Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
I can't speak for England but the relentless Tory/MSM SNP attackathon of the last couple of weeks has really strengthened support for the SNP and has pushed the surge over the 50% mark. I'm not sure if this was intended consequence.
I think the final nail in the 3 "mainstream parties" coffins is the ham fisted attempts at encouraging tactical voting, now that in my book is when the parties are starting to take their supporters for granted and use them as lobby fodder.
The Tories pre-occupation with the prospect of a Labour/SNP pact, surely can't be the only thing they're focusing on.
Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling is a two part question.
Q1) If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, or another party? If ‘another party’: Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP), or some other party – or do you not know how you would vote?
Q2) And thinking specifically about your own parliamentary constituency at the next general election and the candidates who are likely to stand for election to Westminster there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency? [Prompts as at Q1]
Now, in some polls, there's a huge discrepancy between Q1 and Q2, it can't be all down to incumbency and well it could be say, Q2 is making more people to change their voting intention, than they should [Note I'm just a uneducated follower of polls, so I might be talking bollocks]
Have a look at the recent Lord A Con/LD polling, page 3, of this report to see the differences between Q1 and Q2.
It fits in with the shellacking for the Lib Dems in the South West that ComRes was finding.
We're going to find out in 12 days times if Lord A is right.
It's interesting, Q2, as I can see how it would prompt people to change their minds.
That being said, I think you need to look at the nature of the Q1->Q2 shift. So, in Cambridge a chunk of the change is that 5% of Conservative voters decide to go with Huppert. That looks like those 5% are Tories tactically voting LibDem to keep the Labour Party out.
I find the shifts in Cornwall more suspicious. I can see why Labour would go from 14% to 11% in Torbay, or from 14% to 10% in St Ives for example. But I'm a bit more surprised about both the Conservative and UKIP scores dropping in North Cornwall.
Polls are illegal in france I think the 3 days before a vote. Personally I see no ethical issue as the British electorate at times is hardly smart enough to even know their own MPs voting record most of the time.
Mr. Roger, landlords don't know what inflation (or their personal financial circumstances) will be over a three year period, so they'll make rents as high as they possibly can to mitigate risk, I'd guess.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
I can't speak for England but the relentless Tory/MSM SNP attackathon of the last couple of weeks has really strengthened support for the SNP and has pushed the surge over the 50% mark. I'm not sure if this was intended consequence.
It was aimed at English voters - Scottish Tory support is relatively stable in the face of the SNP surge, compared to SLAB and SLD at any rate, and their chances of retaining their 1 seat aren't hugely altered by the SNP getting 40, 45 or 50% . But it might, only might, shift some voted in England the Tory way. So the risk it increased the SNP further was worth it, on the Tory side.
I would also not be surprised if in the last few days of the election Lord Ashcroft published a final batch of constituency polling. Especially in Hallam and South Thanet
TSE- are Ashcroft constituency polls worth much if he fails to name a candidate? I thought the whole point of providing a constituency poll was to get an depth local input- without naming a candidate Ashcroft's constituency polls are erratic at best, much like his national polls.
To be honest, I find Ashcroft's self publicising narcissism through bigging up his private polling one of the distractions of the campaign.
This close to the election the candidates should be named.
That said. I've got a hunch that Lord Ashcroft's Q1 might turn out to be the most accurate poll.
Thanks TSE- I have meant to say before that you have been very good at coming back to my queries.
But, to ask another one, what is Ashcroft's Q1?
Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling is a two part question. Q2 is the figure he uses as his final figures for his polls.
Q1) If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, or another party? If ‘another party’: Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP), or some other party – or do you not know how you would vote?
Q2) And thinking specifically about your own parliamentary constituency at the next general election and the candidates who are likely to stand for election to Westminster there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency? [Prompts as at Q1]
Now, in some polls, there's a huge discrepancy between Q1 and Q2, it can't be all down to incumbency and well it could be say, Q2 is making more people to change their voting intention, than they should [Note I'm just a uneducated follower of polls, so I might be talking bollocks]
Have a look at the recent Lord A Con/LD polling, page 3, of this report to see the differences between Q1 and Q2.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
I can't speak for England but the relentless Tory/MSM SNP attackathon of the last couple of weeks has really strengthened support for the SNP and has pushed the surge over the 50% mark. I'm not sure if this was intended consequence.
While I suspect the main purpose was to stiffen the core/return waverers in England, something that disproportionately damages Labour in Scotland isn't really a downside is it?
Con 290 Lab 257 SNP 50 PC 3 UKIP 3 Grn 1 LD 28 NI 13 (attending)
LDs decide to abstain, and the SNP vote with Labour and assorted leftists against a Tory QS or VoC.
Miliband then becomes PM despite Labour suffering a net loss of one seat compared to 2010...
That scenario is meat and drink to the SNP since it would provoke a constitutional crisis - a regional party conspiring to keep the largest party out of power.
I would also not be surprised if in the last few days of the election Lord Ashcroft published a final batch of constituency polling. Especially in Hallam and South Thanet
TSE- are Ashcroft constituency polls worth much if he fails to name a candidate? I thought the whole point of providing a constituency poll was to get an depth local input- without naming a candidate Ashcroft's constituency polls are erratic at best, much like his national polls.
To be honest, I find Ashcroft's self publicising narcissism through bigging up his private polling one of the distractions of the campaign.
This close to the election the candidates should be named.
That said. I've got a hunch that Lord Ashcroft's Q1 might turn out to be the most accurate poll.
Thanks TSE- I have meant to say before that you have been very good at coming back to my queries.
But, to ask another one, what is Ashcroft's Q1?
Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling is a two part question. Q2 is the figure he uses as his final figures for his polls.
Q1) If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, or another party? If ‘another party’: Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP), or some other party – or do you not know how you would vote?
Q2) And thinking specifically about your own parliamentary constituency at the next general election and the candidates who are likely to stand for election to Westminster there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency? [Prompts as at Q1]
Now, in some polls, there's a huge discrepancy between Q1 and Q2, it can't be all down to incumbency and well it could be say, Q2 is making more people to change their voting intention, than they should [Note I'm just a uneducated follower of polls, so I might be talking bollocks]
Have a look at the recent Lord A Con/LD polling, page 3, of this report to see the differences between Q1 and Q2.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
Cyclefree, There is no sign of hubris in Scotland. SNP are just very popular and getting more so every day. The constant insults and hysteria in the right wing press just increase this. When you see at weekend , huge crowds out to see Sturgeon and yet Murphy has about a dozen or two at best and Brown is limited to the faithful in the back room of a pub. It really does look like something unusual is happening.
There was no sign of hubris in early September 14 either. The thing about hubris is that those with it are unaware of it!
I can see why there may well be shy unionists out there now. There were in September. I will not cry at seeing SLAB decimated though rather sorry to see the SLD go down with them. I forecast 3 SLD seats survive.
"Mr. Roger, landlords don't know what inflation (or their personal financial circumstances) will be over a three year period, so they'll make rents as high as they possibly can to mitigate risk, I'd guess."
There are many ways to rebalance the housing market. People buying up properties to let them more is more damaging to the housing market than people who have empty second homes.
It's a market that needs regulating. Its got completely out of hand. In the past when there was social housing it was regulated by supply and demand.
Now that the only controlled priced housing is housing association property which is about to be discontinued we're at the beginning of a crisis even bigger than the one we already have.
I would also not be surprised if in the last few days of the election Lord Ashcroft published a final batch of constituency polling. Especially in Hallam and South Thanet
This close to the election the candidates should be named.
That said. I've got a hunch that Lord Ashcroft's Q1 might turn out to be the most accurate poll.
Thanks TSE- I have meant to say before that you have been very good at coming back to my queries.
But, to ask another one, what is Ashcroft's Q1?
Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling is a two part question. Q2 is the figure he uses as his final figures for his polls.
Q1) If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, or another party? If ‘another party’: Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP), or some other party – or do you not know how you would vote?
Q2) And thinking specifically about your own parliamentary constituency at the next general election and the candidates who are likely to stand for election to Westminster there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency? [Prompts as at Q1]
Now, in some polls, there's a huge discrepancy between Q1 and Q2, it can't be all down to incumbency and well it could be say, Q2 is making more people to change their voting intention, than they should [Note I'm just a uneducated follower of polls, so I might be talking bollocks]
Have a look at the recent Lord A Con/LD polling, page 3, of this report to see the differences between Q1 and Q2.
We are not called the Peoples club for nothing. Labour has used the ground numerous times to hold conferences. The chairman funds the party. The ground is positioned in one of the strongets Labour seats in the country......yeah, apart from all that, Toffee Tories :-)
Is see Dave is back to the shirt sleeves up and no tie act again. GRRRRR Dave is up for it! ARF!
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
Cyclefree, There is no sign of hubris in Scotland. SNP are just very popular and getting more so every day. The constant insults and hysteria in the right wing press just increase this. When you see at weekend , huge crowds out to see Sturgeon and yet Murphy has about a dozen or two at best and Brown is limited to the faithful in the back room of a pub. It really does look like something unusual is happening.
Malcolm: thank you. Ms Sturgeon does seem to be a most impressive politician. If Labour are destroyed it will show the folly of taking your voters for granted. A lesson for all parties there.
Off topic: I hope you enjoyed Sandown yesterday. I had a most profitable afternoon.
Cyclefree, thanks bit mixed , kind of broke even , had all Nicholl's placed horses but stupidly missed his 14-1 winner.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
No 2 - there is no stopping the SNP or this election - they are replacing labour in Scotland and relegating labour to a role similar to the tories for years to come
The antipathy to Labour in Scotland is nowhere near as strong as it is to the Tories. I could easily foresee a Labour revival before too long. On the other hand the Tories remain as toxic as ever to most voters north of the border
I think Labour is now as strongly disliked North of the Border as the Tories are. I could see the Tories gradually rallying pro-Union voters behind them in the Borders, North East, and Edinburgh, in the future. I'm less sure where Labour could rebuild their support.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
David Ward is a despicable racist and a shame on the country and the Lib Dems.
The fact that Clegg hasn't expelled him yet is incredible.
Seventy-six trombones played the counter point. while one hundred and ten cornets played the air. they modestly took my place as the one and only bass as we oompa oompa up and down the square...................
I've just been trying to find that post I made, a few days before the indyref, when I predicted a narrow NO win followed (in time) by a Salmond resignation and a big sympathy vote for the SNP at the GE15.
I'm still searching, but in the interim I found this classic post from OGH.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
Cyclefree, There is no sign of hubris in Scotland. SNP are just very popular and getting more so every day. The constant insults and hysteria in the right wing press just increase this. When you see at weekend , huge crowds out to see Sturgeon and yet Murphy has about a dozen or two at best and Brown is limited to the faithful in the back room of a pub. It really does look like something unusual is happening.
Malcolm: thank you. Ms Sturgeon does seem to be a most impressive politician. If Labour are destroyed it will show the folly of taking your voters for granted. A lesson for all parties there.
Off topic: I hope you enjoyed Sandown yesterday. I had a most profitable afternoon.
Cyclefree, thanks bit mixed , kind of broke even , had all Nicholl's placed horses but stupidly missed his 14-1 winner.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Fair enough, if you have local knowledge. But I'm not willing to punt on those numbers. The differential is simply too vast, even on the constituency specific question. If he was within <10% of Labour, perhaps.
But the betting doesn't look too bad, if you share that view: 3/1 available on the LDs with PaddyPower or Betfair sportsbook.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Fair enough, if you have local knowledge. But I'm not willing to punt on those numbers. The differential is simply too vast, even on the constituency specific question. If he was within <10% of Labour, perhaps.
But the betting doesn't look too bad, if you share that view: 3/1 available on the LDs with PaddyPower or Betfair sportsbook.</p>
I'm on at much, much longer odds. Not tempted at 3-1 :-)
Suspect quite a few people have piled on, which is why it's not 8-1 any more
We are not called the Peoples club for nothing. Labour has used the ground numerous times to hold conferences. The chairman funds the party. The ground is positioned in one of the strongets Labour seats in the country......yeah, apart from all that, Toffee Tories :-)
Is see Dave is back to the shirt sleeves up and no tie act again. GRRRRR Dave is up for it! ARF!
On Everton -
And may I say your minutes silence before the start of the game today was a disgrace for the Bradford 56,the minutes silence was only for your former chairman.
When everton had the minutes silence for Mr carter, the ground announcer then mentioned the Bradford tragedy,it sounded like everton forgot about the tragedy and Quickly brought it up.
Why couldn't Everton mention the two in the minutes silence.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Why would you not want to pay for it, everybody may need to use it so not a bad thing. If you do not need to use it then you can count yourself very very lucky.
I would also not be surprised if in the last few days of the election Lord Ashcroft published a final batch of constituency polling. Especially in Hallam and South Thanet
TSE- are Ashcroft constituency polls worth much if he fails to name a candidate? I thought the whole point of providing a constituency poll was to get an depth local input- without naming a candidate Ashcroft's constituency polls are erratic at best, much like his national polls.
To be honest, I find Ashcroft's self publicising narcissism through bigging up his private polling one of the distractions of the campaign.
This close to the election the candidates should be named.
That said. I've got a hunch that Lord Ashcroft's Q1 might turn out to be the most accurate poll.
Thanks TSE- I have meant to say before that you have been very good at coming back to my queries.
But, to ask another one, what is Ashcroft's Q1?
Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling is a two part question. Q2 is the figure he uses as his final figures for his polls.
Q1) If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, or another party? If ‘another party’: Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP), or some other party – or do you not know how you would vote?
Q2) And thinking specifically about your own parliamentary constituency at the next general election and the candidates who are likely to stand for election to Westminster there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency? [Prompts as at Q1]
Now, in some polls, there's a huge discrepancy between Q1 and Q2, it can't be all down to incumbency and well it could be say, Q2 is making more people to change their voting intention, than they should [Note I'm just a uneducated follower of polls, so I might be talking bollocks]
Have a look at the recent Lord A Con/LD polling, page 3, of this report to see the differences between Q1 and Q2.
We are not called the Peoples club for nothing. Labour has used the ground numerous times to hold conferences. The chairman funds the party. The ground is positioned in one of the strongets Labour seats in the country......yeah, apart from all that, Toffee Tories :-)
Is see Dave is back to the shirt sleeves up and no tie act again. GRRRRR Dave is up for it! ARF!
On Everton -
And may I say your minutes silence before the start of the game today was a disgrace for the Bradford 56,the minutes silence was only for your former chairman.
When everton had the minutes silence for Mr carter, the ground announcer then mentioned the Bradford tragedy,it sounded like everton forgot about the tragedy and Quickly brought it up.
Why couldn't Everton mention the two in the minutes silence.
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Fair enough, if you have local knowledge. But I'm not willing to punt on those numbers. The differential is simply too vast, even on the constituency specific question. If he was within <10% of Labour, perhaps.
But the betting doesn't look too bad, if you share that view: 3/1 available on the LDs with PaddyPower or Betfair sportsbook.</p>
I'm on at much, much longer odds. Not tempted at 3-1 :-)
Suspect quite a few people have piled on, which is why it's not 8-1 any more
Ok, but don't understand how you can think 3/1 isn't value when you think it being a Labour gain is mistaken! Surely anything up to 6/4 should be value if you believe that?
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Fair enough, if you have local knowledge. But I'm not willing to punt on those numbers. The differential is simply too vast, even on the constituency specific question. If he was within <10% of Labour, perhaps.
But the betting doesn't look too bad, if you share that view: 3/1 available on the LDs with PaddyPower or Betfair sportsbook.</p>
I'm on at much, much longer odds. Not tempted at 3-1 :-)
Suspect quite a few people have piled on, which is why it's not 8-1 any more
Ok, but don't understand how you can think 3/1 isn't value when you think it being a Labour gain is mistaken! Surely anything up to 6/4 should be value if you believe that?
Good luck with your bet.
I hope I lose, I'm not a big David Ward fan.
I was slightly teasing with my "mistaken" line. But I think it'll be very close. Probably a narrow labour gain.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
Also, 100BC isn't really that bad. There were political ructions but Roman military power waxed until Commodus [about three centuries later] and there was more peace than war.
We are not called the Peoples club for nothing. Labour has used the ground numerous times to hold conferences. The chairman funds the party. The ground is positioned in one of the strongets Labour seats in the country......yeah, apart from all that, Toffee Tories :-)
Is see Dave is back to the shirt sleeves up and no tie act again. GRRRRR Dave is up for it! ARF!
I know that I am getting old because now not just one, but ALL the major party leaders are now younger than me.
Nonetheless I am appalled at the low sartorial standards of our PM, DPM and LoO in terms of tie abandonment. They should be before the headmaster for a caning! Farage, for all his many faults is at least well dressed...
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs.
Well, quite. That is what happens when you have rent controls. Respectable, law-abiding landlords are driven out of the market and crooks, prepared to use intimidation, take their place.
That sounds like a fun book, although I find the talk of any country lacking the "genetic" or "biological" gumption to have the industrial revolution a bit bizarre.
The developed economies of the world are going to take a diminishing share of world wealth. That is relative decline and is pretty much inevtitable.
Mr. Foxinsox, without asking how old you are, Lysimachus and Seleucus contested for mastery of the world when both men were in their 70s, and Antigonus Monopthalmus almost achieved a united Macedonian Empire in his 80s.
Thinking about this apparently odd decision by Miliband to reject the best chance he'll ever have to form a government as PM I wonder whether he knows something we don't.
Perhaps he really thinks he is heading for a majority without SNP involvement. Certainly the polls aren't suggesting that but if not it doesn't make sense.
That said, I would not be wholly surprised to find us with a Labour majority government.
Really? Even I had finally let go of that possibility - are you expecting them to do better than most predict in Scotland, or in England, or both?
I have no reason for my suspicion other than:-
1. The fact that Milliband seems to be performing better than expected. 2. Possible hubris in Scotland by the SNP so that Labour hold onto some seats. I know the polls show different. I just wonder whether some voters will not like being taken for granted, thought it's possible that others may decide to follow the SNP bandwagon. 3. Some in England voting for Labour in order to give them a majority because they don't like the idea of the SNP's involvement. Ironic - if the Tories' message leads to the opposite of what they intend. 4. People feeling that it's not too much of a problem letting Labour back in because the economy seems to be on the mend.
I don't expect a Labour majority. Just saying that I would not be as surprised as all that if it did just happen. This could end up being a 1992-style result but with Labour ending up with a small majority rather than the Tories.
Who knows? I'm guessing. I defer to more experienced posters here: OGH and Antifrank etc.
No 2 - there is no stopping the SNP or this election - they are replacing labour in Scotland and relegating labour to a role similar to the tories for years to come
The antipathy to Labour in Scotland is nowhere near as strong as it is to the Tories. I could easily foresee a Labour revival before too long. On the other hand the Tories remain as toxic as ever to most voters north of the border
The antipathy to the tories you talk about is not that much different to that for the LDs. There was only about 1% difference in 2010. FPTP works even less proportionately in small countries, assuming Scotland is voting as its own entity rather than UK wide. In 2010 the SNP got 20% and got 6 seats The LDs got 19% and got 11. Tories got just 53,000 votes less than the LDs and got 10 seats less.
Anecdote alert: Arty-type house guests down for the weekend. Live in Bristol West constituency. He is staying with Labour. His always-before-voted-Labour wife however - and their two first-time voter kids - will be voting Green.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
The rent is fixed and they can't get the tenant out. So no incentive for the landlord to do anything - as they aren't ever going to have the opportunity of trying to attract a new tenant at a high rental.
In fact it's in the landlord's interest for the property to deteriorate - to get the tenant to leave voluntarily.
All rent controls do is provide a huge windfall gain for whoever is already a tenant on the day the control comes in.
To be fair to Labour I'm not sure quite how it will work this time - it will depend on whether it only applies to new tenancies after the date the law changes or whether it also applies to existing tenancies.
Anecdote alert: Arty-type house guests down for the weekend. Live in Bristol West constituency. He is staying with Labour. His always-before-voted-Labour wife however - and their two first-time voter kids - will be voting Green.
FWIW....
Who answers the phone when the Noble lord rings? ;-)
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Clanricarde was a slum, because the tenants were paying such low rents that it wasn't economically worthwhile for the landlords to spent any money on the properties without making massive losses. Protected tenants were only paying a few quid for flats even in the early 90's
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
The rent is fixed and they can't get the tenant out. So no incentive for the landlord to do anything - as they aren't ever going to have the opportunity of trying to attract a new tenant at a high rental.
In fact it's in the landlord's interest for the property to deteriorate - to get the tenant to leave voluntarily.
All rent controls do is provide a huge windfall gain for whoever is already a tenant on the day the control comes in.
To be fair to Labour I'm not sure quite how it will work this time - it will depend on whether it only applies to new tenancies after the date the law changes or whether it also applies to existing tenancies.
''how it will work this time'' ? A triumph of optimism over experience displayed there. Labour = Politics of Envy. They have one policy and that's it.
Mr. Foxinsox, without asking how old you are, Lysimachus and Seleucus contested for mastery of the world when both men were in their 70s, and Antigonus Monopthalmus almost achieved a united Macedonian Empire in his 80s.
I bet they would wear ties with a suit though.
What next? Leaders campaigning in track suit bottoms? Lord preserve us from that horror!
That article is a bit rubbish, Rome continued to expand and prosper for centuries after 100BC, it's civil wars and the fall of the Roman Republic was a result of overstretch of the civil administration by the seer size of the empire and the ever expanding military.
Also the argument that genetics has a close correlation to aggressive foreign policy is without much merit, especially this part: "The First world war had an epigenetic effect in that mothers made anxious by the way gave birth to an unusually aggressive generation which was the main cause of the Second World War."
Hitler and Stalin were not born during the First World War, not even the vast majority of the nazis or fascists or communists or even everyone who lived by then. They were soldiers during the First World War, that caused them trauma, that expressed as a thirst for revenge against those who harmed them during the war.
"A speech given by Parry in 2006 at the Royal United Services Institute was reported by The Times after he said the migratory patterns that would emerge in the coming decade would resemble “the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”, as European nations experienced a process of “reverse colonisation”."
Have my S K Tremayne Antennae detected a new geopolitical meme?
The strange thing is the Goths and Vandals weren't very numerous, but the Western Empire was so hollowed out that they destroyed it. The government taxed too heavily, was corrupt, passed shrill and ineffectual edicts, and was riven with back-stabbing. Rich and poor were increasingly alienated from it.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
You might have missed the other bid of Miliband's proposal. Keep the property in a fit state, or lose the generous tax breaks we provide to landlords.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
The rent is fixed and they can't get the tenant out. So no incentive for the landlord to do anything - as they aren't ever going to have the opportunity of trying to attract a new tenant at a high rental.
In fact it's in the landlord's interest for the property to deteriorate - to get the tenant to leave voluntarily.
All rent controls do is provide a huge windfall gain for whoever is already a tenant on the day the control comes in.
To be fair to Labour I'm not sure quite how it will work this time - it will depend on whether it only applies to new tenancies after the date the law changes or whether it also applies to existing tenancies.
They provide a huge windfall gain for the more brutal and unscrupulous type of landlord.
Can someone please explain to me the above odds. I have checked the odds for PM after the GE and Ed Miliband is still favourite @ 4/7. So why is Nick Clegg more likely to be DPM than Harriet Harman according to the bookies ?
Is it because the bookies are taking the totality of the probabilities [ i.e. Miliband or Cameron could form a government ] into account and if Cameron forms a government then it is almost certain that Clegg will be DPM unless, of course, he loses. Also , there must be some probability that Labour / LD could have a coalition and, under that circumstance, Clegg could be DPM.
"A speech given by Parry in 2006 at the Royal United Services Institute was reported by The Times after he said the migratory patterns that would emerge in the coming decade would resemble “the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”, as European nations experienced a process of “reverse colonisation”."
Have my S K Tremayne Antennae detected a new geopolitical meme?
The strange thing is the Goths and Vandals weren't very numerous, but the Western Empire was so hollowed out that they destroyed it. The government taxed too heavily, was corrupt, passed shrill and ineffectual edicts, and was riven with back-stabbing. Rich and poor were increasingly alienated from it.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
The rent is fixed and they can't get the tenant out. So no incentive for the landlord to do anything - as they aren't ever going to have the opportunity of trying to attract a new tenant at a high rental.
In fact it's in the landlord's interest for the property to deteriorate - to get the tenant to leave voluntarily.
All rent controls do is provide a huge windfall gain for whoever is already a tenant on the day the control comes in.
To be fair to Labour I'm not sure quite how it will work this time - it will depend on whether it only applies to new tenancies after the date the law changes or whether it also applies to existing tenancies.
''how it will work this time'' ? A triumph of optimism over experience displayed there. Labour = Politics of Envy. They have one policy and that's it.
I know lots of people just post on here for a bit of knockabout banter but I prefer to stick to what's actually going to happen.
When Labour first announced the policy a while back I think they specifically stated new tenancies but I haven't seen that confirmed since.
Incidentally there's been a lot posted on here in the last 24 hours about solicitors having to draw up Deeds etc - this is all complete nonsense - Labour isn't proposing 3 year agreements in the sense that the tenant has to stay 3 years - the tenant will just have the RIGHT to stay 3 years at fixed rent - tenant can walk out whenever they want during the term.
Mr. F, endemic regicide also had an inflationary aspect, because the army was bribed (given a donative) every time there was a new emperor, which provided a massive incentive for rebellion as well as creating huge inflation.
It's tantalising to think what would have happened if Augustus had set up a proper legal, rather than might is right, foundation for the purple, if Marcus Aurelius hadn't moronically named Commodus his heir, or if Aurelian hadn't been assassinated.
Anecdote alert: Arty-type house guests down for the weekend. Live in Bristol West constituency. He is staying with Labour. His always-before-voted-Labour wife however - and their two first-time voter kids - will be voting Green.
FWIW....
Well the Greens must take that 25% in Bristol West from somewhere.
Ashcroft showed Labour 22% ahead of the Lib Dems last year, at 45% to 23%, with an 11.5% LD-Lab swing.
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
I don't think anyone who's voting for David Ward will be voting for him as a Liberal Democrat. His biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the LibDems.
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Why would you not want to pay for it, everybody may need to use it so not a bad thing. If you do not need to use it then you can count yourself very very lucky.
Its not a popular view but I'd like to see a nominal charge (say £10) for going to A&E when its not remotely an emergency.
A&E should be kept clear for those who have a genuine accident or emergency and too often its used by people for the most basic treatments that could be solved by home treatments, going to a chemist or seeing your GP.
The NHS should be free to use, but not free to abuse. Keep it for those who need it.
Just my two penn'orth, but I think the Tories missed a trick by not committing to scrap the buy-to-let tax break. As long as the % of private renters continues to rise, the party is doomed to decline in London, and elsewhere in time.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Why would you not want to pay for it, everybody may need to use it so not a bad thing. If you do not need to use it then you can count yourself very very lucky.
Its not a popular view but I'd like to see a nominal charge (say £10) for going to A&E when its not remotely an emergency.
A&E should be kept clear for those who have a genuine accident or emergency and too often its used by people for the most basic treatments that could be solved by home treatments, going to a chemist or seeing your GP.
The NHS should be free to use, but not free to abuse. Keep it for those who need it.
I would be tempted to consider that option, were it not for the fact that the overhead on A&E wards would vastly outweigh the amount recouped.
The Sunil on Sunday is proud to present his ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls, total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow within the next hour (sorry for the delay, spent the afternoon on the Epping Ongar Railway - 150th anniversary this weekend).
One slight problem with PB is how limited its posters are in terms of experiences of the modern world. Renting in London is one of them.
Fact is the argument that people will put the rent up at the start of a 3 year period is not a good one. The people for whom this is aimed at won't be bothered. The fact is they have a fixed rent for 3 years.
What people really want to avoid is being evicted with a months notice.
Rent controls is classic Ed. He identifies a real problem, and one that affects a significant number of people, but he fails to suggest a credible solution. Hopefully, it will push Coalition 2.0 to do something about it. One thing that will not push rents down, of course, is forcing housing associations to sell off their stock. Like a significant percentage of ex-council homes - especially in London - many will just end up being rented out by new owners.
Mr. F, endemic regicide also had an inflationary aspect, because the army was bribed (given a donative) every time there was a new emperor, which provided a massive incentive for rebellion as well as creating huge inflation.
It's tantalising to think what would have happened if Augustus had set up a proper legal, rather than might is right, foundation for the purple, if Marcus Aurelius hadn't moronically named Commodus his heir, or if Aurelian hadn't been assassinated.
The Romans never worked out a good theory of succession.
"A speech given by Parry in 2006 at the Royal United Services Institute was reported by The Times after he said the migratory patterns that would emerge in the coming decade would resemble “the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”, as European nations experienced a process of “reverse colonisation”."
Have my S K Tremayne Antennae detected a new geopolitical meme?
The strange thing is the Goths and Vandals weren't very numerous, but the Western Empire was so hollowed out that they destroyed it. The government taxed too heavily, was corrupt, passed shrill and ineffectual edicts, and was riven with back-stabbing. Rich and poor were increasingly alienated from it.
One slight problem with PB is how limited its posters are in terms of experiences of the modern world. Renting in London is one of them.
Fact is the argument that people will put the rent up at the start of a 3 year period is not a good one. The people for whom this is aimed at won't be bothered. The fact is they have a fixed rent for 3 years.
What people really want to avoid is being evicted with a months notice.
Every. Single. Year.
You can secure a tenancy without a rent control provision. Indeed I would support strengthening that sort of tenant's provision.
In London at least people won't realistically give you longer than a year - because they gamble on the market having inflated massively in the 11 months since you sign.
So after 11 they kick you out - with no chance of really agreeing - and then put people in a blind auction bid. Repeat again in 11 months time.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Why would you not want to pay for it, everybody may need to use it so not a bad thing. If you do not need to use it then you can count yourself very very lucky.
Its not a popular view but I'd like to see a nominal charge (say £10) for going to A&E when its not remotely an emergency.
A&E should be kept clear for those who have a genuine accident or emergency and too often its used by people for the most basic treatments that could be solved by home treatments, going to a chemist or seeing your GP.
The NHS should be free to use, but not free to abuse. Keep it for those who need it.
Interestingly...every Guardian readers utopia Sweden, makes all sorts of "minimal" charges for healthcare for exactly those reasons
e.g. You won’t pay less than 15 euros to see a doctor in Sweden. Admittedly, the amounts raised by this method are small relative to health spending as a whole, but it does help defray the costs a little.
Perhaps more significantly, it brings about behavioural changes that limit demand, with no discernible impact on standards of health.
Isn't the prospect of free NHS prescriptions,free care of the elderly,a free public health system and a free public education not really as scary as the Tories make out?
None of it's 'free' though is it - the taxpayer ie most of us pay for it.
Why would you not want to pay for it, everybody may need to use it so not a bad thing. If you do not need to use it then you can count yourself very very lucky.
Its not a popular view but I'd like to see a nominal charge (say £10) for going to A&E when its not remotely an emergency.
A&E should be kept clear for those who have a genuine accident or emergency and too often its used by people for the most basic treatments that could be solved by home treatments, going to a chemist or seeing your GP.
The NHS should be free to use, but not free to abuse. Keep it for those who need it.
I would be tempted to consider that option, were it not for the fact that the overhead on A&E wards would vastly outweigh the amount recouped.
The logic to suggest it isn't to recoup money, but simply to get people to think twice before going to A&E. The NHS has posters everywhere saying to think twice before going to A&E and saving it for those in critical need - but that's just not done.
Last year we had an emergency during my wife's pregnancy after she had a fall and could no longer feel the baby kick. We called and were told to go straight to A&E. Thankfully everything was OK and our daughter is wonderful and healthy now, but while we were there (for a few hours) it was shocking to see how few real emergencies were there. Almost everything I thought should have been a case for seeing a GP - if that.
The Sunil on Sunday is proud to present his ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls, total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow within the next hour (sorry for the delay, spent the afternoon on the Epping Ongar Railway - 150th anniversary this weekend).
My impression was that the Labour lead with Yougov had increased, as had the Conservative lead with non-Yougov.
Mr. F, they never stuck to one but the Golden Age provides the template: adoptive succession. From Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who was overrated and grossly cocked up by letting his incestuous maniac son Commodus be his heir) the Empire went from strength to strength.
It's not quite the same, but some of the Danubian emperors had a somewhat similar approach (damned shame the Gothic Claudius also died so soon, and after just a year or so as emperor).
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
You might have missed the other bid of Miliband's proposal. Keep the property in a fit state, or lose the generous tax breaks we provide to landlords.
That sounds really stupid. Who will judge whether the property is in fit state? How much will inspections to assess/appeals processes cost vs the tax breaks removed. And what are the tax breaks that will be removed? You won't be able to deny real expenses. That leaves, IIRC, a 10% automatic write off for wear and tear. On GBP 2000pcm, that would be GBP 2,400 per annum that would be removed as an allowance. At 40% marginal tax rate, that is a whopping 960 pounds the government will claw back in tax breaks. Can't imagine the policing and judgement costs will come in below that.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
You might have missed the other bid of Miliband's proposal. Keep the property in a fit state, or lose the generous tax breaks we provide to landlords.
That sounds really stupid. Who will judge whether the property is in fit state? How much will inspections to assess/appeals processes cost vs the tax breaks removed. And what are the tax breaks that will be removed? You won't be able to deny real expenses. That leaves, IIRC, a 10% automatic write off for wear and tear. On GBP 2000pcm, that would be GBP 2,400 per annum that would be removed as an allowance. At 40% marginal tax rate, that is a whopping 960 pounds the government will claw back in tax breaks. Can't imagine the policing and judgement costs will come in below that.
It classic Miliband. Identify problem, deploy failed and unworkable / counterproductive policy.
We still haven't worked out who the hell if going to determine if a propety is worth £2 million for the mansion tax and how much that will cost to survey them all. Will there be an appeals process? What if I let my house fall into disrepair or paint it bright pink and lower its value? What if I knock through 2 bedrooms and make it a 3 bed, rather than 4 bed....
Just my two penn'orth, but I think the Tories missed a trick by not committing to scrap the buy-to-let tax break. As long as the % of private renters continues to rise, the party is doomed to decline in London, and elsewhere in time.
What buy to let tax break? I guess you are talking about interest on loans which is a perfectly acceptable business expense in all other sectors...
Labour isn't proposing 3 year agreements in the sense that the tenant has to stay 3 years - the tenant will just have the RIGHT to stay 3 years at fixed rent - tenant can walk out whenever they want during the term.
Only if the agreement contains a break clause. Otherwise the tenant is liable to pay the rent for the full 3 years and the landlord is under no duty to try and relet. They did have a right for the tenant to leave on one or two months' notice in the 1980 Act and if 3 year terms become the norm this ought to be reintroduced.
In London at least people won't realistically give you longer than a year - because they gamble on the market having inflated massively in the 11 months since you sign.
So after 11 they kick you out - with no chance of really agreeing - and then put people in a blind auction bid. Repeat again in 11 months time.
I am a renter in (East) London.
Under the current law I am pretty much limited to a year, I have little right to stay beyond that and if I do I am sure to be asked to pay a substantial increase because they know I want to stay. It would not be difficult however (as we had before) to force a landlord to allow a sitting tenant to remain in possession of the property. Either ensure the tenant and landlord agree an uplift in advance or do a rent review near the end of the term.
Just my two penn'orth, but I think the Tories missed a trick by not committing to scrap the buy-to-let tax break. As long as the % of private renters continues to rise, the party is doomed to decline in London, and elsewhere in time.
What buy to let tax break? I guess you are talking about interest on loans which is a perfectly acceptable business expense in all other sectors...
It's the fact that said tax break isn't available to owner-occupiers. It should be available to both or neither, but as the Treasury can't afford the former, it would be better to scrap it altogether.
Just my two penn'orth, but I think the Tories missed a trick by not committing to scrap the buy-to-let tax break. As long as the % of private renters continues to rise, the party is doomed to decline in London, and elsewhere in time.
What buy to let tax break? I guess you are talking about interest on loans which is a perfectly acceptable business expense in all other sectors...
And the rest.
Most other sectors to which the comparison could be made are based on producing or discovering more of something of value, not on running at a small loss (if not now, certainly with interest rates at 'normal' levels) which is recouped at some future date thanks to the rising capital value of plant.
If I walked into a bank and said I was planning to buy a widget factory, and sell the widgets at a small loss, but that it would be OK in the long run because the value of the factory itself would go up, I'd get laughed out of town.
Whats wrong with this solution? Seems like a good one to me.
Strike your rent and fix it for 3 years.
It looks like a recipe for increased rents at the front end to me. I could be wrong though. This is not my area at all, as I have not rented for nearly 30 years and don't rent anything out. But it strikes me that if you limit a sellers' on-going opportunities to make money, it will seek to mitigate that by making its product more expensive at the start - especially if its product is in demand.
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Rent controls restrict the supply of property onto the rental market.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
The other thing is that they provide no incentive for the landlord to keep the property in good condition.
You might have missed the other bid of Miliband's proposal. Keep the property in a fit state, or lose the generous tax breaks we provide to landlords.
That sounds really stupid. Who will judge whether the property is in fit state? How much will inspections to assess/appeals processes cost vs the tax breaks removed. And what are the tax breaks that will be removed? You won't be able to deny real expenses. That leaves, IIRC, a 10% automatic write off for wear and tear. On GBP 2000pcm, that would be GBP 2,400 per annum that would be removed as an allowance. At 40% marginal tax rate, that is a whopping 960 pounds the government will claw back in tax breaks. Can't imagine the policing and judgement costs will come in below that.
Part of the intent of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was, as I recall, to ensure that properties were maintained properly, enforceable between landlord and tenant. That's clearly the way to go if we think tenants are being hard done by in that particular respect (I'm not so sure).
Two 2010 Labour voters in my household left the country today and will not return before the election. Neither could be bothered to mark the Ed box this time.
Comments
I think the final nail in the 3 "mainstream parties" coffins is the ham fisted attempts at encouraging tactical voting, now that in my book is when the parties are starting to take their supporters for granted and use them as lobby fodder.
The Tories pre-occupation with the prospect of a Labour/SNP pact, surely can't be the only thing they're focusing on.
That being said, I think you need to look at the nature of the Q1->Q2 shift. So, in Cambridge a chunk of the change is that 5% of Conservative voters decide to go with Huppert. That looks like those 5% are Tories tactically voting LibDem to keep the Labour Party out.
I find the shifts in Cornwall more suspicious. I can see why Labour would go from 14% to 11% in Torbay, or from 14% to 10% in St Ives for example. But I'm a bit more surprised about both the Conservative and UKIP scores dropping in North Cornwall.
Polls are illegal in france I think the 3 days before a vote. Personally I see no ethical issue as the British electorate at times is hardly smart enough to even know their own MPs voting record most of the time.
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
According to Ashcroft, she's ten points adrift of the SNP, but with some potential to squeeze the Labour and Conservative votes.
I'd make her an 8-1 shot.
I can see why there may well be shy unionists out there now. There were in September. I will not cry at seeing SLAB decimated though rather sorry to see the SLD go down with them. I forecast 3 SLD seats survive.
(Hello, by the way. Used to work for the Tories in a Con/Lib marginal, and help out when I can in a Con/Lab marginal now.)
"Mr. Roger, landlords don't know what inflation (or their personal financial circumstances) will be over a three year period, so they'll make rents as high as they possibly can to mitigate risk, I'd guess."
There are many ways to rebalance the housing market. People buying up properties to let them more is more damaging to the housing market than people who have empty second homes.
It's a market that needs regulating. Its got completely out of hand. In the past when there was social housing it was regulated by supply and demand.
Now that the only controlled priced housing is housing association property which is about to be discontinued we're at the beginning of a crisis even bigger than the one we already have.
We've created a nation of Rachmans
Sol Campbell: ‘Are most footballers Tories? Hahaha! Probably’
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/26/sol-campbell-are-most-footballers-tories-probably
I'm really not sure how the Lib Dems will hold that.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. 2310.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/26/labour-housing-shadow-promised-no-rent-controls-just-last-month/#_@/SO4vOLl0ev-Kfg
Is see Dave is back to the shirt sleeves up and no tie act again. GRRRRR Dave is up for it! ARF!
He's an independent in a yellow rosette, and the LibDems in the constituency are *very* confident he'll hold it.
The fact that Clegg hasn't expelled him yet is incredible.
while one hundred and ten cornets played the air.
they modestly took my place as the one and only bass
as we oompa oompa up and down the square...................
I just felt like singing for some reason.
But the betting doesn't look too bad, if you share that view: 3/1 available on the LDs with PaddyPower or Betfair sportsbook.
Suspect quite a few people have piled on, which is why it's not 8-1 any more
And may I say your minutes silence before the start of the game today was a disgrace for the Bradford 56,the minutes silence was only for your former chairman.
When everton had the minutes silence for Mr carter, the ground announcer then mentioned the Bradford tragedy,it sounded like everton forgot about the tragedy and Quickly brought it up.
Why couldn't Everton mention the two in the minutes silence.
Did you notice it..
Good luck with your bet.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
I was slightly teasing with my "mistaken" line. But I think it'll be very close. Probably a narrow labour gain.
Their long-term effect is to make the problem worse.
Also, 100BC isn't really that bad. There were political ructions but Roman military power waxed until Commodus [about three centuries later] and there was more peace than war.
Nonetheless I am appalled at the low sartorial standards of our PM, DPM and LoO in terms of tie abandonment. They should be before the headmaster for a caning! Farage, for all his many faults is at least well dressed...
I suspect that casual anti Semitism is common place amongst some muslim groups.
The developed economies of the world are going to take a diminishing share of world wealth. That is relative decline and is pretty much inevtitable.
FPTP works even less proportionately in small countries, assuming Scotland is voting as its own entity rather than UK wide. In 2010 the SNP got 20% and got 6 seats The LDs got 19% and got 11. Tories got just 53,000 votes less than the LDs and got 10 seats less.
FWIW....
The rent is fixed and they can't get the tenant out. So no incentive for the landlord to do anything - as they aren't ever going to have the opportunity of trying to attract a new tenant at a high rental.
In fact it's in the landlord's interest for the property to deteriorate - to get the tenant to leave voluntarily.
All rent controls do is provide a huge windfall gain for whoever is already a tenant on the day the control comes in.
To be fair to Labour I'm not sure quite how it will work this time - it will depend on whether it only applies to new tenancies after the date the law changes or whether it also applies to existing tenancies.
A triumph of optimism over experience displayed there.
Labour = Politics of Envy. They have one policy and that's it.
What next? Leaders campaigning in track suit bottoms? Lord preserve us from that horror!
Also the argument that genetics has a close correlation to aggressive foreign policy is without much merit, especially this part:
"The First world war had an epigenetic effect in that mothers made anxious by the way gave birth to an unusually aggressive generation which was the main cause of the Second World War."
Hitler and Stalin were not born during the First World War, not even the vast majority of the nazis or fascists or communists or even everyone who lived by then. They were soldiers during the First World War, that caused them trauma, that expressed as a thirst for revenge against those who harmed them during the war.
Is it because the bookies are taking the totality of the probabilities [ i.e. Miliband or Cameron could form a government ] into account and if Cameron forms a government then it is almost certain that Clegg will be DPM unless, of course, he loses. Also , there must be some probability that Labour / LD could have a coalition and, under that circumstance, Clegg could be DPM.
When Labour first announced the policy a while back I think they specifically stated new tenancies but I haven't seen that confirmed since.
Incidentally there's been a lot posted on here in the last 24 hours about solicitors having to draw up Deeds etc - this is all complete nonsense - Labour isn't proposing 3 year agreements in the sense that the tenant has to stay 3 years - the tenant will just have the RIGHT to stay 3 years at fixed rent - tenant can walk out whenever they want during the term.
It's tantalising to think what would have happened if Augustus had set up a proper legal, rather than might is right, foundation for the purple, if Marcus Aurelius hadn't moronically named Commodus his heir, or if Aurelian hadn't been assassinated.
A&E should be kept clear for those who have a genuine accident or emergency and too often its used by people for the most basic treatments that could be solved by home treatments, going to a chemist or seeing your GP.
The NHS should be free to use, but not free to abuse. Keep it for those who need it.
The Sunil on Sunday is proud to present his ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls, total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4)
Con 33.1 (-0.5)
UKIP 13.8 (+0.3)
LD 8.2 (+0.2)
Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3)
Con 33.0 (-0.2)
UKIP 13.2 (-0.3)
LD 7.8 (-0.1)
Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9)
Lab 32.6 (-0.6)
UKIP 14.6 (1.0)
LD 8.7 (+0.5)
Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow within the next hour (sorry for the delay, spent the afternoon on the Epping Ongar Railway - 150th anniversary this weekend).
Fact is the argument that people will put the rent up at the start of a 3 year period is not a good one. The people for whom this is aimed at won't be bothered. The fact is they have a fixed rent for 3 years.
What people really want to avoid is being evicted with a months notice.
Every. Single. Year.
Whats wrong with this solution? Seems like a good one to me.
Strike your rent and fix it for 3 years.
In London at least people won't realistically give you longer than a year - because they gamble on the market having inflated massively in the 11 months since you sign.
So after 11 they kick you out - with no chance of really agreeing - and then put people in a blind auction bid. Repeat again in 11 months time.
e.g. You won’t pay less than 15 euros to see a doctor in Sweden. Admittedly, the amounts raised by this method are small relative to health spending as a whole, but it does help defray the costs a little.
Perhaps more significantly, it brings about behavioural changes that limit demand, with no discernible impact on standards of health.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/8539423/Look-even-Sweden-charges-for-healthcare.html
Same for prescriptions, same for staying in hospitals, etc etc etc. All nudge economics.
Last year we had an emergency during my wife's pregnancy after she had a fall and could no longer feel the baby kick. We called and were told to go straight to A&E. Thankfully everything was OK and our daughter is wonderful and healthy now, but while we were there (for a few hours) it was shocking to see how few real emergencies were there. Almost everything I thought should have been a case for seeing a GP - if that.
It's not quite the same, but some of the Danubian emperors had a somewhat similar approach (damned shame the Gothic Claudius also died so soon, and after just a year or so as emperor).
We still haven't worked out who the hell if going to determine if a propety is worth £2 million for the mansion tax and how much that will cost to survey them all. Will there be an appeals process? What if I let my house fall into disrepair or paint it bright pink and lower its value? What if I knock through 2 bedrooms and make it a 3 bed, rather than 4 bed....
Only if the agreement contains a break clause. Otherwise the tenant is liable to pay the rent for the full 3 years and the landlord is under no duty to try and relet.
They did have a right for the tenant to leave on one or two months' notice in the 1980 Act and if 3 year terms become the norm this ought to be reintroduced.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/592406606698143745
Under the current law I am pretty much limited to a year, I have little right to stay beyond that and if I do I am sure to be asked to pay a substantial increase because they know I want to stay. It would not be difficult however (as we had before) to force a landlord to allow a sitting tenant to remain in possession of the property. Either ensure the tenant and landlord agree an uplift in advance or do a rent review near the end of the term.
That's quite different to rent control.
Most other sectors to which the comparison could be made are based on producing or discovering more of something of value, not on running at a small loss (if not now, certainly with interest rates at 'normal' levels) which is recouped at some future date thanks to the rising capital value of plant.
If I walked into a bank and said I was planning to buy a widget factory, and sell the widgets at a small loss, but that it would be OK in the long run because the value of the factory itself would go up, I'd get laughed out of town.
Two 2010 Labour voters in my household left the country today and will not return before the election. Neither could be bothered to mark the Ed box this time.