Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Post election “how did you vote” poll finds it was the oldi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Post election “how did you vote” poll finds it was the oldies and men what won it for Dave
Post election poll by GQR, LAB's pollster, for the TUC pic.twitter.com/UmlhhEVVt5
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Two in a row.
This cannot just be down to the SNP. Perhaps, just perhaps, more people thought the Conservatives offer was better than Labour's?
poor tim. always wrong, never learnt.
Look at the policy choices tab and in particular 'Type of Change' and 'Reducing Inequality' - big leads for the more Tory type positions.
Ed 'smash the system' and 'tax the rich' Miliband was fighting a loosing battle.
Con lead vs Lab:
AB: +18
C1: +10
C2: +6
DE: -12
SNP support also highest among DE......
AB: 3
C1: 5
C2: 6
DE: 8
Edit
UKIP Support also shows a marked skew:
AB: 9
C1: 10
C2: 16
DE: 19
"Not surprising" you might say. True, perhaps, but this work allows bans to be put in place with some sound, scientific backing. The most interesting finding was that the lowest achieving quartile benefitted the most, while the top quartile was [statistically] unaffected by the ban.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/21/kids_without_mobes_in_school_do_better
Though we're now well past peak Kipper. The referendum happening is shooting their fox, plus now they're not the sole protest party of opposition anymore. I'd be amazed if UKIP don't poll less votes in 2020 than 2015.
The main protest party being in government, the BNP totally collapsing, the opposition refusing an EU referendum ... 2015 was a perfect storm for UKIP and they failed to capitalise.
England: +15
Scotland: -14
Direction of Economy - net 'improving':
England: +38
Scotland: -12
The latest increases in unemployment in Scotland suggest that Scots are right to be worried about the mess the SNP are making of governing. Especially since the unemployment rate used to be lower in Scotland than England but is now the reverse.,
The Tories have a long term problem with home ownership, IMHO. Unless they ramp this up for the under 35s now, they could have a big problem in 20 years time.
Not everyone will inherit a nice big pad, or be happy to wait for it.
The old rules were just makework for lawyers and tax accountants which benefited the richest at the expense of the slightly less rich.
But, if I'm honest, I'm increasingly sceptical of the government's (any government's) ability to control immigration. It seems that no matter what they do they don't seem able to meaningfully affect the numbers.
And there is likely to be an oilfield strike...
I have so far found only five of the ousted Lib Dem MPs who have unambiguously stated publicly that they are going to remain active in politics. I expect this number will rise in due course. But unless these numbers rise sharply, the Lib Dems are looking to lose a lot of incumbency-related votes before they even get started in 2020.
If he gets only one significant concession, this will be it.
That the unemployment rate is also higher is one of those mysteries of the universe.
Tim Montgomerie.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4446501.ece
Non-EU numbers in particular need a lot of breaking down. It would be good to see country of origin, education and skills levels, social class, even job titles of these.
If the economy will supported and grown by certain types of immigrants then these numbers need to be excluded from targets - for example I don't care how many 40% tax payers or holders of higher degrees come here - they will undoubtedly add more vale to the country than they take away. Ditto those coming on investor visas.
Why we should be importing any unskilled labourers, taxi drivers and the like is open to debate, this the the immigration we need to control while there are a couple of million of our own unemployed.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4439703.ece
It seems to be he's just frit he's not been admitted to the inner circle, so is throwing his toys out of the pram over anything and everything.
I suspect that at heart he's quite upset the Tories won because it's invalidated much of his commentary over recent years.
This could prove pretty costly - aren't there still many more court claims pending?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32825751
It's all about ego with Tim.
He complained during the election campaign that the Tories we're going to win the wrong way.
I personally think that some of the Tory Right should have a quiet word with Tim.
He genuinely thinks IDS would have won the 2005 election had the Tories kept him in charge.
It's only the Ashes next month, nothing to worry about.
So are the tories on immigration,remember when labour were in power and the tories criticism of them.
At least the humiliation today is for Cameron and his useless pledge of getting immigration down to tens of thousands - laughable.
UKIP proved right again.
What Mr Tim wants is his ego in charge - and his carping just appears very bitter and spoiled childlike. He may have some quite good points, but they're lost in the personal bilge about everyone he disapproves of.
When a commentator is handed a bully-pulpit of Comment Editor as he has in The Times, I think it's a poor decision by the Managing Ed.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b17335c-fd54-11e4-9e96-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3aVwCWbMX
Chris Giles overstates his case - it is possible to push harder without gratuitously insulting everyone you're negotiating with. And I think he underestimates the willingness in practice to keep Britain in the EU - losing Britain would be a hammer blow to the EU's credibility. But there are certainly points in here that the British government should be mindful of:
"After the financial crisis, everyone knew the dangers of financial contagion. And, in capitals as far apart as Madrid and Dublin, moderates today see political contagion as just as dangerous as the financial kind. EU concessions to extremes in one country simply encourage the ejection of centrist governments in others. This fear of moral hazard has motivated Spain’s hardline stance in talks with Greece, and it appears to be working. The popularity of Podemos, the Spanish leftwing populists until recently riding high in the polls, is sinking fast.
The French stance towards Britain’s EU renegotiation will follow the same script. Granting the UK additional domestic rights without corresponding obligations looks like a terrible deal in Paris, where the mainstream left and right are facing a difficult battle against the anti-EU National Front in the run-up to the 2017 presidential election."
"No one wants Britain to leave; but the alternative of British membership of the club without playing by the rules is worse."
A deal needs to look like a deal.
Incidentally some wise words from Osborne:
Osborne went on to warn against rushing to judgment on how the reform talks with other European countries are advancing, predicting intense media scrutiny of the process.
"I'd advise everyone to take all this coverage with a large pinch of salt. The real negotiations will be carried out at the highest level and in private," he added.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2015/5/21/osborne-warns-that-eu-is-sleepwalking-out-of-global-economy
Yes, one may disagree with his policies but he can show the UKIP MEPs and many MPs of all parties how they should behave when it comes to public money.
Martin Bell has praised Carswell with regard to the MPs expenses scandal.
“It has never been clearer that the UK borders are open to all whenever, wherever and however they want to come. The government has lost all control. The ONS report that 285,000 people came to work in the UK work last year. That is a city the size of Nottingham, which has nearly a 100 schools, 60 GP surgeries and several hospitals. Britain needs to provide the equivalent just to keep up with the workers arriving and this illustrates clearly the strain mass migration is putting on our public services.
If they don't want the UK to leave, they need to offer something serious on migration IMHO.
Had to google the word 'Tortfeasor' but quite agree Mr LiMT, the figures are quite ridiculous.
Martin Bell has praised Carswell with regard to the MPs expenses scandal.
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap! Carswell is a liability that UKIP cannot afford. If he want's to appear godlike he should join the church.
Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn
PM said "I don't know what planet you're on" when I asked for proof that welfare blocks will lessen EU migration. Yet proof there came none
Someone must be rattled when you have a go at the newspaper that helped you win the Election.
That's it.
It'll smile and nod and make the right noises, but the Brussels express only chugs in one direction.
We should leave and the vile organisation ought to be dismantled. It will end, and I'm reasonably confident it'll do so in my lifetime. That can be an orderly, agreed process or a chaotic disintegration leading to widespread civil strife and possible even warfare.
There are - as I've pointed out - four fundamental "states" a country can be in:
1. In the Eurozone
2. In the EU, but not in the Eurozone
3. In EFTA/the EEA, but not in the EU
4. Having our own trade treaties with the EU/EFTA
(2) is the most troubled, because the EU was built on the foundation of "ever closer union". Speaking of "two speed" misses the point, because it assumes all are heading in the same direction. I think there is a very real possibility that (2) should be eliminated, or merged into (3) and called something like "associate EU member".
The Eurozone - whether it lives or dies in the long-run - is probably going to integrate further in the medium term. Eurobonds of some description will come into being. There will be more EU oversight of individual countries' budgets. And so on, and so forth.
These things clearly do not apply to those members of the EU who are not members of the Eurozone and who are extremely unlikely to join. (We'll start with the UK, Sweden and Denmark.)
What would Associate EU member look like?
1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU
2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP
3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model
4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP)
5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
Martin Bell has praised Carswell with regard to the MPs expenses scandal.
Alternatively, Carswell is a prat whose declining of the Short money means less effective representation of the views of those who voted Ukip across the country. But I suppose most defectors have more than their fair share of egotism.
Well, it's Monaco. So, nyoom is probably more accurate
The same goes for the desperate people trying to cross the Mediterranean in boats. Their countries need to be stable, and persecution and war-zone free.
For as long as the UK remains in the EU with that in place, it will act as a migration pressure valve for up to 500m people throughout the rest of the Union whenever it is experiencing economic problems. I expect this to happen regularly and be exacerbated by the fact that we'll almost always be economically out of step with the eurozone.
It's particularly perverse when those in this country most in favour of localising power through devolution tend to be those keenest on giving away power to a foreign entity.
Edit: by which I mean variable controls and limits on absolute immigration numbers subject to the democratic process
Otherwise, at some point, the democratic elastic is going to snap in a very ugly way.
Ministers are looking at ideas to allow state-funding for political parties. Ukip well positioned to lead campaign against
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 58s58 seconds ago
@DouglasCarswell @ukipwebmaster I agree about state-funding for political parties.
but UKIP still needs funds that you r denying the party.
Arf. You want rid of UKIP's sole, one and only, singular, MP?
Agree with that last statement. As for the rest:
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap! Carswell is a liability that UKIP cannot afford. If he want's to appear godlike he should join the church.