Labour leadership: for me Jeremy Corbyn is still way too long and Liz way too short. M
In the absence of professional polling of members, CLP nominations are the best clue we have as to how the voting will go, and JC is now 2nd, behind Andy and ahead of Yvette, with 19 nominations. Liz is miles behind on just 4. While I think you're right to ignore social media polls, I think CLP noms are likely to be much better predictors.
But, if anything, going purely on CLPs underestimates JC's chances, because non-members such as Greens and TUSC (as well as left-wingers not aligned with any party) are much more likely to sign up to vote for JC, who's offering radical anti-austerity policies, than for more of the same with Burnham or Cooper.
JC is value at these odds IMO, Liz is still too pricey at 6.
Disclaimer: I'm still heavily long on JC, slightly green on Yvette & Andy, slightly red on Liz
CLP nominations are a good guide to active members, but the broader membership is probably more centrist, and there doesn't seem to have been a huge take-up of non-members. Like you, though, I don't think Liz has any significant chance - I know plenty of Blairites and pragmatists who have decided that she's too negative. Jeremy is having a very good campaign and will IMO do well but not win. Still hard to call between Andy and Yvette, but Andy is probably still favourite.
At the deputy level, it looks as though it's going to be either Tom Watson or Stella Creasy. Tom has been preparing for it for much longer and has friends all over the PLP who are putting in a good word with members, but Creasy is seen by many as the more charismatic candidate. The deputy leadership is curiously devoid of left/right divisions - nearly everyone seems to be voting on a personal preference basis.
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
I spoke with an ex-Labour MP about why he dropped out, doesn't take too much imagination and I don't see why that would have changed by 2020.
A marginal change in national minimum wage as part of an overall package including reductions in tax credits and reductions in Corporation Tax is good.
A 50% increase in national minimum wage with no reduction in tax credits introduced immediately is absurd.
Tax credits are not paid by employers, but out of the Consolidated Fund. The cut in corporation tax is marginal, and does not, of course, apply to all employers, and many of those to which it does have also been hit by reforms to the taxation of dividends and corporations sole. The Conservatives' policy is not, in any event, a marginal change in the national minimum wage, since it is contrary to the policy of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, that the rate should be set on the advice the Low Pay Commission having regard to the effect on competitiveness (see s. 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act).
Of course it is a marginal change. From £6.70 (in Oct) to £7.20 (in Apr) is a <7.5% increase in nominal wages for corporations before taking into account other changes such as Corporation Tax (which I agree loss-making companies don't pay) or other changes such as the 50% increase in Employment Allowance. The government has changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission as it is entitled to do, however a 50% increase in wages immediately is an entirely different matter - if you can't see that and you think a £9 wage immediately is what we should have then I think you're a parody.
£9 an hour minimum wage is €13 an hour minimum wage.
What does she think that will do to EU immigration?
If we get more good migrants doing good jobs and paying good taxes while claiming no benefits then I'd say that's a good thing. Wouldn't you?
Are minimum wage jobs good jobs?
It's cretinous to put one of the highest minimum wages in Europe into action if you are trying to cut immigration.
There are a few interesting quirks.
The minimum wage for under 25's remains at the lower rate. Therefore there is now an incentive for employers to take on British school leavers rather than migrant twenty somethings. Migrant twenty somethings will also not be getting tax credits.
So, Tsipras, having faffed around for months, and having pushed the Greek economy into near-total collapse, has now given in completely to the demands rejected by the Greek population last Sunday, and indeed to more.
I think it's pretty optimistic to assume that this is going to get past his own party, not to mention the difficulty of getting the whole package endorsed by the other Eurozone countries at this late stage.
Well, if it's more than the previous demands, why would the other Eurozone countries have a problem with it now? They seem totally unwilling to take decisive action against Greece, so in exchange for a deal and to calm the situation down, they could overlook the rudeness of such a late offer, surely?
As for getting it past his own party, that seems more problematic, but then again, it's perception - the same sort of offer as a demand from the creditors might be a humiliation, but having democratically rejected it, offering something very similar themselves becomes, in their heads, empowering not a capitulation. Might well be nonsense if you sum up the offer correctly, but Syrizia seem all about the message, not the action, so if Tsipras is willing to table a deal much like the rejected one, but spin it as some triumph, they might go for it I'd have thought, they want to be heroes sticking a deal to the Euro elites (even if the deal is barely different), not boring competents who argued the other side down to that deal without a crisis point. Not dramatic enough.
£9 an hour minimum wage is €13 an hour minimum wage.
What does she think that will do to EU immigration?
If we get more good migrants doing good jobs and paying good taxes while claiming no benefits then I'd say that's a good thing. Wouldn't you?
Are minimum wage jobs good jobs?
It's cretinous to put one of the highest minimum wages in Europe into action if you are trying to cut immigration.
Anyone on minimum wage aint even close to reaching the point of being a net contributor. £32k is the crossover point between being a net taker and contributor. That assumes all individuals have the same net cost.
Of course young healthy men in employment in themselves cost very little, with tiny marginal costs, up to a point. But then soon as you bring young women who settle and have children, that level of which you become a net contributor shoots into the ceiling up three floors.
Re: reduction of CTC to first two children. Seeing vox pops on this it really seems to have got people thinking about whether they really can afford a larger family. The result of this is that fewer children will be born directly into "poverty" - however you choose to measure it. Surely a good thing?
Oddly I think the people who will be most put off from having children due to fear of a tighter squeeze will be the lower middle classes though, rather than "the poor". Partly because long-term planning works differently among the poorest and the middle classes - not "they're too thick to plan", but the time horizons are different, much more short-term - and partly because the work/benefits equation is very different, especially for people who see the main problem as juggling family life with career, versus people whose focus is on "how to get by" but without professional aspirations entering the equation.
There's also something I mentioned a few nights back, which is that ideally we should be encouraging people to have children earlier. A lot of inequality (and therefore by relative definitions, "poverty") is temporal - people start their careers on lower wages, and their earning capacity rises towards middle age. People in professional careers putting off kids until they are in their 30s and feel they can "afford" it, is in many ways not ideal.
There's also a separate issue that demographically we could probably do with having a few more kids, and there are costs to putting people off it. Even ones in "poverty" - I don't think a childhood in "British poverty" is such a terrible thing, at least when one makes global comparisons, that it renders life not worth living at all, though clearly it would be nice if it were rather less penurious.
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
No, as I think Burnham could yet beat Osborne as you well know, 5 years is a long time in politics
Re: reduction of CTC to first two children. Seeing vox pops on this it really seems to have got people thinking about whether they really can afford a larger family. The result of this is that fewer children will be born directly into "poverty" - however you choose to measure it. Surely a good thing?
Who would have thought it. Those on welfare and low incomes now having to face the same decisions the rest of us do on whether to have children. Shame, Shame!!!!
Well, if it's more than the previous demands, why would the other Eurozone countries have a problem with it now?
Because the economic situation has got a lot worse, credibility and trust have been destroyed, and they've run out of time to approve it. They might still fudge something together - the political and economic incentives to do so are very strong - but it's much harder than it would have been to do the same deal a month or two ago.
Of course it is a marginal change. From £6.70 (in Oct) to £7.20 (in Apr) is a <7.5% increase in nominal wages for corporations before taking into account other changes such as Corporation Tax (which I agree loss-making companies don't pay) or other changes such as the 50% increase in Employment Allowance. The government has changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission as it is entitled to do, however a 50% increase in wages immediately is an entirely different matter - if you can't see that and you think a £9 wage immediately is what we should have then I think you're a parody.</p>
I'm against the fixing of wages, regardless of which party advocates it. The government cannot amend the 1998 Act. Only Parliament can. Increasing the minimum wage to £9/hour now would, in any event, be a 38% increase, not a 50% increase. Given that the minimum wage rose by 9.6% between 2010 and 2014, a proposal to increase it by 38% in 5 years is evidently not a marginal change.
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
No, as I think Burnham could yet beat Osborne as you well know, 5 years is a long time in politics
Don't you think Burnham could lose? As if he does (and surely that's at least 50-50) there's a leadership election.
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
I spoke with an ex-Labour MP about why he dropped out, doesn't take too much imagination and I don't see why that would have changed by 2020.
Agree he has been impressive tonight.
I can't imagine it would have been anything that devastating, as Clinton and Berlusconi have proved most voters are not too bothered about sexual shenanigans if they think you can do the job and as the passage of gay marriage has shown they are not that bothered about homosexuality either
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
I spoke with an ex-Labour MP about why he dropped out, doesn't take too much imagination and I don't see why that would have changed by 2020.
Go on.
I don't think that's a fair demand, only the lawyers would be rubbing their hands at it, and I doubt OGH would be too pleased...
Something I don't get, though. What can be so bad that it prevents Chuka being leader of the opposition (and eventually PM), but is not considered a security risk (fear of blackmail or whatever) in other vital frontline positions, for instance if he were to be chancellor or foreign sec? There seems to be an inconsistency in this one.
I wonder whether it is more lack of confidence, or a doubt in the forgiving power of the electorate (who seem to be pretty flexible about personal matters).
Labour leadership: for me Jeremy Corbyn is still way too long and Liz way too short. M
In the absence of professional polling of members, CLP nominations are the best clue we have as to how the voting will go, and JC is now 2nd, behind Andy and ahead of Yvette, with 19 nominations. Liz is miles behind on just 4. While I think you're right to ignore social media polls, I think CLP noms are likely to be much better predictors.
But, if anything, going purely on CLPs underestimates JC's chances, because non-members such as Greens and TUSC (as well as left-wingers not aligned with any party) are much more likely to sign up to vote for JC, who's offering radical anti-austerity policies, than for more of the same with Burnham or Cooper.
JC is value at these odds IMO, Liz is still too pricey at 6.
Disclaimer: I'm still heavily long on JC, slightly green on Yvette & Andy, slightly red on Liz
CLP nominations are a good guide to active members, but the broader membership is probably more centrist, and there doesn't seem to have been a huge take-up of non-members. Like you, though, I don't think Liz has any significant chance - I know plenty of Blairites and pragmatists who have decided that she's too negative. Jeremy is having a very good campaign and will IMO do well but not win. Still hard to call between Andy and Yvette, but Andy is probably still favourite.
At the deputy level, it looks as though it's going to be either Tom Watson or Stella Creasy. Tom has been preparing for it for much longer and has friends all over the PLP who are putting in a good word with members, but Creasy is seen by many as the more charismatic candidate. The deputy leadership is curiously devoid of left/right divisions - nearly everyone seems to be voting on a personal preference basis.
Those "Greek" proposals bear an astonishing resemblence to the rejected Eurozone suggestions of last week. Is it possible that they are related?
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
I spoke with an ex-Labour MP about why he dropped out, doesn't take too much imagination and I don't see why that would have changed by 2020.
Go on.
An issue to do with his private life, why that should be an issue in this day and age is beyond me.
I've never liked him much before but thought he was hugely impressive tonight.
Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
No, as I think Burnham could yet beat Osborne as you well know, 5 years is a long time in politics
Don't you think Burnham could lose? As if he does (and surely that's at least 50-50) there's a leadership election.
Well of course he could lose, but then so could any party leader, you cannot write off an election in 5 years time when the Tories will no longer be led by Cameron, will have been in power 10 years and after who knows what events
Of course it is a marginal change. From £6.70 (in Oct) to £7.20 (in Apr) is a <7.5% increase in nominal wages for corporations before taking into account other changes such as Corporation Tax (which I agree loss-making companies don't pay) or other changes such as the 50% increase in Employment Allowance. The government has changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission as it is entitled to do, however a 50% increase in wages immediately is an entirely different matter - if you can't see that and you think a £9 wage immediately is what we should have then I think you're a parody.</p>
I'm against the fixing of wages, regardless of which party advocates it. The government cannot amend the 1998 Act. Only Parliament can. Increasing the minimum wage to £9/hour now would, in any event, be a 38% increase, not a 50% increase. Given that the minimum wage rose by 9.6% between 2010 and 2014, a proposal to increase it by 38% in 5 years is evidently not a marginal change.
It is extraordinary how a minimum wage can be allowed to stagnate though. America is a case in point. When i worked over there in '98 i was on a minimum wage job +35 cents, + $1 bonus available if I completed the entire contract at the end of the season.
The minimum wage in '98 was $5.15. Today its $7.25 (and the place i used to work now just pay the same MW +35 cents and $1 bonus they did in '98. It really isnt very much.
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
Peak kipper is the present moment, UKIP have never had so many voters
Agreed completely, its only downhill from here.
Did you watch BBCQT tonight? I've been embarrassed by Tory spokesmen before, can I ask (with no prejudice) whether you agreed with UKIP's spokeswoman tonight? She was to the left of the SNP, left of Labour and about equivalent to the Socialist Workers Party if they were to be there. Its not what I'd imagine you supporting - nor Farage. It sounded like someone going off script onto the nearest bandwagon.
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
Newton (Sandwell) result: LAB - 59.1% (+13.5) CON - 23.2% (+8.4) UKIP - 15.9% (-14.2) GRN - 1.8% (+1.8)
Broken sleazy kippers on the slide?
I've done an analysis, and I've worked out exactly when Peak Kipper was in the last parliament.
the week before or after 22nd October, 2014?
Before
The Euros? I think I called peak kipper at that point...
A few weeks after that. It went all horribly wrong for UKIP just after the Newark by election
You're right, 13% was such a disappointment
I've been tweaking some of the numbers, and I think it probable that in 2020, UKIP's share of the vote to go down but see an increase in the number of UKIP MPs
Newton (Sandwell) result: LAB - 59.1% (+13.5) CON - 23.2% (+8.4) UKIP - 15.9% (-14.2) GRN - 1.8% (+1.8)
Broken sleazy kippers on the slide?
I've done an analysis, and I've worked out exactly when Peak Kipper was in the last parliament.
the week before or after 22nd October, 2014?
Before
The Euros? I think I called peak kipper at that point...
A few weeks after that. It went all horribly wrong for UKIP just after the Newark by election
You're right, 13% was such a disappointment
I've been tweaking some of the numbers, and I think it probable that in 2020, it might be possible for UKIP's share of the vote to go down but see an increase in the number of MPs
Worked for the Lds if I recall correctly. Once or twice at least.
Newton (Sandwell) result: LAB - 59.1% (+13.5) CON - 23.2% (+8.4) UKIP - 15.9% (-14.2) GRN - 1.8% (+1.8)
Broken sleazy kippers on the slide?
I've done an analysis, and I've worked out exactly when Peak Kipper was in the last parliament.
the week before or after 22nd October, 2014?
Before
The Euros? I think I called peak kipper at that point...
A few weeks after that. It went all horribly wrong for UKIP just after the Newark by election
You're right, 13% was such a disappointment
I've been tweaking some of the numbers, and I think it probable that in 2020, it might be possible for UKIP's share of the vote to go down but see an increase in the number of MPs
Peak kipper is the present moment, UKIP have never had so many voters
Agreed completely, its only downhill from here.
Did you watch BBCQT tonight? I've been embarrassed by Tory spokesmen before, can I ask (with no prejudice) whether you agreed with UKIP's spokeswoman tonight? She was to the left of the SNP, left of Labour and about equivalent to the Socialist Workers Party if they were to be there. Its not what I'd imagine you supporting - nor Farage. It sounded like someone going off script onto the nearest bandwagon.
I didn't watch it but I don't think Louise bours is at all impressive. Probably why I didn't watch
Newton (Sandwell) result: LAB - 59.1% (+13.5) CON - 23.2% (+8.4) UKIP - 15.9% (-14.2) GRN - 1.8% (+1.8)
Broken sleazy kippers on the slide?
I've done an analysis, and I've worked out exactly when Peak Kipper was in the last parliament.
the week before or after 22nd October, 2014?
Before
The Euros? I think I called peak kipper at that point...
A few weeks after that. It went all horribly wrong for UKIP just after the Newark by election
You're right, 13% was such a disappointment
I've been tweaking some of the numbers, and I think it probable that in 2020, it might be possible for UKIP's share of the vote to go down but see an increase in the number of MPs
Worked for the Lds if I recall correctly. Once or twice at least.
It did, in 1997, the LD share of the vote went down, but they doubled their number of MPs.
In 2010 the LD share of the vote went up, but they suffered a net loss of MPs
Peak kipper is the present moment, UKIP have never had so many voters
Agreed completely, its only downhill from here.
Did you watch BBCQT tonight? I've been embarrassed by Tory spokesmen before, can I ask (with no prejudice) whether you agreed with UKIP's spokeswoman tonight? She was to the left of the SNP, left of Labour and about equivalent to the Socialist Workers Party if they were to be there. Its not what I'd imagine you supporting - nor Farage. It sounded like someone going off script onto the nearest bandwagon.
She was just populist, slashing overseas aid to pay for welfare
Peak kipper is the present moment, UKIP have never had so many voters
Agreed completely, its only downhill from here.
Did you watch BBCQT tonight? I've been embarrassed by Tory spokesmen before, can I ask (with no prejudice) whether you agreed with UKIP's spokeswoman tonight? She was to the left of the SNP, left of Labour and about equivalent to the Socialist Workers Party if they were to be there. Its not what I'd imagine you supporting - nor Farage. It sounded like someone going off script onto the nearest bandwagon.
I didn't watch it but I don't think Louise bours is at all impressive. Probably why I didn't watch
Thanks for the honest answer. All parties have weak links.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Broken record HYUFD on the slide. Since you seem to be the only person on this site who believes in opinion polls religiously. Why are UKIP's poll ratings continuing to drop like a lead brick if they're getting a boost? Latest poll put UKIP on just 11%
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
Greece helps UKIP and EU ref could also give a boost if a narrow In
It seems that whether or not Greece illegally leaves or is illegally expelled from the Eurozone, there is a serious proposal that it should be granted "humanitarian assistance". If Greece remains in the Eurozone, that is likely to be achieved via TFEU, article 122(2), the provision which was initially used to fund the Eurozone bailouts, and which Cameron dishonestly claimed he had obtained an opt out from when he foolishly agreed to Council Decision 2011/199/EU, amending article 136 TFEU, without obtaining anything for the United Kingdom in return.
Greece helps UKIP and EU ref could also give a boost if a narrow In
It seems that whether or not Greece illegally leaves or is illegally expelled from the Eurozone, there is a serious proposal that it should be granted "humanitarian assistance". If Greece remains in the Eurozone, that is likely to be achieved via TFEU, article 122(2), the provision which was initially used to fund the Eurozone bailouts, and which Cameron dishonestly claimed he had obtained an opt out from when he foolishly agreed to Council Decision 2011/199/EU, amending article 136 TFEU, without obtaining anything for the United Kingdom in return.
Yes, if there is Grexit I doubt we will be completely immune from the fallout
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
I dispute that, peak Cameron was September 2008, when the Tories polled 52%.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
Broken record HYUFD on the slide. Since you seem to be the only person on this site who believes in opinion polls religiously. Why are UKIP's poll ratings continuing to drop like a lead brick if they're getting a boost? Latest poll put UKIP on just 11%
We are presently in the honeymoon period of a re-elected government, polls will reflect that at least until September at the earliest. EU ref is still 2 years away
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
I dispute that, peak Cameron was September 2008, when the Tories polled 52%.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
Anyway, my piece on Sunday should explain all.
I thought on a rolling-average basis they peaked in 2009 but thanks for the correction if it was 08. It isn't unusual for an opposition to peak in midterm and then win (or lose) on a lower percentage.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
I dispute that, peak Cameron was September 2008, when the Tories polled 52%.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Yes, if there is Grexit I doubt we will be completely immune from the fallout
If there is a Grexit, speculation is that balance of payments assistance will be granted under article 143(1) TFEU, which we will be liable for on a pro rata basis, despite the plain illegality of treating Greece as "a member state with a derogation" from joining the Euro.
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
I dispute that, peak Cameron was September 2008, when the Tories polled 52%.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
Anyway, my piece on Sunday should explain all.
I thought on a rolling-average basis they peaked in 2009 but thanks for the correction if it was 08. It isn't unusual for an opposition to peak in midterm and then win (or lose) on a lower percentage.
It depends, on how you calculate your rolling average.
It all depends where the Opposition's loss of support goes.
Take the ICM poll from October 2009.
Con 44, Lab 27, LD 18.
Compared to the election result, most of the Tory loss of support went to the Lib Dems.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
I dispute that, peak Cameron was September 2008, when the Tories polled 52%.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
Yes, if there is Grexit I doubt we will be completely immune from the fallout
If there is a Grexit, speculation is that balance of payments assistance will be granted under article 143(1) TFEU, which we will be liable for on a pro rata basis, despite the plain illegality of treating Greece as "a member state with a derogation" from joining the Euro.
Yes but the EUocracy will do everything it can to make sure no member is immune from footing the bill, night
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
Do the Lib Dems even have any MEPs?
One at present, but she has the advantage over all the kipper MEPs put together because:
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Only a complete moron would dispute that UKIP today are higher than UKIP of 2010, though how meaningful that is in the context of a collapse in other protest parties (and a rise in both parties of government) is what is considered debatable..
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Only a complete moron would dispute that UKIP today are higher than UKIP of 2010, though how meaningful that is in the context of a collapse in other protest parties (and a rise in both parties of government) is what is considered debatable..
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
Yes and they are comparable to a claim that it's all gone wrong for Cameron since peak opinion poll of 2008/09 or whenever it was, in other words, ludicrous
We are already going round in circles, if you get a hard on from disingenuous stats then be my guest, whatever floats your boat
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Only a complete moron would dispute that UKIP today are higher than UKIP of 2010, though how meaningful that is in the context of a collapse in other protest parties (and a rise in both parties of government) is what is considered debatable..
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
Yes, I don't think anyone is disputing that first claim.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Only a complete moron would dispute that UKIP today are higher than UKIP of 2010, though how meaningful that is in the context of a collapse in other protest parties (and a rise in both parties of government) is what is considered debatable..
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
Yes and they are comparable to a claim that it's all gone wrong for Cameron since peak opinion poll of 2008/09 or whenever it was, in other words, ludicrous
If Cameron failed to win enough seats to get into Downing Street in 2010 then he'd have resigned and it wouldn't have been ludicrous. Cameron got 306 seats in 2010 and then 330 in 2015. Yes he never replicated 44% in a General Election but what he did get was good enough. What UKIP got one a gain of one seat, one of two Tory defectors, and nothing else.
If people are honestly trying to make some point about ukip being on the slide because there was a point where they were higher in the opinion polls, they would have to also say we are way past peak Cameron because the Tories were on 44% or so in 2009
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
Tory opinion polling did peak in 2009 nobody disputes that. However despite that the drop off from the peak left the Tories high enough for Cameron to become and remain PM.
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
These petty rows could go on all night
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
Only a complete moron would dispute that UKIP today are higher than UKIP of 2010, though how meaningful that is in the context of a collapse in other protest parties (and a rise in both parties of government) is what is considered debatable..
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
Yes and they are comparable to a claim that it's all gone wrong for Cameron since peak opinion poll of 2008/09 or whenever it was, in other words, ludicrous
If Cameron failed to win enough seats to get into Downing Street in 2010 then he'd have resigned and it wouldn't have been ludicrous. Cameron got 306 seats in 2010 and then 330 in 2015. Yes he never replicated 44% in a General Election but what he did get was good enough. What UKIP got one a gain of one seat, one of two Tory defectors, and nothing else.
Just paint it the way makes you feel good. I am not for a minute saying Cameron is a failure and have never said so. I am only making the point because it as as ludicrous as the kind you are desperate to believe
Let's leave it Phillip I hate to say it but you are too annoyingly petty for this time of night
One at present, but she has the advantage over all the kipper MEPs put together because:
She turns up to vote.
She is not stark raving bonkers.
I think not. Ms Bearder is a fanatical federalist, sitting in a group led by Verhofstadt. That is stark raving bonkers on any definition. There is also nothing wrong with not voting if you consider the legislature illegitimate and you tell the voters of your view.
Huge hold for the SNP in THORNIEWOOD Cumbernauld on a 25 per cent swing from Labour. This is from a local election in 2012 where the SNP WON across Scotland ie it suggests at face value that they may now be 50 per cent ahead of Labour!
In reality it shows that the momentum from the election is continuing, indeed perhaps gathering pace.
Max Shanly @maxshanly 4m4 minutes ago Liz Kendall is currently on four nominations. Diane Abbott got twenty. If Liz gets less than that then she really is a marginalised force.
One at present, but she has the advantage over all the kipper MEPs put together because:
She turns up to vote.
She is not stark raving bonkers.
I think not. Ms Bearder is a fanatical federalist, sitting in a group led by Verhofstadt. That is stark raving bonkers on any definition. There is also nothing wrong with not voting if you consider the legislature illegitimate and you tell the voters of your view.
But Mr Foxinsockeu is a fanatical federalist, so her views would seem on that basis to be complete rational
Comments
http://www.naftemporiki.gr/finance/story/976680/the-greek-reform-proposals CLP nominations are a good guide to active members, but the broader membership is probably more centrist, and there doesn't seem to have been a huge take-up of non-members. Like you, though, I don't think Liz has any significant chance - I know plenty of Blairites and pragmatists who have decided that she's too negative. Jeremy is having a very good campaign and will IMO do well but not win. Still hard to call between Andy and Yvette, but Andy is probably still favourite.
At the deputy level, it looks as though it's going to be either Tom Watson or Stella Creasy. Tom has been preparing for it for much longer and has friends all over the PLP who are putting in a good word with members, but Creasy is seen by many as the more charismatic candidate. The deputy leadership is curiously devoid of left/right divisions - nearly everyone seems to be voting on a personal preference basis.
The minimum wage for under 25's remains at the lower rate. Therefore there is now an incentive for employers to take on British school leavers rather than migrant twenty somethings. Migrant twenty somethings will also not be getting tax credits.
George Osborne- master strategist.
As for getting it past his own party, that seems more problematic, but then again, it's perception - the same sort of offer as a demand from the creditors might be a humiliation, but having democratically rejected it, offering something very similar themselves becomes, in their heads, empowering not a capitulation. Might well be nonsense if you sum up the offer correctly, but Syrizia seem all about the message, not the action, so if Tsipras is willing to table a deal much like the rejected one, but spin it as some triumph, they might go for it I'd have thought, they want to be heroes sticking a deal to the Euro elites (even if the deal is barely different), not boring competents who argued the other side down to that deal without a crisis point. Not dramatic enough.
Good night all.
This will, of course, be the last labour leadership election run under these rules.
They will have to be tweaked for the next one.
Morfa Nefyn (Gwynedd) result:
PC - 71.9% (-5.5)
LG - 28.1% (+5.5)
Spring Hill (Hyndburn) result:
LAB - 55.3% (+5.4)
CON - 33.8% (-0.5)
UKIP - 9.7% (-6.1)
GRN - 1.2% (+1.2)
Of course young healthy men in employment in themselves cost very little, with tiny marginal costs, up to a point. But then soon as you bring young women who settle and have children, that level of which you become a net contributor shoots into the ceiling up three floors.
There's also something I mentioned a few nights back, which is that ideally we should be encouraging people to have children earlier. A lot of inequality (and therefore by relative definitions, "poverty") is temporal - people start their careers on lower wages, and their earning capacity rises towards middle age. People in professional careers putting off kids until they are in their 30s and feel they can "afford" it, is in many ways not ideal.
There's also a separate issue that demographically we could probably do with having a few more kids, and there are costs to putting people off it. Even ones in "poverty" - I don't think a childhood in "British poverty" is such a terrible thing, at least when one makes global comparisons, that it renders life not worth living at all, though clearly it would be nice if it were rather less penurious.
@montie: Don't agree with @Anna_Soubry: think @YvetteCooperMP will be next Labour leader - on second preferences #bbcqt
Something I don't get, though. What can be so bad that it prevents Chuka being leader of the opposition (and eventually PM), but is not considered a security risk (fear of blackmail or whatever) in other vital frontline positions, for instance if he were to be chancellor or foreign sec? There seems to be an inconsistency in this one.
I wonder whether it is more lack of confidence, or a doubt in the forgiving power of the electorate (who seem to be pretty flexible about personal matters).
I've never liked him much before but thought he was hugely impressive tonight.
LAB - 59.1% (+13.5)
CON - 23.2% (+8.4)
UKIP - 15.9% (-14.2)
GRN - 1.8% (+1.8)
http://goo.gl/9RfFdf
Double peak for the kippers there...
The minimum wage in '98 was $5.15. Today its $7.25 (and the place i used to work now just pay the same MW +35 cents and $1 bonus they did in '98. It really isnt very much.
Really? I mean really?
Even I think that they can do better than that. Though one of the positives of leaving the EU is seeing all those useless UKIP MEPs like Bours and Farage on the dole!
Did you watch BBCQT tonight? I've been embarrassed by Tory spokesmen before, can I ask (with no prejudice) whether you agreed with UKIP's spokeswoman tonight? She was to the left of the SNP, left of Labour and about equivalent to the Socialist Workers Party if they were to be there. Its not what I'd imagine you supporting - nor Farage. It sounded like someone going off script onto the nearest bandwagon.
3.9 million UKIP voters in May 2015
CON - 43.5% (+3.6)
LAB - 36.5% (+2.1)
LDEM - 8.9% (+5.1)
UKIP - 7.9% (-13.9)
GRN - 3.1% (+3.1)
St Helens (Hastings) vote result:
CON - 663
LAB - 557
LDEM - 136
UKIP - 120
GRN - 48
CON - 43.5% (+3.6)
LAB - 36.5% (+2.1)
LDEM - 8.9% (+5.1)
UKIP - 7.9% (-13.9)
GRN - 3.1% (+3.1)
In 2010 the LD share of the vote went up, but they suffered a net loss of MPs
LAB - 54.0% (+4.1)
CON - 27.7% (+12.0)
GRN - 8.7% (-5.9)
LDEM - 4.8% (-1.8)
UKIP - 4.7% (-8.4)
LAB - 56.5% (+7.4)
CON - 21.6% (+6.0)
UKIP - 10.2% (-12.2)
GRN - 8.8% (+0.5)
LD - 2.8% (-1.6)
Given that he has been pm for 5 years that would be utterly ludicrous, but maybe so are the posters using that logic
UKIP peak polling was in the past too. After dropping off the peak left UKIP in a position to maintain one of the two Tory defectors.
They dipped to the mid 30s by early 2009, then hit back to the 40s in late 2009.
Anyway, my piece on Sunday should explain all.
Earl Beaconsfield, that was his name, I think!
I mean well done Labour...
The truth is that ukip have never had as many votes, or seats after a general election as they have now, only someone obsessed with wanting to see them fail would paint it any other way
As I say, the same point could be made about Cameron's Tories but it would be equally pathetic and disingenuous
It all depends where the Opposition's loss of support goes.
Take the ICM poll from October 2009.
Con 44, Lab 27, LD 18.
Compared to the election result, most of the Tory loss of support went to the Lib Dems.
'As for getting it past his own party, that seems more problematic, but then again, it's perception'
Another referendum ?
She turns up to vote.
She is not stark raving bonkers.
Peak UKIP claims are that UKIP peaked midterm rather than at the prior election.
We are already going round in circles, if you get a hard on from disingenuous stats then be my guest, whatever floats your boat
Chartwell is a great place too. Lovely family atmosphere to the house.
Let's leave it Phillip I hate to say it but you are too annoyingly petty for this time of night
In reality it shows that the momentum from the election is continuing, indeed perhaps gathering pace.
Liz Kendall is currently on four nominations. Diane Abbott got twenty. If Liz gets less than that then she really is a marginalised force.
Burnham - 31
Corbyn - 26
Cooper - 24
Kendall - 4
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14fJtyTh2RTSJdobOwYcU8-GQhFIsc1TYy86y369QdXc/edit?pli=1#gid=0