Why do some people keep pointing out these perceived weaknesses in EdM? He started out in Yougov with a net +22 rating and now has reached -41. A mere flesh wound.
I'm feeling quietly optimistic about a Con Maj in 2015 if things carry on as now.
Economy tends to trump everything else when it comes to pencil in the ballot box.
The zero wage contract story is an interesting example - from what I've seen via the ONS and other sources its 0.8% of the total workforce and 84% of those who have one are satisfied with it.
One would never guess given the attempt to portray it as Yet Another Evil Mill Owner story.
Why do some people keep pointing out these perceived weaknesses in EdM? He started out in Yougov with a net +22 rating and now has reached -41. A mere flesh wound.
I'm feeling quietly optimistic about a Con Maj in 2015 if things carry on as now.
Con majority still looks a very big ask to me - I wouldn't entirely rule it out, but hung parliament with Con again winning most seats and share of the vote is becoming a more likely outcome by the month, IMO.
There are already well over 2000 onshore oil and gas wells working unobtrusively in Britain. Many of them are in quiet rural locations including several in for example Kirby Misperton (N Yorks) and Stockbridge (Hants). I bet that not even most of the residents of these places even knew of their existence. http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/talking-about-balcombe-on-5live-and-is.html
Plotting with his missus against his leader, if the papers are correct.
They;re calling it the Barbabcoup.
I prefer the 'pillow talk plot'.
Ed's bored with the economics brief. Especially now he can hear even the left orientated commentators p8ssing themselves when he talks about economic catastrophe.
*bangs head against table* *stares at seals on the beach in despair*
It may have escaped your attention, but we are at present governed by a Coalition, and Ed Miliband was elected leader since that Coalition was formed. This is why his support appears to stay solidly above 35%, despite his total crapness and lack of policies - it is simply because people have no one else to "say they will vote for", if they wish to register dislike of the government.
Coalitions are virtually unprecedented in British politics, therefore no one knows for sure what Labour's REAL core support is. However, I guess actual elections are some help - and in the last two by-elections I can remember off hand, South Shields and Eastleigh, Labour either stagnated vis-a-vis their position in 2010, or they actually saw their vote-share fall.
Suffice to say, Labour's "floor", today, is certainly not a magical 8 points higher than the vote they received in 2010.
How can one stare at seals in despair, surely the mere act of staring at a seal immediately ends the despair?
You may be right about what may happen. Certainly, the evidence of previous elections suggests that oppositions usually decline from this point in the cycle to the General Election. I've written long boring posts about this.
Set against that however, that this election is different. Labour has not attracted many 2010 Tories so they can't "swing-back", and there are reasons to believe, that while not welded on, Lab>LD switchers may be "stickier" than in most mid terms.
So mebbe Aye, mebbe Naw.
GIven this, I prefer to rely on what has happened so far. For three years, Labour's vote has not declined below the 37/38 level with YouGov. If it did, I would be more worried than I am now, (though I am in any case, not convinced 38 is enough to win an election from).
How would such a decline come about? I'd suggest three possibilities:
1. A trickle of support from 2010 Labour voters to the Tories. 2. A decline in 2010 LD> Lab - switchers, with ppl either returning to LDs, not voting or going to 'protest' parties. 3. A decline in number of 2010 non-voters who actually say they'll vote - possibly seen late in election campaign.
Each of these could reduce Labour share, alone or in combination. But it hasn't happened yet, or not to the scale that would cost Labour the election, so it seems foolish to assume it will.
On charities, Its perfectly possible to give your money to volunteer local organizations who give every penny to the cause, and leave the field clear for others when they don;t have a project on.
The big charities are always at your pocket. After the Telegraph's excellent article, its easy to understand why.
"New figures from the Home Office estimate that in the past year about 17,000 people aged 16-59 in England and Wales took methamphetamine - fewer than for any other drug recorded. About 27,000 people had used heroin, 47,000 crack cocaine, 120,000 ketamine and two million cannabis...
Most of its 300 or so referrals for using crystal meth are from London, but some are starting to come from other cities like Manchester. A small number are from the straight clubbing community, but they remain the exception, says Bowden-Jones.
"On the West Coast of America it's a drug of deprivation, in London it seems to be a drug of affluent gay men and in Eastern Europe it's associated with prostitution."
One of the reasons for its unpopularity may be that British drug users have plenty of other stimulants available to them..."
*bangs head against table* *stares at seals on the beach in despair*
Suffice to say, Labour's "floor", today, is certainly not a magical 8 points higher than the vote they received in 2010.
How can one stare at seals in despair, surely the mere act of staring at a seal immediately ends the despair?
You may be right about what may happen. Certainly, the evidence of previous elections suggests that oppositions usually decline from this point in the cycle to the General Election. I've written long boring posts about this.
Set against that however, that this election is different. Labour has not attracted many 2010 Tories so they can't "swing-back", and there are reasons to believe, that while not welded on, Lab>LD switchers may be "stickier" than in most mid terms.
So mebbe Aye, mebbe Naw.
GIven this, I prefer to rely on what has happened so far. For three years, Labour's vote has not declined below the 37/38 level with YouGov. If it did, I would be more worried than I am now, (though I am in any case, not convinced 38 is enough to win an election from).
How would such a decline come about? I'd suggest three possibilities:
1. A trickle of support from 2010 Labour voters to the Tories. 2. A decline in 2010 LD> Lab - switchers, with ppl either returning to LDs, not voting or going to 'protest' parties. 3. A decline in number of 2010 non-voters who actually say they'll vote - possibly seen late in election campaign.
Each of these could reduce Labour share, alone or in combination. But it hasn't happened yet, or not to the scale that would cost Labour the election, so it seems foolish to assume it will.
4. It has been an automatic response to say "Labour" when asked about VI now. It says "I have a heart, am not nasty, am for responsible capitalism, etc". However, as the GE approaches and people have to choose an actual government, they will look closely at outcomes. For a thousand reasons, by 2010 the economy was in a mess. For a thousand reasons by 2015 it will be in recovery mode. Fair or unfair, there will be an association between bad economy/Lab and good economy/Con. That is of course stating the bl**ding obvious. But it's true nonetheless.
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
Why would anyone be doing anything other than backing a hung Parliament? It should be heavily odds on. You can back it at 13/8 with Ladbrokes.
The four most expensive words in the English language are This Time It's Different. Both Labour and Conservative supporters are uttering them at present.
Why do some people keep pointing out these perceived weaknesses in EdM? He started out in Yougov with a net +22 rating and now has reached -41. A mere flesh wound.
Agreed.
I am also disappointed by Guido's current quote of the day: "Ed is about as much use as a snooze button on a smoke alarm!"
If you look at YouGov over a longer period, and I supsect ComRes might be the same, you actually get a completely different picture.
As you can see, the UKIP surge masked what is mostly a fall in the Labour lead; there was a phase where both parties lost votes to UKIP, and a phase where the Tories have regained them (but not Labour).
The reason I disagree is that Hung Parlies are very rare - and right now most voters prefer a maj of one them.
If the Tories have a clear enough competence message- they can swing it. It'll be tough, but the population doesn't like in-fighting and the LDs will surely spend much time showing how they're not HMG over the next 2yrs.
I find Nigel's remarks on C4 last night most interesting - being a former member of the NF is fine if it was a long time ago and 50% of the population thinks Enoch was a visionary...
Well that makes Racist Van That Isn't look a bit tame doesn't it!
*bangs head against table* *stares at seals on the beach in despair*
Suffice to say, Labour's "floor", today, is certainly not a magical 8 points higher than the vote they received in 2010.
will.
4. It has been an automatic response to say "Labour" when asked about VI now. It says "I have a heart, am not nasty, am for responsible capitalism, etc". However, as the GE approaches and people have to choose an actual government, they will look closely at outcomes. For a thousand reasons, by 2010 the economy was in a mess. For a thousand reasons by 2015 it will be in recovery mode. Fair or unfair, there will be an association between bad economy/Lab and good economy/Con. That is of course stating the bl**ding obvious. But it's true nonetheless.
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
Why would anyone be doing anything other than backing a hung Parliament? It should be heavily odds on. You can back it at 13/8 with Ladbrokes.
The four most expensive words in the English language are This Time It's Different. Both Labour and Conservative supporters are uttering them at present.
How are Conservatives uttering them? We (official) pbTories see nothing particularly unusual in seeing our political fortunes coinciding with that of the economy.
The reason I disagree is that Hung Parlies are very rare - and right now most voters prefer a maj of one them.
If the Tories have a clear enough competence message- they can swing it. It'll be tough, but the population doesn't like in-fighting and the LDs will surely spend much time showing how they're not HMG over the next 2yrs.
I find Nigel's remarks on C4 last night most interesting - being a former member of the NF is fine if it was a long time ago and 50% of the population thinks Enoch was a visionary...
Well that makes Racist Van That Isn't look a bit tame doesn't it!
*bangs head against table* *stares at seals on the beach in despair*
Suffice to say, Labour's "floor", today, is certainly not a magical 8 points higher than the vote they received in 2010.
will.
4. It has been an automatic response to say "Labour" when asked about VI now. It says "I have a heart, am not nasty, am for responsible capitalism, etc". However, as the GE approaches and people have to choose an actual government, they will look closely at outcomes. For a thousand reasons, by 2010 the economy was in a mess. For a thousand reasons by 2015 it will be in recovery mode. Fair or unfair, there will be an association between bad economy/Lab and good economy/Con. That is of course stating the bl**ding obvious. But it's true nonetheless.
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
Funny that a voter with no allegiance would reference that Farage comment without mentioning the NF member was a defector to UKIP from the Tories
@tim - you should have taken that 10% early payment discount. It's no longer available. BTW did you see in today's yougov that the Tories are level with women voters?
Many of the CON inclined posters here remind me of the Romney-backers in the US last November who seriously believed that their man was heading for victory because the polls were skewed.
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
The only person I can remember making a complete arse of himself over "a Romney victory" was Labourite Southam Observer.
He also thinks Englands Cricket team have a "fragile" batting line up that is costing us dear... this link show the top 32 batsmen to have ever played for England by test average... Englands current top 5 are all present.... no other batsmen since Boycott is, most are pre WW2
I think C4 were quite unfair to Farage last night inc the intv saying 'talking of bull' or something like it immediately after.
I have no problem with anyone who was a member of any legal party and joining another having their 2p. If anything - the censorious PC types would like to wipe Kippers out but are happy to have the SWP FFS.
My point was Nigel's odd argument - that vans are racist/vile/blah blah but being a former NF was fine. As was Enoch [I agree with him here but its not exactly mainstream stuff].
The reason I disagree is that Hung Parlies are very rare - and right now most voters prefer a maj of one them.
If the Tories have a clear enough competence message- they can swing it. It'll be tough, but the population doesn't like in-fighting and the LDs will surely spend much time showing how they're not HMG over the next 2yrs.
I find Nigel's remarks on C4 last night most interesting - being a former member of the NF is fine if it was a long time ago and 50% of the population thinks Enoch was a visionary...
Well that makes Racist Van That Isn't look a bit tame doesn't it!
*bangs head against table* *stares at seals on the beach in despair*
Suffice to say, Labour's "floor", today, is certainly not a magical 8 points higher than the vote they received in 2010.
will.
4. It has been an automatic response to say "Labour" when asked about VI now. It says "I have a heart, am not nasty, am for responsible capitalism, etc". However, as the GE approaches and people have to choose an actual government, they will look closely at outcomes. For a thousand reasons, by 2010 the economy was in a mess. For a thousand reasons by 2015 it will be in recovery mode. Fair or unfair, there will be an association between bad economy/Lab and good economy/Con. That is of course stating the bl**ding obvious. But it's true nonetheless.
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
Funny that a voter with no allegiance would reference that Farage comment without mentioning the NF member was a defector to UKIP from the Tories
I think C4 were quite unfair to Farage last night inc the intv saying 'talking of bull' or something like it immediately after.
I have no problem with anyone who was a member of any legal party and joining another having their 2p. If anything - the censorious PC types would like to wipe Kippers out but are happy to have the SWP FFS.
My point was Nigel's odd argument - that vans are racist/vile/blah blah but being a former NF was fine. As was Enoch [I agree with him here but its not exactly mainstream stuff].
I find Nigel's remarks on C4 last night most interesting - being a former member of the NF is fine if it was a long time ago and 50% of the population thinks Enoch was a visionary...
Well that makes Racist Van That Isn't look a bit tame doesn't it!
.
4. It has been an automatic response to say "Labour" when asked about VI now. It says "I have a heart, am not nasty, am for responsible capitalism, etc". However, as the GE approaches and people have to choose an actual government, they will look closely at outcomes. For a thousand reasons, by 2010 the economy was in a mess. For a thousand reasons by 2015 it will be in recovery mode. Fair or unfair, there will be an association between bad economy/Lab and good economy/Con. That is of course stating the bl**ding obvious. But it's true nonetheless.
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
I dont think Farage has ever said the vans were racist, or mentioned race specifically in any argument.. Enoch Powell also barely ever mentioned race, much of what he said was twisted to create what some people might call "urban myths"
I must admit I jumped the gun and was about to rant about the "speaking of bull" comment on Ch4, but on a second watch of the interview, Farage accuses the Tories of "playing the man not the ball", then the presenter says "speaking of ball/bull", to introduce the laboratory made beefburger item...
I think it was a tenuous link rather than a judgement on Farages comments
Labour started getting regular 35% plus opinion poll shares in the early summer of 2010 - before the coalition had done anything significant, let alone anything wildly unpopular. The Tories still held the lead, overall the coalition was positively rated. But there was a bloc of voters who reacted viscerally and almost immediately to the fact the LDs had gone into government with the Tories. Those of us on the centre left all know such people - tactical LD voters, Labour voters who could no longer stomach Brown (that was me and many of my friends), Iraq protestors, civil liberties protestors, general Labour is too right wingers, and so on.
At times since then Labour has been the repository of more general protest and its opinion poll lead has been in the low 40s. With the rise of UKIP those days are gone. What remains is a pretty solid - anti-Tory - core. In my view, it's unlikely many of its members will suddenly change their minds, something that the Tories' swing to the right seems to recognise.
I expect some swing back to the LDs in constituencies where they are fighting the Tories. But Labour's biggest preoccupations right now have to be (1) turnout - it needs the 2010 centre-left to turn-out again in 2015, along with the disillusioned Labour leaners who stayed at home; and (2) Tory UKIP harvesting - it needs UKIP's GE vote share to be over 5%. EdM can do a lot about 1 but is far from inspiring, to say the least (though in swinging to the right the Tories are helping too), he can do little about 2.
Since the summer of 2010 I've been expecting another hung Parliament in 2015. Nothing has happened since then to change my mind.
@tim - you should have taken that 10% early payment discount. It's no longer available. BTW did you see in today's yougov that the Tories are level with women voters?
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
And another Labour MP breaks cover - this is all a sign of EdM's masterful command using Zen and Budda as his mentors.
"The party’s challenge is to provide a compelling case as to why Britain would be better off with Labour. Firstly, the problem is that the electorate doesn’t yet see a clear choice between the parties on cuts vs growth. Secondly, the Tories have been relentless in asserting that Labour messed up the economy.
I cannot fathom why the political parties (the Tories used to do it as well....summer heat on Labour and all that!) believe there's any merit in launching campaigns during August. It's bonkers as no one has the slightest interest but the poor darlings cannot help themselves, can they?
(Mike should close down the site for the month too). Ahem.
Labour started getting regular 35% plus opinion poll shares in the early summer of 2010 - before the coalition had done anything significant, let alone anything wildly unpopular. The Tories still held the lead, overall the coalition was positively rated. But there was a bloc of voters who reacted viscerally and almost immediately to the fact the LDs had gone into government with the Tories. Those of us on the centre left all know such people - tactical LD voters, Labour voters who could no longer stomach Brown (that was me and many of my friends), Iraq protestors, civil liberties protestors, general Labour is too right wingers, and so on.
At times since then Labour has been the repository of more general protest and its opinion poll lead has been in the low 40s. With the rise of UKIP those days are gone. What remains is a pretty solid - anti-Tory - core. In my view, it's unlikely many of its members will suddenly change their minds, something that the Tories' swing to the right seems to recognise.
I expect some swing back to the LDs in constituencies where they are fighting the Tories. But Labour's biggest preoccupations right now have to be (1) turnout - it needs the 2010 centre-left to turn-out again in 2015, along with the disillusioned Labour leaners who stayed at home; and (2) Tory UKIP harvesting - it needs UKIP's GE vote share to be over 5%. EdM can do a lot about 1 but is far from inspiring, to say the least (though in swinging to the right the Tories are helping too), he can do little about 2.
Since the summer of 2010 I've been expecting another hung Parliament in 2015. Nothing has happened since then to change my mind.
So what is the "core" labour voters' view on the economy? We get the nasty party, etc of course but what would have been and what is your economic strategy?
Would you have immediately spent more on eg. infrastructure? Would you have begun a broad housebuilding intiative a la tim? Would you have doubled the bankers' tax, increased marginal rates?
Where did the coalition get it wrong in your opinion and what are you going to repeal/reverse and do to get it right?
Because unless it is just a visceral dislike of "Tories" (and I accept there is a non-trivial percentage of those), these are the questions some 2010 Lab voters will be asking.
I think that like most tory supporters our position is that this time it is the same. A government should recover 6-8 percent from mid term, especially when the economy is doing better. Of course this time, contrary to @antifrank, it is not the same because the Coalition has changed the dynamics. Whether this turns out to be good for Labour (as it clearly is at that moment) or bad only time will tell.
FWIW my view since the Spring and the recovery of the economy is that we have switched from a hung Parliament with Labour being the largest party to a hung Parliament with the tories as the largest party as being the most likely outcome.
In the overall scheme of things that is not a particularly large switch. This of course assumes that the swingback occurs as in previous elections. If Labour can hold their current vote they win. It is that simple.
Much depends on the reduction in Lib Dem seats. Their numbers control the size of the window for a hung Parliament and it is likely to be smaller, if not necessarily much smaller, than it was in 2010.
What if Labour don't manage it? Labour, at the least, need to get most seats in a hung parliament (something that I think they will achieve). If they don't, and Cameron manages to hang on, then what next for Labour? Being unable to unseat Cameron, whilst being the only opposition to an unpopular, faux-austerity government would be amazing. I can't see it happening, mind.
For those who wondered who was on Labour's Marie Celeste
City Future @CityFutureUK Does @edballsmp have anything to say about the positive economic news lately? Check our Twitter feed! Radio silence since 26 July @RicHolden
For those who wondered who was one Labour's Marie Celeste
City Future @CityFutureUK Does @edballsmp have anything to say about the positive economic news lately? Check our Twitter feed! Radio silence since 26 July @RicHolden
Stop it - you are worrying me that these knife Ed plots have some merits.
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
Agree with all of that except the vote shares. I don't think UKIP will get anywhere close to 7% in a general election.
My guess would be Con 36-38% Lab 33-35% Lib-Dem 18-20% UKIP 3-5%
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
In such a scenario (which is one I share), I would add around 3% to your Tory share and reduce Lab. Lib and UKIP modestly. That would put Cameron on the cusp of an overall majority...and a couple of per cent more might even make it a workable one.
For those who wondered who was one Labour's Marie Celeste
City Future @CityFutureUK Does @edballsmp have anything to say about the positive economic news lately? Check our Twitter feed! Radio silence since 26 July @RicHolden
Stop it - you are worrying me that these knife Ed plots have some merits.
Ed MUST stay.
All joshing aside - Mr Hodges was spot on about a car driving up and shooting EdM.
I thought it was a rather OTT blog post, but he's got his ear to the ground or has given serious doubters the confidence to stick the boot in. The outcome is the same - a stream of discontented MPs are getting airtime to rubbish EdM. And also their Big Four union backers...
Clearly I want EdM to hang on as he's totally PMish and a real threat... but I look forward to much public niggling between now and GE2015.
What if Labour don't manage it? Labour, at the least, need to get most seats in a hung parliament (something that I think they will achieve). If they don't, and Cameron manages to hang on, then what next for Labour? Being unable to unseat Cameron, whilst being the only opposition to an unpopular, faux-austerity government would be amazing. I can't see it happening, mind.
I think that is an interesting question. Labour held together pretty well after losing in 2010. This was, in my opinion, for a number of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, the leadership of the party remains dominated by characters from the Brown era who have a lot vested in the policies of that time. Secondly, their result in terms of seats was rather good, much better than the tories in 1997 where it was obvious that the next election was already lost. Thirdly, Labour doesn't have quite the same obsessions about, for example the EU, as the tories do. Fourthly, the immediate poll lift SO referred to suggested a return to power was quite likely.
If Labour were to lose in 2015 then some of these considerations will not apply. I think it would lead to more internal turmoil and a new generation of leaders coming through the ranks. This might ultimately be a good thing for Labour and indeed the country.
Many of the CON inclined posters here remind me of the Romney-backers in the US last November who seriously believed that their man was heading for victory because the polls were skewed.
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
The only person I can remember making a complete arse of himself over "a Romney victory" was Labourite Southam Observer.
He also thinks Englands Cricket team have a "fragile" batting line up that is costing us dear... this link show the top 32 batsmen to have ever played for England by test average... Englands current top 5 are all present.... no other batsmen since Boycott is, most are pre WW2
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
Mr. Taffys, charities are also increasingly at the door. It's bloody irritating.
Its interesting that the telegraph mentions salaries, but there is nothing about pensions. I wonder if they have the same lovely final salary schemes that many in the public sector enjoy.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the future there is a charity bankruptcy, because they can't fund their pensions obligations.
Either that, or the amount they actually give to the cause dwindles to zero, for the same reason.
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
That's a very good analysis Sean.
I'd only quibble over the Lab figure that I consider will be a point or two lower.
What if Labour don't manage it? Labour, at the least, need to get most seats in a hung parliament (something that I think they will achieve). If they don't, and Cameron manages to hang on, then what next for Labour? Being unable to unseat Cameron, whilst being the only opposition to an unpopular, faux-austerity government would be amazing. I can't see it happening, mind.
Likewise, if the Tories lose power there will be carnage on the right as Dave goes and a vacuum is created.
If they win outright, though,, I'd expect the centre left realignment I have been waiting for to take place.
Private healthcare coverage in the Uk has hit a 20 year low at 11%
And £5k for a nice flower vase always seemed such a bargain
My firm pays about £5k p.a. in premiums for private healthcare. Recently my mother was diagnosed with cancer, and was operated on successfully at the London Clinic within 12 days of the diagnosis.
So, in my experience, that was indeed a bargain. In fact, I'd recommend private health insurance to anyone who can afford it, or negotiate it with their employer.
I agree with Edmund in Tokyo. Taking the Brown votes from GE2010, add 8 from LD, Labour at 37 looks solid.
UKIP will end up at 6%, i.e. they will lose 5 points from above, possibly all reverting back to CON.
I don't think I'd be confident that 8% will turn out as Lib->Lab nationwide, but in the Con/Lab marginals I'd expect to see the Cleggasmtastic left-LibDem vote from 2010 crushed to bits.
I think I'd see UKIP doing a bit better than that, but it's hard to call. I think the UKIP performance may be a bit less decisive than it sounds, because if Farage has momentum at that point, as he may well after a couple of months of three underwhelming leaders telling us how crap the other two are, he should be able to pull a reasonable-sized chunk off Lab as well as Con.
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
All true, but not all that relevant due to the lack of drawn matches recently (except yesterday!) and the fact that the "quality of bowler " argument applies equally to every player since the dawn of time. Averages are the "gold standard" way of measuring a batsmans ability, and as this current line up are so far ahead of any from the last 40 years, to say they are our weak spot and fragile is very strange.
I know you never admit you are wrong so there's no point really debating this I suppose, but still...
Most of these batsman won the Ashes in Australia (& twice in England), quite a pressurised situation, here are the averages in Aus 10/11 (Cook 127, Trott 89, Bell 60 odd)
So thats three series against three top teams in pressurised situations
How would you judge the quality of a teams batting line up? Have you though tof a better method than averages? That would be great, revolutionary! You would be really onto something
I think that overall economic growth will be enormous in the current quarter. But, it should be seen as a partial catch-up, rather than an improvement in potential.
Owing to Ed's indolence we're getting a skewed picture. There is only one side playing. The other is in the pavilion shining the ball. When ed finally leads his team onto the field expect a new vigour a new plan and a very cleverly worked out strategy by the best brains the Uk's advertising business has to offer
Owing to Ed's indolence we're getting a skewed picture. There is only one side playing. The other is in the pavilion shining the ball. When ed finally leads his team onto the field expect a new vigour a new plan and a very cleverly worked out strategy by the best brains the Uk's advertising business has to offer
I think that overall economic growth will be enormous in the current quarter. But, it should be seen as a partial catch-up, rather than an improvement in potential.
I agree with that. The next 2 years should be boosted by a more normal type of recovery based on catch up. After that we still need to come to terms with how much we earn by selling to the rest of the world and how much we consume at home. Growth that is more than 1% higher than the EZ (as seems very likely, possibly more) is going to put yet more pressure on our balance of payments.
In short, whilst I am much more optimistic about the short term our economy has still not healed itself from the dangerous imbalances that developed 2002-2007.
Many of the CON inclined posters here remind me of the Romney-backers in the US last November who seriously believed that their man was heading for victory because the polls were skewed.
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
The only person I can remember making a complete arse of himself over "a Romney victory" was Labourite Southam Observer.
He also thinks Englands Cricket team have a "fragile" batting line up that is costing us dear... this link show the top 32 batsmen to have ever played for England by test average... Englands current top 5 are all present.... no other batsmen since Boycott is, most are pre WW2
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
You can only bat against the bowlers you face. Australia are alot weaker than their yesteryear teams with perhaps Clarke being their only world class batsman (And their bowling lineup being average at best) but we still had to get those runs in the first two tests. The series victory against India in India was very impressive.
"So Labour’s fightback is going well. With Ed Balls still nowhere to be seen, the cost of living campaign has been left in the expert hands of Chris Leslie and now the Standard have whacked Chuka. Despite recently pledging to ‘control the number of betting shops’ in his constituency because of the ‘huge concern that some streets in our area are steadily filling up with betting shops and payday loan companies that take advantage of our community, rather than help us’, the two-faced Shadow Business Secretary has accepted a £20,000 donation from Neil Goulden, the Chairman Emeritus of the Gala Coral Group. Coral have at least two shops in Chuka’s seat…
The Tories have returned to their favourite game, lining up Bob Neill:
“Can anyone really credibly ever believe anything Chuka Umuna says? He says one thing in public and does another behind closed doors. His hypocrisy seems to be limitless. The only thing we know he truly believes is that the capital is full of “trash” and “c list” wannabes.”
Chuka says it’s all fine because it was a personal donation. Guido looks forward to reading about it in depth on his Wikipedia page…
Owing to Ed's indolence we're getting a skewed picture. There is only one side playing. The other is in the pavilion shining the ball. When ed finally leads his team onto the field expect a new vigour a new plan and a very cleverly worked out strategy by the best brains the Uk's advertising business has to offer
Advertising brains ? Then he's at last gasp.
You can't polish an Ed but you can roll him in glitter.
That's all you've got left, no policies, no ideas. As an adman you should know no amount of advertising can make up for a crap product.
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
Agree with all of that except the vote shares. I don't think UKIP will get anywhere close to 7% in a general election.
My guess would be Con 36-38% Lab 33-35% Lib-Dem 18-20% UKIP 3-5%
The LD local election results have been pretty consistent. 2011: 15%, 2012: 16%, 2013: 14%.
Many of the CON inclined posters here remind me of the Romney-backers in the US last November who seriously believed that their man was heading for victory because the polls were skewed.
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
The only person I can remember making a complete arse of himself over "a Romney victory" was Labourite Southam Observer.
He also thinks Englands Cricket team have a "fragile" batting line up that is costing us dear... this link show the top 32 batsmen to have ever played for England by test average... Englands current top 5 are all present.... no other batsmen since Boycott is, most are pre WW2
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
You can only bat against the bowlers you face. Australia are alot weaker than their yesteryear teams with perhaps Clarke being their only world class batsman (And their bowling lineup being average at best) but we still had to get those runs in the first two tests. The series victory against India in India was very impressive.
There is nothing wrong with the Australian seam attack. What's so great about Bresnan ?
Many of the CON inclined posters here remind me of the Romney-backers in the US last November who seriously believed that their man was heading for victory because the polls were skewed.
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
The only person I can remember making a complete arse of himself over "a Romney victory" was Labourite Southam Observer.
He also thinks Englands Cricket team have a "fragile" batting line up that is costing us dear... this link show the top 32 batsmen to have ever played for England by test average... Englands current top 5 are all present.... no other batsmen since Boycott is, most are pre WW2
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
You can only bat against the bowlers you face. Australia are alot weaker than their yesteryear teams with perhaps Clarke being their only world class batsman (And their bowling lineup being average at best) but we still had to get those runs in the first two tests. The series victory against India in India was very impressive.
Equally, losing 3 - zip to Pakistan was not so impressive.
I think that overall economic growth will be enormous in the current quarter.
Only because the heartless coalition is allowing unscrupulous mill owners to recruit more barefooted emaciated nine year olds to work on treadmills for 24 hours a day ...on so-called ''zero hours off'' contracts.
I think that overall economic growth will be enormous in the current quarter. But, it should be seen as a partial catch-up, rather than an improvement in potential.
In short, whilst I am much more optimistic about the short term our economy has still not healed itself from the dangerous imbalances that developed 2002-2007.
As well as rebalancing we also need to make sure that jobs created go to some of our 2.5 million unemployed rather than new immigrants. It may slow short term growth slightly but we can't allow companies to import more labour, when with a bit of training or motivation, we have plenty of UK unemployed.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
If you're about right (and it's certainly a plausible projection), that would give the LibDems an interesting dilemma.
Owing to Ed's indolence we're getting a skewed picture. There is only one side playing. The other is in the pavilion shining the ball. When ed finally leads his team onto the field expect a new vigour a new plan and a very cleverly worked out strategy by the best brains the Uk's advertising business has to offer
Absolutely - 3 yrs of vacillation will be forgotten as the Great Plan For Britain is unveiled.
Perhaps Harold and his White Heat of Technology can chip in as well.
I think that overall economic growth will be enormous in the current quarter.
Only because the heartless coalition is allowing unscrupulous mill owners to recruit more barefooted emaciated nine year olds to work on treadmills for 24 hours a day ...on so-called ''zero hours off'' contracts.
9yrs olds - you softie wet liberal! Up chimneys at 5 I say, they have a much smaller diameter and therefore can reach sooty depths only Heineken can dream of!
Chuka Umuna..Is he a male model..he can't really be a serious contender for leader of the Labour Party..can he?..is he the best they can do...the lad spends too much time in front of his mirror..
Chuka Umuna..Is he a male model..he can't really be a serious contender for leader of the Labour Party..can he?..is he the best they can do...the lad spends too much time in front of his mirror..
Chuka is the worst form of £3k New Labour suit. He sucks up to any issue to climb the greasy pole and is the grandson of a senior judge. He also referred to those who didn't get in to his preferred nightclub as trash.
If the Tories had someone like him - he'd be dead in the water already.
Looking back at the last two GEs and the ICM polls 2 years before, the LDs only have a 1% to 3% improvement from their polling two years earlier. That could roughly translate into a 14% to 16% range at the GE if we add the % to the July 2013 figure. If we derive 3% on 20% as a proportion (2008 & 2010) then it would move the max to15%.
I can feel the desperation/frustration from here just using the interweb
"...But whilst Cameron is out of touch, the Labour leadership are running out of time.
The last page of the party’s living standards dossier, after the rigorous and damning research that has come before, is one hell of a damp squib. It outlines what “One Nation Labour” would be doing to boost people’s living standards. That’s the plan anyway – most of the policies listed by the party are either vague or pretty small beer. They’ve all been announced already – not that the voters have noticed.
Energy policy – vague.
Rail fares – vague.
Standing up for families in the private rented sector – vague.
None of this sounds like a policy that is going to make a sizeable difference to that £6,660 hole Cameron has dug for each and every one of us. Labour’s critique of the government’s failures are getting more nuanced – but party policy is still nowhere near expansive or radical enough to meet the task ahead.
Yesterday at the briefing, Chris Leslie alluded to “goodies” that the party would be announcing soon – presumably at party conference of before. They can’t come quick enough, because party activists are still being sent naked onto the doorstep. Our lack of vision – and, perhaps, strategy – is the root cause of the disquiet in the PLP and the malaise in the wider party.
Two years before an election, I still can’t give a good enough answer to the most important question in politics – what is it that should make me vote for your party this time? Because replacing OFGEM and changing the cap on rail fare increases just isn’t going to do.
If we’re still in this position after conference, we’ll be in real trouble. Because it will look like we have nothing to say...
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
If you're about right (and it's certainly a plausible projection), that would give the LibDems an interesting dilemma.
Looking back at the last two GEs and the ICM polls 2 years before, the LDs only have a 1% to 3% improvement from their polling two years earlier. That could roughly translate into a 14% to 16% range at the GE if we add the % to the July 2013 figure. If we derive 3% on 20% as a proportion (2008 & 2010) then it would move the max to15%.
How interesting. Not quite the All Powerful LD Vote one may think.
Still, there's Bedford. And did I mention Iain Dale failing in 2005 to be the PPC? It was only 8yrs ago.
I don't think Labour's vote share is at all solid. As other posters have pointed out, it's about 4% off its peak, according to pollsters.
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
Agree with all of that except the vote shares. I don't think UKIP will get anywhere close to 7% in a general election.
My guess would be Con 36-38% Lab 33-35% Lib-Dem 18-20% UKIP 3-5%
The LD local election results have been pretty consistent. 2011: 15%, 2012: 16%, 2013: 14%.
Doesn't matter quite so much about percentages does it. It's seats that count. I suspect Lab and Con will more or less swap numbers next time, with the LD's down a bit, but not a lot, Nats up a bit and 2-3 poss 4 odds and sods .... UKIP, Green
@Plato - There was a comment (surprisingly, in CiF) the other day which hit the nail firmly on the head. It was something along the lines of 'The reason why Labour haven't been able to articulate a credible alternative economic plan is very simple: there isn't one'.
Mark Ferguson needs to get a proofreader. That article was almost worthy of the Guardian. For instance, what group of countries is the 'G&' ? Between 2015 and what?
Aside from that, I laugh at the prospect of Labour under Miliband going on energy policy, when he was so awful when he was in charge of DECC.
@Plato - There was a comment (surprisingly, in CiF) the other day which hit the nail firmly on the head. It was something along the lines of 'The reason why Labour haven't been able to articulate a credible alternative economic plan is very simple: there isn't one'.
The *small beer* quality is apparent as its getting bugger all traction on Twitter that is largely Leftish and ripe for a fight.
I've barely seen a mention of it. So if Labour were expecting some cut-through, its not worked.
Chuka Umuna..Is he a male model..he can't really be a serious contender for leader of the Labour Party..can he?..is he the best they can do...the lad spends too much time in front of his mirror..
Chuka is the worst form of £3k New Labour suit. He sucks up to any issue to climb the greasy pole and is the grandson of a senior judge. He also referred to those who didn't get in to his preferred nightclub as trash.
If the Tories had someone like him - he'd be dead in the water already.
@Plato - There was a comment (surprisingly, in CiF) the other day which hit the nail firmly on the head. It was something along the lines of 'The reason why Labour haven't been able to articulate a credible alternative economic plan is very simple: there isn't one'.
The alternative to Osbornes 2010 fantasy plan was to borrow hundreds on billions more and give up on deficit reduction. Followed by increased consumer spending and a house price bubble.
There's really no point claiming Osborne has been consistent
The COTE encouraged consumer spending by putting up VAT ?
Ed Balls will be on the phone shortly to invite you inside the tent !
The alternative to Osbornes 2010 fantasy plan was to borrow hundreds on billions more and give up on deficit reduction. Followed by increased consumer spending and a house price bubble.
There's really no point claiming Osborne has been consistent
Hang on, I thought you were claiming that Osborne had given up on deficit reduction and there was no austerity.
The alternative to Osbornes 2010 fantasy plan was to borrow hundreds on billions more and give up on deficit reduction. Followed by increased consumer spending and a house price bubble.
There's really no point claiming Osborne has been consistent
Hang on, I thought you were claiming that Osborne had given up on deficit reduction and there was no austerity.
funny cos I'm sure that the entire left has been saying there has been awful austerity..
"Lib Dems: ban petrol and diesel cars from UK roads by 2040"
That's actually very clever. It looks like Clegg buying off the open-toed sandal brigade with a barmy policy so far in the future (and in any case illegal under EU law) that its practical effect is precisely zero, in order to get them to accept some semblance of sanity on fracking, which is a rather more pressing issue.
"Lib Dems: ban petrol and diesel cars from UK roads by 2040"
That's actually very clever. It looks like Clegg buying off the open-toed sandal brigade with a barmy policy so far in the future (and in any case illegal under EU law) that its practical effect is precisely zero, in order to get them to accept some semblance of sanity on fracking, which is a rather more pressing issue.
All our company cars are now dual powered: petrol or diesel/electric. The latest one will do 100 miles on electric and can be home-charged.
2040 depends on battery technology and domestic/work charging facility. However I do not see heavy goods traffic being electric by then, unless we put a lot of freight back to rail - one problem: we have built on most of the goods/marshalling yards.
"Lib Dems: ban petrol and diesel cars from UK roads by 2040"
That's actually very clever. It looks like Clegg buying off the open-toed sandal brigade with a barmy policy so far in the future (and in any case illegal under EU law) that its practical effect is precisely zero, in order to get them to accept some semblance of sanity on fracking, which is a rather more pressing issue.
All our company cars are now dual powered: petrol or diesel/electric. The latest one will do 100 miles on electric and can be home-charged.
2040 depends on battery technology and domestic/work charging facility. However I do not see heavy goods traffic being electric by then, unless we put a lot of freight back to rail - one problem: we have built on most of the goods/marshalling yards.
Wonderful - lets have tax breaks for these vehichles and ramp up the road tax on the worst polluting cars - as has been done.
Comments
Ed wants to copy this...
@afneil: IMF expects French economy, after flatlining in 2012, to contract 0.2% in 2013 and to grow by 0.8% in 2014. Miserable three-year performance
He started out in Yougov with a net +22 rating and now has reached -41. A mere flesh wound.
Economy tends to trump everything else when it comes to pencil in the ballot box.
The zero wage contract story is an interesting example - from what I've seen via the ONS and other sources its 0.8% of the total workforce and 84% of those who have one are satisfied with it.
One would never guess given the attempt to portray it as Yet Another Evil Mill Owner story.
The Oncoming Storm @TheOncoming
@MSmithsonPB Was hardly an emphatic difference though and 31% isn't far off what the Tories got in that election!
Matthew Scott 53 minutes ago http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/hugorifkind/article3835070.ece
There are already well over 2000 onshore oil and gas wells working unobtrusively in Britain. Many of them are in quiet rural locations including several in for example Kirby Misperton (N Yorks) and Stockbridge (Hants). I bet that not even most of the residents of these places even knew of their existence. http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/talking-about-balcombe-on-5live-and-is.html
Plotting with his missus against his leader, if the papers are correct.
They;re calling it the Barbabcoup.
I prefer the 'pillow talk plot'.
Ed's bored with the economics brief. Especially now he can hear even the left orientated commentators p8ssing themselves when he talks about economic catastrophe.
You may be right about what may happen. Certainly, the evidence of previous elections suggests that oppositions usually decline from this point in the cycle to the General Election. I've written long boring posts about this.
Set against that however, that this election is different. Labour has not attracted many 2010 Tories so they can't "swing-back", and there are reasons to believe, that while not welded on, Lab>LD switchers may be "stickier" than in most mid terms.
So mebbe Aye, mebbe Naw.
GIven this, I prefer to rely on what has happened so far. For three years, Labour's vote has not declined below the 37/38 level with YouGov. If it did, I would be more worried than I am now, (though I am in any case, not convinced 38 is enough to win an election from).
How would such a decline come about? I'd suggest three possibilities:
1. A trickle of support from 2010 Labour voters to the Tories.
2. A decline in 2010 LD> Lab - switchers, with ppl either returning to LDs, not voting or going to 'protest' parties.
3. A decline in number of 2010 non-voters who actually say they'll vote - possibly seen late in election campaign.
Each of these could reduce Labour share, alone or in combination. But it hasn't happened yet, or not to the scale that would cost Labour the election, so it seems foolish to assume it will.
Good for the soul.
The big charities are always at your pocket. After the Telegraph's excellent article, its easy to understand why.
"New figures from the Home Office estimate that in the past year about 17,000 people aged 16-59 in England and Wales took methamphetamine - fewer than for any other drug recorded. About 27,000 people had used heroin, 47,000 crack cocaine, 120,000 ketamine and two million cannabis...
Most of its 300 or so referrals for using crystal meth are from London, but some are starting to come from other cities like Manchester. A small number are from the straight clubbing community, but they remain the exception, says Bowden-Jones.
"On the West Coast of America it's a drug of deprivation, in London it seems to be a drug of affluent gay men and in Eastern Europe it's associated with prostitution."
One of the reasons for its unpopularity may be that British drug users have plenty of other stimulants available to them..."
My $0.02? I'm with eg. GIN1138 - a Con overall majority is a big ask. But a NOM Con plurality looks pretty likely.
The four most expensive words in the English language are This Time It's Different. Both Labour and Conservative supporters are uttering them at present.
I am also disappointed by Guido's current quote of the day: "Ed is about as much use as a snooze button on a smoke alarm!"
As you can see, the UKIP surge masked what is mostly a fall in the Labour lead; there was a phase where both parties lost votes to UKIP, and a phase where the Tories have regained them (but not Labour).
If the Tories have a clear enough competence message- they can swing it. It'll be tough, but the population doesn't like in-fighting and the LDs will surely spend much time showing how they're not HMG over the next 2yrs.
I find Nigel's remarks on C4 last night most interesting - being a former member of the NF is fine if it was a long time ago and 50% of the population thinks Enoch was a visionary...
Well that makes Racist Van That Isn't look a bit tame doesn't it!
The fact the party campaigned against IVR suggests there is some concern here ('disenfranchising millions etc.').
http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Records/England/Test/Batting/Highest_Career_Batting_Average.html
I have no problem with anyone who was a member of any legal party and joining another having their 2p. If anything - the censorious PC types would like to wipe Kippers out but are happy to have the SWP FFS.
My point was Nigel's odd argument - that vans are racist/vile/blah blah but being a former NF was fine. As was Enoch [I agree with him here but its not exactly mainstream stuff].
Like growth, they're the wrong sort of women. Or is that wimmin?
I dont think Farage has ever said the vans were racist, or mentioned race specifically in any argument.. Enoch Powell also barely ever mentioned race, much of what he said was twisted to create what some people might call "urban myths"
I must admit I jumped the gun and was about to rant about the "speaking of bull" comment on Ch4, but on a second watch of the interview, Farage accuses the Tories of "playing the man not the ball", then the presenter says "speaking of ball/bull", to introduce the laboratory made beefburger item...
I think it was a tenuous link rather than a judgement on Farages comments
Sounds like another one of your single data point analyses..
Too deep < (too shallow, about the right level)
Too quickly < (too slow, about the right pace)
Also another fortnight passes without any blame shifting to the coalition on the cuts:
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition 24
The last Labour government 36
Both 27
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelheaver/100229883/westminsters-snobs-and-robots-declare-war-on-ukip/
At times since then Labour has been the repository of more general protest and its opinion poll lead has been in the low 40s. With the rise of UKIP those days are gone. What remains is a pretty solid - anti-Tory - core. In my view, it's unlikely many of its members will suddenly change their minds, something that the Tories' swing to the right seems to recognise.
I expect some swing back to the LDs in constituencies where they are fighting the Tories. But Labour's biggest preoccupations right now have to be (1) turnout - it needs the 2010 centre-left to turn-out again in 2015, along with the disillusioned Labour leaners who stayed at home; and (2) Tory UKIP harvesting - it needs UKIP's GE vote share to be over 5%. EdM can do a lot about 1 but is far from inspiring, to say the least (though in swinging to the right the Tories are helping too), he can do little about 2.
Since the summer of 2010 I've been expecting another hung Parliament in 2015. Nothing has happened since then to change my mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23587921
"A Treasury minister has said Labour's discipline is breaking down, after one of the party's MPs appeared to question its economic strategy.
Labour's Geraint Davies said the "jury is out" among voters on whom to trust on delivering a strong recovery.
A failure to rebut "relentless" Conservative attacks had made Labour look "like a shamefaced schoolboy", he wrote in the Independent.
There was no comment on Mr Davies's piece from the Labour Party."
I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems will have recovered some of their leftward-leaning support, by the time of the next election, and be polling around the 17% or so that they get in local elections.
At the time of the last election, the Conservatives were only marginally ahead of Labour in terms of which party was favoured on the economy. Now, their lead is bigger, and is likely to increase in the run-up to 2015. In all likelihood, the government will be fighting on a record of lower unemployment than in 2010, a big reduction in the deficit, and an improvement in the standard of living. That will be hard to argue against.
The big difficulty for the Conservatives is the ongoing loss of members. And, in all likelihood, UKIP will beat them in next year's EU elections, and win dozens of council seats off them. But, I don't think either will be decisive in 2015.
My guess is that 2015 will produce a result something like Con 36%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 17%, UKIP 7%, Others 7%. But, first time incumbency will prevent too many Conservative MPs losing seats to Labour.
"The party’s challenge is to provide a compelling case as to why Britain would be better off with Labour. Firstly, the problem is that the electorate doesn’t yet see a clear choice between the parties on cuts vs growth. Secondly, the Tories have been relentless in asserting that Labour messed up the economy.
Not rebutting this charge makes us look like a shamefaced schoolboy admitting responsibility by omission. And if we don’t rebut the accusation, it will simply amplify as the election approaches." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-has-let-tories-win-argument-on-economy-8747313.html?origin=internalSearch
(Mike should close down the site for the month too). Ahem.
Would you have immediately spent more on eg. infrastructure? Would you have begun a broad housebuilding intiative a la tim? Would you have doubled the bankers' tax, increased marginal rates?
Where did the coalition get it wrong in your opinion and what are you going to repeal/reverse and do to get it right?
Because unless it is just a visceral dislike of "Tories" (and I accept there is a non-trivial percentage of those), these are the questions some 2010 Lab voters will be asking.
FWIW my view since the Spring and the recovery of the economy is that we have switched from a hung Parliament with Labour being the largest party to a hung Parliament with the tories as the largest party as being the most likely outcome.
In the overall scheme of things that is not a particularly large switch. This of course assumes that the swingback occurs as in previous elections. If Labour can hold their current vote they win. It is that simple.
Much depends on the reduction in Lib Dem seats. Their numbers control the size of the window for a hung Parliament and it is likely to be smaller, if not necessarily much smaller, than it was in 2010.
Labour, at the least, need to get most seats in a hung parliament (something that I think they will achieve). If they don't, and Cameron manages to hang on, then what next for Labour? Being unable to unseat Cameron, whilst being the only opposition to an unpopular, faux-austerity government would be amazing. I can't see it happening, mind.
City Future @CityFutureUK
Does @edballsmp have anything to say about the positive economic news lately? Check our Twitter feed! Radio silence since 26 July @RicHolden
Ed MUST stay.
My guess would be Con 36-38% Lab 33-35% Lib-Dem 18-20% UKIP 3-5%
I thought it was a rather OTT blog post, but he's got his ear to the ground or has given serious doubters the confidence to stick the boot in. The outcome is the same - a stream of discontented MPs are getting airtime to rubbish EdM. And also their Big Four union backers...
Clearly I want EdM to hang on as he's totally PMish and a real threat... but I look forward to much public niggling between now and GE2015.
If Labour were to lose in 2015 then some of these considerations will not apply. I think it would lead to more internal turmoil and a new generation of leaders coming through the ranks. This might ultimately be a good thing for Labour and indeed the country.
Its interesting that the telegraph mentions salaries, but there is nothing about pensions. I wonder if they have the same lovely final salary schemes that many in the public sector enjoy.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the future there is a charity bankruptcy, because they can't fund their pensions obligations.
Either that, or the amount they actually give to the cause dwindles to zero, for the same reason.
Cough ....
I'd only quibble over the Lab figure that I consider will be a point or two lower.
If they win outright, though,, I'd expect the centre left realignment I have been waiting for to take place.
So, in my experience, that was indeed a bargain. In fact, I'd recommend private health insurance to anyone who can afford it, or negotiate it with their employer.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02636/production-and-man_2636499c.jpg
I think I'd see UKIP doing a bit better than that, but it's hard to call. I think the UKIP performance may be a bit less decisive than it sounds, because if Farage has momentum at that point, as he may well after a couple of months of three underwhelming leaders telling us how crap the other two are, he should be able to pull a reasonable-sized chunk off Lab as well as Con.
The quality of opposition and uncovered wickets make comparisons with the past very unwise in cricket. What averages do our batsmen have against good sides and do they score their runs in pressurised situations? Scoring 100s on flat wickets against average bowlers in matches heading towards a draw boosts an average, but tells us little about a player's quality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All true, but not all that relevant due to the lack of drawn matches recently (except yesterday!) and the fact that the "quality of bowler " argument applies equally to every player since the dawn of time. Averages are the "gold standard" way of measuring a batsmans ability, and as this current line up are so far ahead of any from the last 40 years, to say they are our weak spot and fragile is very strange.
I know you never admit you are wrong so there's no point really debating this I suppose, but still...
Most of these batsman won the Ashes in Australia (& twice in England), quite a pressurised situation, here are the averages in Aus 10/11 (Cook 127, Trott 89, Bell 60 odd)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=5540;team=1;type=series
They beat India in India also. (Cook 80 Prior over 50 KP 48..)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=7339;team=1;type=series)
When we lost at home to the No1 team in the world, the batting averages were still decent
(KP 54 Prior 45 Trott 43)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=6884;team=1;type=series)
So thats three series against three top teams in pressurised situations
How would you judge the quality of a teams batting line up? Have you though tof a better method than averages? That would be great, revolutionary! You would be really onto something
In short, whilst I am much more optimistic about the short term our economy has still not healed itself from the dangerous imbalances that developed 2002-2007.
The series victory against India in India was very impressive.
"So Labour’s fightback is going well. With Ed Balls still nowhere to be seen, the cost of living campaign has been left in the expert hands of Chris Leslie and now the Standard have whacked Chuka. Despite recently pledging to ‘control the number of betting shops’ in his constituency because of the ‘huge concern that some streets in our area are steadily filling up with betting shops and payday loan companies that take advantage of our community, rather than help us’, the two-faced Shadow Business Secretary has accepted a £20,000 donation from Neil Goulden, the Chairman Emeritus of the Gala Coral Group. Coral have at least two shops in Chuka’s seat…
The Tories have returned to their favourite game, lining up Bob Neill:
“Can anyone really credibly ever believe anything Chuka Umuna says? He says one thing in public and does another behind closed doors. His hypocrisy seems to be limitless. The only thing we know he truly believes is that the capital is full of “trash” and “c list” wannabes.”
Chuka says it’s all fine because it was a personal donation. Guido looks forward to reading about it in depth on his Wikipedia page…
UPDATE: Goulden is also head of the Association of British Bookmakers, lobbyists for the betting industry, which blows the personal donation line out of the water. Lets home Chuka remembers to declare his interest every time he speaks on the issue now." http://order-order.com/2013/08/06/two-faced-chuka-is-back-umunna-slams-bookies-then-takes-their-cash/
You can't polish an Ed but you can roll him in glitter.
That's all you've got left, no policies, no ideas. As an adman you should know no amount of advertising can make up for a crap product.
Only because the heartless coalition is allowing unscrupulous mill owners to recruit more barefooted emaciated nine year olds to work on treadmills for 24 hours a day ...on so-called ''zero hours off'' contracts.
As well as rebalancing we also need to make sure that jobs created go to some of our 2.5 million unemployed rather than new immigrants. It may slow short term growth slightly but we can't allow companies to import more labour, when with a bit of training or motivation, we have plenty of UK unemployed.
Perhaps Harold and his White Heat of Technology can chip in as well.
If the Tories had someone like him - he'd be dead in the water already.
"...But whilst Cameron is out of touch, the Labour leadership are running out of time.
The last page of the party’s living standards dossier, after the rigorous and damning research that has come before, is one hell of a damp squib. It outlines what “One Nation Labour” would be doing to boost people’s living standards. That’s the plan anyway – most of the policies listed by the party are either vague or pretty small beer. They’ve all been announced already – not that the voters have noticed.
Energy policy – vague.
Rail fares – vague.
Standing up for families in the private rented sector – vague.
None of this sounds like a policy that is going to make a sizeable difference to that £6,660 hole Cameron has dug for each and every one of us. Labour’s critique of the government’s failures are getting more nuanced – but party policy is still nowhere near expansive or radical enough to meet the task ahead.
Yesterday at the briefing, Chris Leslie alluded to “goodies” that the party would be announcing soon – presumably at party conference of before. They can’t come quick enough, because party activists are still being sent naked onto the doorstep. Our lack of vision – and, perhaps, strategy – is the root cause of the disquiet in the PLP and the malaise in the wider party.
Two years before an election, I still can’t give a good enough answer to the most important question in politics – what is it that should make me vote for your party this time? Because replacing OFGEM and changing the cap on rail fare increases just isn’t going to do.
If we’re still in this position after conference, we’ll be in real trouble. Because it will look like we have nothing to say...
http://labourlist.org/2013/08/cameron-may-be-out-of-touch-but-the-labour-leadership-are-running-out-of-time/
Still, there's Bedford. And did I mention Iain Dale failing in 2005 to be the PPC? It was only 8yrs ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10224801/Lib-Dems-ban-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-UK-roads-by-2040.html
"Lib Dems: ban petrol and diesel cars from UK roads by 2040"
Aside from that, I laugh at the prospect of Labour under Miliband going on energy policy, when he was so awful when he was in charge of DECC.
I've barely seen a mention of it. So if Labour were expecting some cut-through, its not worked.
Ed Balls will be on the phone shortly to invite you inside the tent !
They also have their own 'alternative' van.
In 2010, UKIP was 3.5% of England Vote and BNP 2.1%. Will it remain, go to UKIP, go to Cons?
If we concentrate on the vote in England in 2010 to see the regional variations and Cons Seats out of Total. How will the regions play out?
England: Cons:39.6/LAB:28.1/LD:24.2/UKIP:3.5/BNP:2.1.Seats 298/533
South W: Cons:42.8/LAB:15.4/LD:34.7/UKIP:4.5/BNP:0.8. Seats 36/55
South E: Cons:49.9/LAB:16.2/LD:26.2/UKIP:4.1/BNP:0.7. Seats 75/84
London: Cons:34.5/LAB:36.6/LD:22.1/UKIP:1.7/BNP:1.5. Seats: 28/73
Eastern: Cons:47.1/LAB:19.6/LD:24.1/UKIP:4.3/BNP:2.1. Seats: 52/58
E. Mids: Cons:41.2/LAB:29.8/LD:20.8/UKIP:3.3/BNP:3.1 Seats:31/46
W.Mids: Cons:39.5/LAB:30.6/LD:20.5/UKIP:4.0/BNP:2.8. Seats:33/59
Yorks/H: Cons:32.5/LAB:34.7/LD:23.0/UKIP:2.8/BNP:4.4 Seats: 19/54
North W: Cons:31.7/LAB:39.5/LD:21.6/UKIP:3.2/BNP:2.1. Seats: 22/75
North E:: Cons:23.7/LAB:43.6/LD:23.6/UKIP:2.7/BNP:4.4. Seats:2/29
ComRes poll:Labour 37% Conservatives 34% UKIP 12%; LibDems 10%
Is this a new poll? or one a day or two old?
The latest one will do 100 miles on electric and can be home-charged.
2040 depends on battery technology and domestic/work charging facility. However I do not see heavy goods traffic being electric by then, unless we put a lot of freight back to rail - one problem: we have built on most of the goods/marshalling yards.
Anti-Rudd political advert.
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/australian_general_electi/2013/08/-watch-the-australian-liberals-attack-ad-kevin-rudd-is-all-talk.html
But talk of banning is illiberal..
YES 5.4-6.8
NO 1.17-1.21