was so lamentably on display last night. I fear we're going to elect some very economically fucked up bozos to run the place and when it all goes pear shaped, as it inevitably will, somehow it's going to be Fatcha's fault. Maybe we should blame the BBC and our education system. In a world where knowledge is at everyone's fingertips how is it possible for so many to be so very misguided?
    Should have just stuck to the long term economic plan spiel whilst rubbishing Labour's record. Most people know there is no money, ignore the looney left, they just make a lot of noise.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited April 2015
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    As a result, the Tories’ chances of winning the most votes are up to 73% and their chances of winning the most seats are up to 75%. The probability of a Tory majority is also up slightly, but it’s still just 11%. The probability of a Labour majority is down to less than 0.5%.

    @ElectionsEtc: NEW #GE2015 FORECAST: 11% chance of Con majority, 0% Lab majority, 89% hung parliament http://t.co/YFsXEnoaGO http://t.co/kJJG8WrhbL

    Fractionally more than a 50% chance EICIPM though. For me a Labour government with tacit SNP support is looking increasingly inevitable. The tories needed a big swing back to prevent it and it has not happened.
    Depends what you call a swing back, more likley the can't be arsed factor is their best friend, Miliband doesn't exactly inspire and this is the apathy election.
    I agree with that although it is weird. In reality this is the most interesting election I can recall with a huge range of possible outcomes and remarkable levels of uncertainty. The problem, as I think you said earlier, is that the choices available to people are really not as different as they are trying to make out.

    It is perhaps the soap powder election. All the parties are dressed up in different coloured boxes claiming remarkable results but they are all pretty much going to do the same thing.
    It's probably the most interesting election in ages for the anoraks like us.

    The voters to date seem fairly switched off.

    So far we have about the usual 450 seats where the result is a foregone conclusion but circa 200 where anything can happen ( 150 EW marginals plus 50 Scotland )

    Scotland on paper should be a foregone conclusion looking at the polls but the interest sits round how sticky is Labour and have the Nats overramped again ?

    In E&W marginals a percentage or two either way will swing a lot of seats and that has many imponderables - turnout, vote drift for the larger parties ( Tories UKIP, Labour Green) , LD fortresses, anti-politics mood.

    So really all to play for for the parties but for the voters it's looking like a poor set of choices all round.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    If you feed in latest You gov poll which has equal shares for Tory and Labour of 34% (Ld 7 UKIP 14) and latest Scottish polls you get in total seats,on UNS 281 Tory and 285 Labour.

    If we assume that boundary changes would have delivered an extra 20 seats to the Tories and and 20 less for Labour then the UK totals would be 301 Tory and 265 Labour.As the campaign progresses Dave may increasingly rue the day he allowed the Tory right wing to torpedo Lord's Reform.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Tyson

    "A charming and very compassionate story."

    It is and 'Chicken' is a most extraordinary bird.

    The political angle is that her daughter is the partner of an Edinburgh MP. He was very lucky to take the seat at the last election and has a tiny majority but he's very nice and hard working and from a very humble background but it's very tough up there..... .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Sean_F said:

    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

    Farming - particularly hard manual labour - is shitty and poorly paid work.

    But ignoring this point for a second, one of the key reasons why British people don't want to do poorly paid seasonal work is that our tax and benefits system actively discourages it.

    If you go and take a job in Norfolk in the fields, you need to sign off, you need to give up your housing benefit, and you probably need to apply for working tax credits.

    All for six weeks work.

    And then you have to sign on again. And fill in masses of paperwork. And maybe it'll be three months before your benefits are reinstated.

    We have created a system which actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    Are we getting a Com Res poll this week?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Mike you're ignoring two things that immediately spring to mind in favour of the Tories. The large Ukip votes at the expense of the Tories will mean reduced shares for the blues not only in safe seats but also probably across the country - importantly though at the loss of no seats (or maybe one if Farage gets in). On the other hand there will be many Tory-LD seats where the blues will pick up the seat for a very small increase in their vote share.

    Hence why the Tories shouldn't worry about being a couple of points down on 2010 because they could still end up on broadly the same number of seats.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    @Patrick

    "Disagree. What I think we're seeing very clearly is an electorate that for the most part simply doesn't see the challenges this country faces. I found the questions and responses last night to be pretty scary on the whole. Magicmoneytreeism is alive and well in UK lalaland. And this puts CCHQ in a big quandary - is it about getting elected or talking sense? The two seem diametrically opposed to me. If Dave starts saying the things he might need to say to get elected he'll be torn apart by the 'sound money / common sense' world and if he talks sound money and common sense he's going to get torn apart by the spendy mob. I have almost no symapthy for Greece or Venezuela or Argentina etc because they have elected their lunatics again and again and again for decades. A fucked up general public attitude to financial sound management, wealth creation and how advanced economies can survive and compete will lead to their countries getting fucked up. Our general public attitudes in the UK are fucked up and naive too - as was so lamentably on display last night. I fear we're going to elect some very economically fucked up bozos to run the place and when it all goes pear shaped, as it inevitably will, somehow it's going to be Fatcha's fault. Maybe we should blame the BBC and our education system. In a world where knowledge is at everyone's fingertips how is it possible for so many to be so very misguided?"



    Oh dear, oh dear. Blaming a misguided electorate is one step away from totalitarianism.

    I was hoping to elicit a more sophisticated response. My feeling is that the Tories have overthought their campaign. Osborne is far too political, and Cameron is too scripted- therefore they find connecting with the electorate difficult. I think the spectre of Osborne and Crosby looming over every facet of the campaign inhibits- for instance Osborne riding off the IMF today just seems like a political stunt. The public were sick of stunts after the Brown years.
    An effective politician needs to connect naturally to the voters- Cameron had this once, and Boris Johnson has it in spades. And Miliband, with his cow eyes and resilience, is beginning to win people over.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Six months ago Chris Patten warned his party not to underestimate Ed M. Looks like he was right.

    Personally, I have bet large on some kind of Lab minority or coalition, but I remain flabbergasted that the late swing back to the incumbent Tories with an economy on the mend doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe it will be as one of the pollsters (Ben Page i think) told Newsnight and the late swing will only happen on the day of the actual election.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    Mr. Jessop, that's the doubling of computing power, right?

    Now long until the singularity marks the beginning of our overthrow by superior artificial intelligence.

    Sort of. Gordon Moore himself has changed it several times, but I think it's currently a doubling of transistors on a chip every two years. It's becoming increasingly hard to match as the technology strikes the wall of quantum theory and other esoteric problems.

    Up to around ten years ago, the 'speed' of a processor was judged by the clock speed. But recently it's been stuck around the 3-4GHz mark for consumer chips.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,717
    edited April 2015

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Agree with that There was a “Half hour with Ed Milliband” or something before the debates, where he came across as very human and pleasant. He’s having a “Good War”!
    My wife and I, reflecting on the debates etc over the breakfast table, both felt the same.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

    Farming - particularly hard manual labour - is shitty and poorly paid work.

    But ignoring this point for a second, one of the key reasons why British people don't want to do poorly paid seasonal work is that our tax and benefits system actively discourages it.

    If you go and take a job in Norfolk in the fields, you need to sign off, you need to give up your housing benefit, and you probably need to apply for working tax credits.

    All for six weeks work.

    And then you have to sign on again. And fill in masses of paperwork. And maybe it'll be three months before your benefits are reinstated.

    We have created a system which actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
    That's the problem that Universal Credit is intended to address, but it has turned out to be too complicated for DWP to implement in one Parliament.

    It's also the sort of problem that a citizen's income helps to solve.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    rogerh said:

    If you feed in latest You gov poll which has equal shares for Tory and Labour of 34% (Ld 7 UKIP 14) and latest Scottish polls you get in total seats,on UNS 281 Tory and 285 Labour.

    If we assume that boundary changes would have delivered an extra 20 seats to the Tories and and 20 less for Labour then the UK totals would be 301 Tory and 265 Labour.As the campaign progresses Dave may increasingly rue the day he allowed the Tory right wing to torpedo Lord's Reform.

    He should be ruing the day that he didn't put the AV referendum in the same bill as the boundary reform, literally as per the Coalition agreement.

    Not that I particularly blame the Lib Dems for reneging - boundary reform had the potential to be an extinction-level event for them given how much they depend on incumbency.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Six months ago Chris Patten warned his party not to underestimate Ed M. Looks like he was right.

    Personally, I have bet large on some kind of Lab minority or coalition, but I remain flabbergasted that the late swing back to the incumbent Tories with an economy on the mend doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe it will be as one of the pollsters (Ben Page i think) told Newsnight and the late swing will only happen on the day of the actual election.
    It is happening though. Would have been better if the election were in the Autumn.
  • FalseFlag said:

    Patrick said:

    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    Disagree. What I think we're seeing very clearly is an electorate that for the most part simply doesn't see the challenges this country faces. I found the questions and responses last night to be pretty scary on the whole. Magicmoneytreeism is alive and well in UK lalaland. And this puts CCHQ in a big quandary - is it about getting elected or talking sense? The two seem diametrically opposed to me. If Dave starts saying the things he might need to say to get elected he'll be torn apart by the 'sound money / common sense' world and if he talks sound money and common sense he's going to get torn apart by the spendy mob. I have almost no symapthy for Greece or Venezuela or Argentina etc because they have elected their lunatics again and again and again for decades. A fucked up general public attitude to financial sound management, wealth creation and how advanced economies can survive and compete will lead to their countries getting fucked up. Our general public attitudes in the UK are fucked up and naive too - as was so lamentably on display last night. I fear we're going to elect some very economically fucked up bozos to run the place and when it all goes pear shaped, as it inevitably will, somehow it's going to be Fatcha's fault. Maybe we should blame the BBC and our education system. In a world where knowledge is at everyone's fingertips how is it possible for so many to be so very misguided?
    Should have just stuck to the long term economic plan spiel whilst rubbishing Labour's record. Most people know there is no money, ignore the looney left, they just make a lot of noise.
    So why don't they? Because it isn't the "looney left" (whatever that means to you) - it's their activists, now economically inactive and reliant on the NHS (occupational health cover ceases when the occupation ceases). Magicmoneytreeism is a consequence of universal suffrage.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Dave simply doesn't want it enough. That infamous kitchen interview was revealing. Any other Tory leader would instead be throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign.

    I am imagine Dave is looking at five years of pain and thinking "nah".
    I think that's right. He's tired and has had enough and it sometimes shows.

    He's only really emergised when he is angry and that is not a pretty picture.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    SeanT said:

    tyson said:

    FalseFlag said:

    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.

    If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.

    Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates followed by his no show he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.

    Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling

    Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?

    BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
    The economic indicators show that the ruling party should win the election by 2 to 3 points, so no I don't think they should be romping home. I think they can and should outperform the model but some poor choices have been made.
    OK- the economic indicators should give an advantage. Add to this incumbency- and the narrative to finish the job, add to this a popular leader, add to this an unpopular leader of the opposition, add to this an opposition that is still very much tarnished by it's economic reputation. This election should be a run of the 1987 election- the conditions are much more favourable to the Tories than they were in 1992.
    As said, why are they not well ahead in the polls? They bloody well should be.
    Um, you have noticed this thing called UKIP? Which did not exist in 1987?

    The Farageistes are taking 4-6 points off the Tory polling, and 1-2 off Labour, LD and Did Not Vote, etc

    Absent UKIP, the Tories would now be cruising to victory. But they're not, because the Right is Split.
    This election could be like a reverse 1983 combined with 1928.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    With regards to the Lib Dems "comfort" polling in Scotland in WAK and ED, I hope it wasn't this style of polling that OGH was reffering to when he said that private polling showed that named candidates significantly reduced the SNPs polling figures and that is why he was selling SNP @ 21.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    Mr. Jessop, that's the doubling of computing power, right?

    Now long until the singularity marks the beginning of our overthrow by superior artificial intelligence.

    Sort of. Gordon Moore himself has changed it several times, but I think it's currently a doubling of transistors on a chip every two years. It's becoming increasingly hard to match as the technology strikes the wall of quantum theory and other esoteric problems.

    Up to around ten years ago, the 'speed' of a processor was judged by the clock speed. But recently it's been stuck around the 3-4GHz mark for consumer chips.
    At the 3Ghz (3*10^9 / second) frequency, light (speed = 3 X 10^8 ms-1) travels 10cm between clock cycles.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    SeanT said:

    Gah, I see that I missed the Official PB Prediction Game (though I did have quite a good reason - being in one of the world's most remote wildernesses - west Arnhemland, Australia)

    For the record, so people don't accuse me of backing every possible outcome so as to appear glowingly vindicated whatever happens, here's my Official S K Tremayne GE2015 Prognostication:


    Tories: 278
    Labour: 282
    LDs: 26
    UKIP: 2
    Green: 1
    SNP: 39

    Did you get to Woomera by any chance? The Timbuktu of the Dan Dare generation ...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,717

    rogerh said:

    If you feed in latest You gov poll which has equal shares for Tory and Labour of 34% (Ld 7 UKIP 14) and latest Scottish polls you get in total seats,on UNS 281 Tory and 285 Labour.

    If we assume that boundary changes would have delivered an extra 20 seats to the Tories and and 20 less for Labour then the UK totals would be 301 Tory and 265 Labour.As the campaign progresses Dave may increasingly rue the day he allowed the Tory right wing to torpedo Lord's Reform.

    He should be ruing the day that he didn't put the AV referendum in the same bill as the boundary reform, literally as per the Coalition agreement.

    Not that I particularly blame the Lib Dems for reneging - boundary reform had the potential to be an extinction-level event for them given how much they depend on incumbency.
    Do you mean that boundary reform should have been conditional on the introduction of AV? Or vice-versa?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

    Farming - particularly hard manual labour - is shitty and poorly paid work.

    But ignoring this point for a second, one of the key reasons why British people don't want to do poorly paid seasonal work is that our tax and benefits system actively discourages it.

    If you go and take a job in Norfolk in the fields, you need to sign off, you need to give up your housing benefit, and you probably need to apply for working tax credits.

    All for six weeks work.

    And then you have to sign on again. And fill in masses of paperwork. And maybe it'll be three months before your benefits are reinstated.

    We have created a system which actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
    That's the problem that Universal Credit is intended to address, but it has turned out to be too complicated for DWP to implement in one Parliament.

    It's also the sort of problem that a citizen's income helps to solve.
    Excellent posts.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

    Farming - particularly hard manual labour - is shitty and poorly paid work.

    But ignoring this point for a second, one of the key reasons why British people don't want to do poorly paid seasonal work is that our tax and benefits system actively discourages it.

    If you go and take a job in Norfolk in the fields, you need to sign off, you need to give up your housing benefit, and you probably need to apply for working tax credits.

    All for six weeks work.

    And then you have to sign on again. And fill in masses of paperwork. And maybe it'll be three months before your benefits are reinstated.

    We have created a system which actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
    Student work, anyway should be done by machines or not at all if it is not profit making.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    rogerh said:

    If you feed in latest You gov poll which has equal shares for Tory and Labour of 34% (Ld 7 UKIP 14) and latest Scottish polls you get in total seats,on UNS 281 Tory and 285 Labour.

    If we assume that boundary changes would have delivered an extra 20 seats to the Tories and and 20 less for Labour then the UK totals would be 301 Tory and 265 Labour.As the campaign progresses Dave may increasingly rue the day he allowed the Tory right wing to torpedo Lord's Reform.

    He should be ruing the day that he didn't put the AV referendum in the same bill as the boundary reform, literally as per the Coalition agreement.

    Not that I particularly blame the Lib Dems for reneging - boundary reform had the potential to be an extinction-level event for them given how much they depend on incumbency.
    Do you mean that boundary reform should have been conditional on the introduction of AV? Or vice-versa?
    I mean that the AV referendum should have been conditional on the boundary reform. That, after all, was the deal.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    The Five Year Act looks the deadest of ducks. I suggest a Grand Coalition for as long as it takes to persuade the Scots to vote for independence and so wind up Great Britain. In that case, I wonder who the Ulster Prods would want to go with...

    Reasonably* interesting documentary on the BBC iplayer on that sort of thing, After Bannockburn, about the Bruce invasion of Ireland 1315-1317.

    * Somewhat marred by being padded out to two episodes rather than just one.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Six months ago Chris Patten warned his party not to underestimate Ed M. Looks like he was right.

    Personally, I have bet large on some kind of Lab minority or coalition, but I remain flabbergasted that the late swing back to the incumbent Tories with an economy on the mend doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe it will be as one of the pollsters (Ben Page i think) told Newsnight and the late swing will only happen on the day of the actual election.
    What has happened to the old guard all round? Labour's old guard are nowhere to be seen, the Tories, apart from Hague last night, the same.
    This is an election fronted only by newbies who all seem to turn off the electorate.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Millsy said:

    Mike you're ignoring two things that immediately spring to mind in favour of the Tories. The large Ukip votes at the expense of the Tories will mean reduced shares for the blues not only in safe seats but also probably across the country - importantly though at the loss of no seats (or maybe one if Farage gets in). On the other hand there will be many Tory-LD seats where the blues will pick up the seat for a very small increase in their vote share.

    Hence why the Tories shouldn't worry about being a couple of points down on 2010 because they could still end up on broadly the same number of seats.

    There are an awful lot of marginal seats that could swing because the drop in the Tory vote (due to blue kippers) is less than the drop in the Labour vote (red kippers). Or Vice Versa of course. And THAT is the great imponderable. I don't know - but the parties may on individual seat polling - how this is going to pan out.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    I think UKIP will do well out of last night's debate.

    There are a lot of people out there who recoil at the metropolitan middle-classes and the associated (perceived) patronising way they are spoken to by professional politicians.

    The audience and politicians - bar Farage - on stage, embodied a world that is alien to them.

    I suspect they would've disliked the way Farage was hounded last night for his views. Many out there will share the same views and fears and Farage was the only one on stage presenting an anti-EU, steady-on-immigration stance.

    In contrast there was a lot of identikit, political correctness.

    It didn't look great for Farage on telly but I bet loads at home were secretly agreeing with him and the way he was harangued will consolidate their votes.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    edited April 2015

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Agree with that There was a “Half hour with Ed Milliband” or something before the debates, where he came across as very human and pleasant. He’s having a “Good War”!
    My wife and I, reflecting on the debates etc over the breakfast table, both felt the same.
    That said, Mrs S, not very "into" politics but soft-left in approach (and a teacher!), cannot believe Labour elected Miliband, thinks he's weird and is appalled at the prospect of Nicola Sturgeon (whom she cannot abide) wielding the balance of power, did acknowledge to me last night as we watched the BBC Ten together, appalled, that holding her nose and voting Tory might be the only option.

    I doubt she will (she may vote Green which may be nearly as good as voting Tory in our Lab with small majority constituency), but it was interesting to see a left-leaner actually contemplating a Tory vote knowing that EdM is (she feels) incapable of winning a majority and the prospect of him sharing power with the SNP repellent; if Labour was romping ahead in the polls and Ed looked more up to the job, there wouldn't be any internal quandary in her mind at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Alistair said:

    With regards to the Lib Dems "comfort" polling in Scotland in WAK and ED, I hope it wasn't this style of polling that OGH was reffering to when he said that private polling showed that named candidates significantly reduced the SNPs polling figures and that is why he was selling SNP @ 21.

    That was one of the reasons I didn't buy @ 21.

    Tried to make up for it since :D
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    What did they have to say about the Lib Dems?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    isam said:

    I say I say I say... What's worse than a white person sitting back and doing nothing as a Muslim is racially abused?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-im-being-racially-abused-i-dont-need-a-white-stranger-with-a-saviour-complex-to-rescue-me-10182308.html

    No good deed goes unpunished...
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    You can see why Ed wanted to do these TV debates - as we've seen from all the polling numbers (including Survation last night) Labour voters are by far the biggest group of watchers so he has had a very good opportunity to show his own voters what he's like rather than the press caricature.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    edited April 2015
    tyson said:

    @Patrick

    "Disagree. What I think we're seeing very clearly is an electorate that for the most part simply doesn't see the challenges this country faces. I found the questions and responses last night to be pretty scary on the whole. Magicmoneytreeism is alive and well in UK lalaland. And this puts CCHQ in a big quandary - is it about getting elected or talking sense? The two seem diametrically opposed to me. If Dave starts saying the things he might need to say to get elected he'll be torn apart by the 'sound money / common sense' world and if he talks sound money and common sense he's going to get torn apart by the spendy mob. I have almost no symapthy for Greece or Venezuela or Argentina etc because they have elected their lunatics again and again and again for decades. A fucked up general public attitude to financial sound management, wealth creation and how advanced economies can survive and compete will lead to their countries getting fucked up. Our general public attitudes in the UK are fucked up and naive too - as was so lamentably on display last night. I fear we're going to elect some very economically fucked up bozos to run the place and when it all goes pear shaped, as it inevitably will, somehow it's going to be Fatcha's fault. Maybe we should blame the BBC and our education system. In a world where knowledge is at everyone's fingertips how is it possible for so many to be so very misguided?

    "







    I can see the Tories falling to 30% in the polls over the weekend, if not below that floor.

    The writing's been on the wall for ages, and once again, and not wishing to blow my own trumpet, I seem to have been one of the few people to have foreseen what is now becoming obvious.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    tyson said:

    Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?

    What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.

    Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.

    EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.

    I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.

    Six months ago Chris Patten warned his party not to underestimate Ed M. Looks like he was right.

    Personally, I have bet large on some kind of Lab minority or coalition, but I remain flabbergasted that the late swing back to the incumbent Tories with an economy on the mend doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe it will be as one of the pollsters (Ben Page i think) told Newsnight and the late swing will only happen on the day of the actual election.
    What has happened to the old guard all round? Labour's old guard are nowhere to be seen, the Tories, apart from Hague last night, the same.
    This is an election fronted only by newbies who all seem to turn off the electorate.
    Good question. Where is John Major?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Mr. Jessop, that's the doubling of computing power, right?

    Now long until the singularity marks the beginning of our overthrow by superior artificial intelligence.

    Sort of. Gordon Moore himself has changed it several times, but I think it's currently a doubling of transistors on a chip every two years. It's becoming increasingly hard to match as the technology strikes the wall of quantum theory and other esoteric problems.

    Up to around ten years ago, the 'speed' of a processor was judged by the clock speed. But recently it's been stuck around the 3-4GHz mark for consumer chips.
    Not just for consumer chips. I think the chips in most new supercomputers have slightly slower clock speeds than the previous generation, but they make up for that with sheer number (and improved interconnects, etc, to have them work together more efficiently).
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Fenster said:

    I think UKIP will do well out of last night's debate.

    There are a lot of people out there who recoil at the metropolitan middle-classes and the associated (perceived) patronising way they are spoken to by professional politicians.

    The audience and politicians - bar Farage - on stage, embodied a world that is alien to them.

    I suspect they would've disliked the way Farage was hounded last night for his views. Many out there will share the same views and fears and Farage was the only one on stage presenting an anti-EU, steady-on-immigration stance.

    In contrast there was a lot of identikit, political correctness.

    It didn't look great for Farage on telly but I bet loads at home were secretly agreeing with him and the way he was harangued will consolidate their votes.

    Farage also looks (and actually is) authentic. He believes what he is saying. Whether you like what he is saying is another matter- but many people obviously do.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179

    rogerh said:

    If you feed in latest You gov poll which has equal shares for Tory and Labour of 34% (Ld 7 UKIP 14) and latest Scottish polls you get in total seats,on UNS 281 Tory and 285 Labour.

    If we assume that boundary changes would have delivered an extra 20 seats to the Tories and and 20 less for Labour then the UK totals would be 301 Tory and 265 Labour.As the campaign progresses Dave may increasingly rue the day he allowed the Tory right wing to torpedo Lord's Reform.

    He should be ruing the day that he didn't put the AV referendum in the same bill as the boundary reform, literally as per the Coalition agreement.

    Not that I particularly blame the Lib Dems for reneging - boundary reform had the potential to be an extinction-level event for them given how much they depend on incumbency.
    Do you mean that boundary reform should have been conditional on the introduction of AV? Or vice-versa?
    Dave should have threatened to dissolve the Coalition if the LDs went ahead and reneged on boundary reform, but he was too focused on ensuring he kept in power till 2015 thinking it would all turn out alright and he'd coast back into power in his own right.

    Well, that turned out well didn't it David....
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    FalseFlag said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching a Guardian video on Facebook about my old home town, now described as Farageland (Boston). An interesting analysis of the problem. Massive immigration has distorted the economy; good for the framers, bad for the workers, yet Labour are supportive.

    On one side, the view that the locals should get off their arses and work. On the other, the view that it's good for the local economy.

    The problem in a nutshell and the reason for Ukip's rise. When I worked on the land there, it was a different time. The work was hard but available. I wondered how many Guardian reporters would be happy to 'get off their arses' and do those hours for the good of the economy.

    Mutual incomprehension.

    Maybe the locals *are* getting off their arses, and seeking well-paid work, as opposed to poorly-paid work. There were a series of articles about immigration in The Times, in which one employer bemoaned the fact that British workers were too ambitious, and would leave his company if better-paid jobs were offered by rivals. He preferred immigrants who were prepared to stay where they were.

    Farming - particularly hard manual labour - is shitty and poorly paid work.

    But ignoring this point for a second, one of the key reasons why British people don't want to do poorly paid seasonal work is that our tax and benefits system actively discourages it.

    If you go and take a job in Norfolk in the fields, you need to sign off, you need to give up your housing benefit, and you probably need to apply for working tax credits.

    All for six weeks work.

    And then you have to sign on again. And fill in masses of paperwork. And maybe it'll be three months before your benefits are reinstated.

    We have created a system which actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
    Student work, anyway should be done by machines or not at all if it is not profit making.
    So are you suggesting that we should import more food and so worsen our balance of payments?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I felt that about Ms Greenies - she came across very well, unlike Ms Plaid who didn't seem to have the inner self belief required.
    tyson said:

    Fenster said:

    I think UKIP will do well out of last night's debate.

    There are a lot of people out there who recoil at the metropolitan middle-classes and the associated (perceived) patronising way they are spoken to by professional politicians.

    The audience and politicians - bar Farage - on stage, embodied a world that is alien to them.

    I suspect they would've disliked the way Farage was hounded last night for his views. Many out there will share the same views and fears and Farage was the only one on stage presenting an anti-EU, steady-on-immigration stance.

    In contrast there was a lot of identikit, political correctness.

    It didn't look great for Farage on telly but I bet loads at home were secretly agreeing with him and the way he was harangued will consolidate their votes.

    Farage also looks (and actually is) authentic. He believes what he is saying. Whether you like what he is saying is another matter- but many people obviously do.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited April 2015

    I can see the Tories falling to 30% in the polls over the weekend, if not below that floor.

    The writing's been on the wall for ages, and once again, and not wishing to blow my own trumpet, I seem to have been one of the few people to have foreseen what is now becoming obvious.

    What a load of crap. I will have as much as you like that next week's ELBOW for the Tories is 31% or more.

    Just because you write portentously and pessimistically doesn't mean your forecasts have any more validity than anyone else's.
This discussion has been closed.