Under the chairmanship of Prof. Patrick Sturgis, Director of the National Centre for Research Methods at the University of Southampton, the Inquiry is charged with the task of establishing the degree of inaccuracy in the polls, the reasons for the inaccuracies it identifies, and whether the findings and conduct of the polls were adequately communicated to the general public.
Comments
Backbenchers' pay will increase from £54,000 to £64,000 in May 2016, under a proposal that is meant to take account of further devolution.
The 18.5% pay rise was confirmed on Friday by the body which sets AMs' pay and allowances.
The increase, first proposed six months ago, will cost taxpayers about £700,000 more next year.
The pay rise has been criticised by trade unions and all parties.
First Minister Carwyn Jones previously said he could not see how Labour could support the increase.
His salary will rise to £140,000, while his cabinet members will receive £100,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32829015
People who are responsible for such large failures in health, education and the economy should receive a pay cu - not a rise.
Were they getting this much compared other demographics before the election or were these the people who swung at the last minute?
Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.
Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.
It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.
All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.
Also good to hear of the academics' inquest into the polling. Will be fascinating to read when published and I'm sure a great project for a few lucky postgrad students next year.
For example, the tables show women aged 25-34 swinging TO the Conservatives by one point, yet men of the same age group, as well as women 18-24 and women 35-54, were swinging in the opposite direction by substantial amounts (8, 11, and 2.5 points respectively). That doesn't seem plausible.
Another reason to prefer older women.
* edit: although if you avoid, as one should, the DEs, you're on pretty safe ground.
Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.
P.S I have no idea if that is even close to being true, I just picked a bit at random. That's how analysis works, I'm sure.
On the one hand we have an enquiry about why opinion polls don't get the 'right' results and on the other an opinion poll which will become 'authoritative' until the next election.
If people were too lazy/busy to say who they were going to vote for before the elction why are they suddenly less lazy/busy to tell pollsters afterwards? Anyone basing any decisions/conclusions on opinion polls at the moment need their judgment recalibrating in my opinion.
Besides which, look at the Liverpool Care Pathway and similar - this stuff is still happening. There are some very uncomfortable questions on the role of Common Purpose in formulating and enforcing the present public service ethos, that cross party lines.
I'm not suggesting this is what will happen, merely that there are circumstances and a narrative in which the Tories could destroy Labour's advantage on the NHS.
The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.
http://business-reporter.co.uk/2015/05/22/number-of-new-housing-starts-up-31-per-cent/
It's still way too few.
Donations etc 2014: Con £29.1m, Lab £26.1m
Donations etc 2013: Con £16.3m, Lab £20.9m
Donations etc 2012: Con £14.1m, Lab £19.4m
Donations etc 2011: Con £15.1m, Lab £19.3m
In addition of course Labour gets indirect support from the unions.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm
65+: 5.5% to Con
Isn't this just [NB in both 2010 and 2015] the young wanting to change the world and the old generally being happier to keep things as they are? Appetite for risk, in other words...
Indeed. So its a good thing that housing starts are soaring, as I posted earlier.
Today is the 100th anniversary of the Quintishill railway disaster, the worst in British history. At least 220 people died, although as the main train involved was a troop train and the roll lists were destroyed, the full figure will never be known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-32835334
RIP.
One to file in the bin, then.
I agree about NIMBYism and building enough houses in general - address this and the rest will be unnecessary. But the housing market is in a disastrous state - prices way too high, but highly negative consequences of getting them to where they should be relative to incomes and historical norms. Rock/hard place.
Building enough houses will result in prices falling, which is not in the interests of the housebuilders. I don't see how the free market can fix this one other than via a damaging crash. Obvious trigger is higher interest rates but there's no sign of that. So prices look destined to stay high based on supply and demand.
And back to the original point, if your parents don't own a house, you're screwed. Property apartheid. I have 3 youngish kids, the thought of them affording a house in 15-20 years is really scary.
Not exactly sure what some people want the government to do, if they're to abolish all the incentives placed for building homes and get house builds up at the same time.
As long as we persist with FPTP it's likely to stay low.
Labour still the party of the DE social group, more down market than UKIP and their C2s.
Admittedly quicker than the Chilcot enquiry, but still seems rather a long way off.
A price crash simply won't happen because we have a housing shortage and if it did happen then developers wouldn't build new homes, so its not going to be a solution either way. Developers are building homes where they can get land to build on - the solution isn't to blame developers, its to look at why land isn't available.
With a few years saving with two incomes young people can and do get on the housing ladder. Its how my wife and I did (and into a new build, though we personally didn't use Help to Buy).
Institutional failings happen under governments of both stripes. I don't blame the conservative party for those scandals anymore than the labour party deserves the blame for Mid Staffs. You are totally blinded by partisanship. Thankfully most voters are not.
2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.17
Population growth entirely immigration driven, should be steady/slightly declining.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.18
I notice you didn't say Belgium.
Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?
Parts of Holland are horribly crowded, I agree, just like England. To argue it isn't is just nonsense.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions
Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.VV81-TlwbqC
We need about 4.5 million houses over the next decade and will probably build 1.5 million, 2 million absolute max. And they should be on average twice as big as the pitiful 800 sq feet average that we're building now. Building them will annoy NIMBYs in Hampshire NE or Huntingdon, but they wouldn't ever vote Labour anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 based on a UK NEA report (so you can guess what way they are biased)
That said, it seems a stretch to get from 9.6% to 2.3% unless you have "built on" as "has a building on" so excluding roads, footpaths, car-parks, etc. Which would obviously be a bit of a swizz...
Edit: meglomaniacs4u found the source, which says pretty much what I said. I call bullshit on 54% of towns and cities being greenspace. Google Earth shows that to be a crock in no time.
I made a like for like comparison, 2 major wealthy US cities.
You have tried to compare Mexico City with Cambridge.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/london-mayoral-survey-results-jowell-in-the-lead-but-khan-isnt-far-behind/
Tessa and Sadiq neck-and-neck.
Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky
Alistair Carmichael admits leaking Nicola Sturgeon story:"I was aware of its content & agreed that my special adviser should make it public"
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky
Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
This is the first leak inquiry in my 14 yrs in Westminster that has actually found the leaker...
My problem with this discussion is that we only talk about housing. Woking, where I live, is looking to build more and more residential properties, which is great as lots of people want to live here to be able to commute into London. But I don't see plans for schools and health service provision to go with the new flats/houses.
I think there's actually a sweet spot when it comes to population density, you don't want constant skyscrapers but on the other hand boring urban sprawl is rubbish.
And FYI I lived in Birmingham at one time, its not so bad in parts!
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/January/39/1/magazine/article/10826668/
Built up areas include parks, allotments etc as well as gardens. Even rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs are counted in your 9.6% figure.