Theuniondivvie ( SNP propagandist ) vs Nate Silver ( world renowned authority on electorates )
I wonder whose opinion is more valuable ?
Who knows? One thing's for sure, the opinion of an Italy-based troll who names himself after a self-confessed fascist is utterly without value.
That may be so, but he's still right that Nate Silver's opinion is, roughly, three trillion times more interesting and important than anything YOU say.
And what was Nate Silver's prediction last time round ? His model gets wobbly when 2 becomes 3. When it reaches 4, it shakes violently.
I am told the order of appearance of UKIP candidates in the Euro shortlists I posted this morning is the ranking made by UKIP NEC after their assessment process. The members will now vote.
So it suggests the NEC ranked Diane James 4th in SE. Some sitting MEPs weren't ranked in top spot too.
Why do you say that? If the Conservative membership had been allowed to rank MEP lists openly rather than had sitting members placed at the top automatically we'd have got different results there.
I admit that comparison leaks like a sieve, but were you expecting incumbency to play more of a role maybe?
It's interesting that they let know the ranking rather than an alpabethical order like all parties do when they release MEP shortlists. I am not sure if they want let members know who they want...or if they want members think they want X and so members would Y who is the one they really want....you never know.....
I am told the order of appearance of UKIP candidates in the Euro shortlists I posted this morning is the ranking made by UKIP NEC after their assessment process. The members will now vote.
So it suggests the NEC ranked Diane James 4th in SE. Some sitting MEPs weren't ranked in top spot too.
Why do you say that? If the Conservative membership had been allowed to rank MEP lists openly rather than had sitting members placed at the top automatically we'd have got different results there.
I admit that comparison leaks like a sieve, but were you expecting incumbency to play more of a role maybe?
I'm surprised Ms James was rated fourth, behind Janice Atkinson (?), and Ray Finch. I thought she was one of UKIP's stars.
English ISP not giving after for Cameron and their attempt to censor the internet for the UK market. Nice one! http://goo.gl/yinpiq
His incompetent comical posturing is a truly pathetic habit but one we are well used to by now.
Only very stupid people assume that this was anything other than Dave tweeting photo stunts with bereaved realatives
His posturing is never less than ridiculous but he did try to put his moronic snoopers charter through. He got pretty far with it too until lib dems and calamity Clegg remembered they were supposed to be against that sort of authoritarian stupidity and slapped NannyCam down.
Janice Atkinson is the author of UKIP welfare polices. Apparently. She stood as Janice Small for the Tories in Batley and Spen in 2010 GE. She's part of Women On think tank.
I'm surprised Ms James was rated fourth, behind Janice Atkinson (?), and Ray Finch. I thought she was one of UKIP's stars.
Ah, I see, cheers.
I'm wondering why she went for it at all. If she'd ranked higher and got a seat then it would have severely dented one of UKIPs best chances for a parliamentary seat. Strategically she should be deployed in Eastleigh with her name recognition and any random party hack can go on a list system. And if she loses then she starts to get the perennial bridesmaid tag.
@AndreaParma_82 I understood that, but thanks for adding the clarification anyway. I was surprised that the NEC didn't seem to rate or value incumbency.
I'm surprised Ms James was rated fourth, behind Janice Atkinson (?), and Ray Finch. I thought she was one of UKIP's stars.
Ah, I see, cheers.
I'm wondering why she went for it at all. If she'd ranked higher and got a seat then it would have severely dented one of UKIPs best chances for a parliamentary seat. Strategically she should be deployed in Eastleigh with her name recognition and any random party hack can go on a list system. And if she loses then she starts to get the perennial bridesmaid tag.
In 2015 she will be able to include experience as a local government councillor, and an MEP on her CV. Useful experience for an MP I'd have thought. I would like to see her as a Westminster candidate in 2015 though. (I think MEPs can just stand down, and the next ranked on the party list takes the Brussels gig.)
As you can see, it has already fallen from its peak and is just below the level at the beginning of 2010.
This was an element that was overlooked in most of the commentary about the fall in real wages in Britain in the last three years. In the same period, EU unemployment has risen considerably:
Other EU countries have been better at protecting the wages of the in-work, but most of them have done so with rising unemployment."
@antifrank, you hit the nail firmly on the head with that assessment. I too noted the way the commentary on this issue failed to highlight the fact that our fall in wages was matched by rising employment in the UK. The opposite of what is happening elsewhere in parts of the EU. Hence Labour's attempts to now focus on the cost of living in the hope it will deliver a vote less economic recovery for the Coalition after Labour's earlier expectations of raising unemployment becoming a giant political stick with which to hit the Government. I think that Labour are onto a loser by the way, lower wages vs economic recovery and high employment. The voters will connect the dots with the help of the Government's campaign to highlight their economic record.
RIP David McLetchie. A very honourable man, and as a Scotitish Tory, some achievement!
Well done the England Cricket Team - this series could have been very different what with the Old Trafford weather, some DRS decisions and had Warner and Harris played in every game, as well as Cummins who bowled amazingly for the Aussies in South Africa not have been injured for this series. Yes, Cook, Root, Bell, Bairstow and Prior have not fired largely, but 3-0 I think flatters England somewhat.
An amazing and critical juncture in the financial markets right now. The whole topping process is taking longer than I've been expecting, usually the way. I've been completely on the sidelines the past 2 or 3 weeks. Waiting for a break of 1680 on the S&P500 before we can be sure the final top is in. I'm very much 50/50 between 2 or 3 scenarios up until 20/21st August.
One thing is for sure, when people come to read the archive on PB over August 2013 in the years to come, as the 4.5 year bull market off the March 2009 lows topped out, they'll be amazed at how few saw the greatest crash of all time ahead. And crowd dynamics being what they are, it just has to be that way.
Take note that the sage of Omaha aka Warren Buffett has got a record amount in cash right now, his longtime colleague Stanley Druckenmiller is similar, and Jim Rogers is warning of a huge crash ahead. Hunchman is not alone.....but it sure feels like it on some occasions!
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
I suspect the Conservative Leadership will be delighted with that ICM poll in the lead up to the Party Conference Season, it will certainly keep the focus on Ed Miliband and the current difficulties in the Labour party. I must admit that I enjoyed the political car crash that was Chris Bryant today, couldn't have happened to a more arrogant politician. But it highlight's yet again just how poor the ground work has been laid for Labour's strategy and policy planning for a GE campaign which has already started.
RIP David McLetchie. A very honourable man, and as a Scotitish Tory, some achievement!
Well done the England Cricket Team - this series could have been very different what with the Old Trafford weather, some DRS decisions and had Warner and Harris played in every game, as well as Cummins who bowled amazingly for the Aussies in South Africa not have been injured for this series. Yes, Cook, Root, Bell, Bairstow and Prior have not fired largely, but 3-0 I think flatters England somewhat.
An amazing and critical juncture in the financial markets right now. The whole topping process is taking longer than I've been expecting, usually the way. I've been completely on the sidelines the past 2 or 3 weeks. Waiting for a break of 1680 on the S&P500 before we can be sure the final top is in. I'm very much 50/50 between 2 or 3 scenarios up until 20/21st August.
One thing is for sure, when people come to read the archive on PB over August 2013 in the years to come, as the 4.5 year bull market off the March 2009 lows topped out, they'll be amazed at how few saw the greatest crash of all time ahead. And crowd dynamics being what they are, it just has to be that way.
Take note that the sage of Omaha aka Warren Buffett has got a record amount in cash right now, his longtime colleague Stanley Druckenmiller is similar, and Jim Rogers is warning of a huge crash ahead. Hunchman is not alone.....but it sure feels like it on some occasions!
Gold stocks seem to have turned the corner. Thank goodness. I am heavily committed and have been a buyer between March and about two weeks ago.
I am also heavily overweight on cash. Dunno about your "huge crash", but all global markets look way overpriced.
McLetchie was a giant compared to the current incumbent. Without his input the SNP minority government of 2007-11 would never have survived the distance. In retrospect he was too harsh on FM McLeish, especially when it was an expenses erorr which later felled himself too.
I suspect the Conservative Leadership will be delighted with that ICM poll in the lead up to the Party Conference Season, it will certainly keep the focus on Ed Miliband and the current difficulties in the Labour party. I must admit that I enjoyed the political car crash that was Chris Bryant today, couldn't have happened to a more arrogant politician. But it highlight's yet again just how poor the ground work has been laid for Labour's strategy and policy planning for a GE campaign which has already started.
Fitalass, I agree with your current prognosis, but may I remind you of Mr MacMillan - "events dear boy, events". And as you know, I certainly think we're in store for plenty of them over the next 21 months between now and polling day. And I don't believe that many of those 'events' will be very positive for Mr Cameron. Not that it will be his fault, external events often aren't, but rightly or wrongly, the government will get the blame nonetheless. I still expect Labour will win the next election, totally by default. As for UKIP, these are quiet days right now, no bad thing in a way, but I'm certainly of the view that they'll top the poll in the Euro elections next year, and that in itself will be a stunning development in British politics in 2014 if it comes to pass. Assuming no by-elections in the meantime that UKIP win, where else in the world has a party with no MP's in parliament topped a nationwide election poll? It would be one heck of an amazing development.
Meanwhile, the wheels are falling off the 'QE generates growth' idea. Its bonkers, and it will be consigned to the dustbin of history in time......not before time!
Gold stocks seem to have turned the corner. Thank goodness. I am heavily committed and have been a buyer between March and about two weeks ago.
I am also heavily overweight on cash. Dunno about your "huge crash", but all global markets look way overpriced.
McLetchie was a giant compared to the current incumbent. Without his input the SNP minority government of 2007-11 would never have survived the distance. In retrospect he was too harsh on FM McLeish, especially when it was an expenses erorr which later felled himself too.
Hi Stuart,
Don't follow the precious metals complex that closely, but I think you're right I think that gold stocks have put in an important bottom. Seems to me that in the early stages of the great deflation ahead, that both the gold and the dollar are going to benefit, but I expect that gold will get overwhelmed with sales eventually, but it won't be a bad place to be in the early stages. A similar thing happened in the Great Depression with silver - gold was fixed at $35 before Mr Rooseveldt intervened in January 1933, but silver did mount an impressive rally for a time in 1931 whilst nearly everything else - stocks / bonds were falling, before it too fell the victim to the deflationary meltdown.
Some very interesting stories coming out re: JP Morgan short of eligible gold. Its such a job to know who or what to believe, personally I hate all these conspiracy stories about gold, best just to follow the technical signals that the price action is giving. Not many saw gold falling from the $1920 top, that I pretty accurately called on here at the time in 2011. Equally, I think the counter trend move higher will catch a great deal of people off guard.
True. I was in Paris a few weeks ago. It reminded me of Britain in the 70's with its litter, faded glories and shabbiness, living on former glories and unsure about its place in the world. Sad to see it so fallen.
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
True. I was in Paris a few weeks ago. It reminded me of Britain in the 70's with its litter, faded glories and shabbiness, living on former glories and unsure about its place in the world. Sad to see it so fallen.
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
Now
basically the same but with less jobs.
- "... litter, faded glories and shabbiness..."
Could describe most towns and cities in central and northern England. I wonder sometimes if the London Establishment never travel within their own country?
True. I was in Paris a few weeks ago. It reminded me of Britain in the 70's with its litter, faded glories and shabbiness, living on former glories and unsure about its place in the world. Sad to see it so fallen.
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
Now
basically the same but with less jobs.
- "... litter, faded glories and shabbiness..."
Could describe most towns and cities in central and northern England. I wonder sometimes if the London Establishment never travel within their own country?
True. I was in Paris a few weeks ago. It reminded me of Britain in the 70's with its litter, faded glories and shabbiness, living on former glories and unsure about its place in the world. Sad to see it so fallen.
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
Now
basically the same but with less jobs.
- "... litter, faded glories and shabbiness..."
Could describe most towns and cities in central and northern England. I wonder sometimes if the London Establishment never travel within their own country?
I wasn't referring to you. Why did you think I was? Do you consider yourself to be a member of the London Establishment?
So there we have it. A bill that nobody wants, that will make a bad situation worse, being reluctantly promoted by a government that didn’t really want to do anything in the first place.
That’s as big a scandal as the problem it was set out to address.
but may I remind you of Mr MacMillan - "events dear boy, events". And as you know, I certainly think we're in store for plenty of them over the next 21 months between now and polling day.
You said it hunchman.
*checks*
Yes, yes you did say it. Completely unhindered too.
This week we are rolling out a minor update to our methods, the first since October 2011. YouGov's sampling methods, prompting, analysis methods and the variables we weight by all remain exactly the same. However, we have made two small tweaks to our weighting targets.
The first takes account of the latest demographic data on the age and gender of the British population. In the past we have used population statistics from the 2001 census, now demographic data from the 2011 census is fully available we have switched over to the latest figures. This is an extremely minor change in the age profile that should make no noticeable difference to our results.
The second change is a minor update to our party identification weighting. Because YouGov is a panel based company we are able to weight using party identification of panellists recorded in May 2010, weighting it to targets based in May 2010 when they could be correlated against people's general election votes and the actual election result.
Party identification is different from current voting intention (for example, at the last election many people said they identified with the Labour party, but actually didn't vote or voted Liberal Democrat) and changes only slowly over time. However, it does change and we need to reflect that for the proportion of our panel who have joined the panel more recently than May 2010. Tracking party identification at an individual level we have found an increase in the proportion of people identifying with other parties or no party, and a decrease in identification with the established political parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats. We have reflected this in our new weightings.
The changes are only minor, and have very little impact on our topline voting intention figures. On average they make negligible difference to Labour or Conservative support, reduce Liberal Democrat support by around 0.5%, and increase UKIP support by around 0.8%. Using our old weighting targets today's poll would have shown topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, Others 7%, as opposed to CON 33%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, Others 7% using the new weights.
Well, someone must have coined it ("events, dear boy, events") and what makes this disattribution unsatisfactory is its failure to nominate an alternative source, in the way that we know "Crisis, what crisis?" came from a Sun headline rather than Jim Callaghan. I'm sticking with Macmillan.
I hate the lag. It is cruel. Sore eyes, slow mind, but enough static to keep an unwilling body from any meaningful sleep. There must be a pill. Someone could make a fortune.
"The utter shambles of the past 24 hours has made it increasingly difficult to describe Labour as a serious political party at all, let alone a serious government-in-waiting.
Never mind looking overseas for shelf-stackers. At this rate we’re going to have to start looking overseas for a whole new Opposition party
"...It’s easy to laugh at the whole sorry shambles, and yesterday many of us did. But when the laughter had died down I began to feel queasy about the whole thing and I realised that it had been brought on not by Labour’s incompetence but by their staggering hypocrisy.
Ed Miliband has a number of faults. But none is greater than his self-righteousness.
Not a speech goes by without the Labour leader invoking his own immigrant roots.
‘I am the son of immigrants and I am hugely proud of it,’ Miliband said in his own major address on immigration just over a year ago.
‘I will always talk about immigration in a way that is true to who I am, to my heritage, to my mum and dad.
‘I am not going to promise “British jobs for British workers”,’ he pledged, in reference to Gordon Brown’s memorable phrase.
Then, during last year’s local elections, he said: ‘I don’t think it is because of immigration that there aren’t the jobs that we need in this country. I think it is more complicated than that.’
But since then the debate on immigration in this country has changed.
The perceived threat from the growing popularity of UKIP, a party which is largely hostile to immigration, has forced the Conservatives to be more assertive about their own plans for limiting immigration. This was the reasoning behind the Home Office’s immigration vans, which appeared on streets in London recently asking: ‘In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest.’
Aware of a growing feeling of hostility to mass immigration, Chris Bryant’s speech was supposed to be the Labour party’s attempt to appeal to those who are anxious about this issue.
And so, with his poll lead diminishing and his critics circling, Miliband sent out his immigration spokesman to inform voters that it was indeed the immigrants who were snatching jobs from under the noses of hard-working British people.
This was a remarkable, rankly hypocritical volte face..."
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
I wonder whether Dan will pen a column for the Mail explaining why, despite the fact he clearly hates everything about the Labour party, Ed Miliband still has his vote.
"The Yes campaign has “virtually no chance” of victory in next year’s referendum on Scottish independence, according to one of America’s most-respected polling experts.
Nate Silver, the award-winning statistician who shot to fame when he correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential elections, says all the indicators point towards Scots voting to stay in the UK on 18 September next year."
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
Labour only have themselves to blame. The Cameron\Osborne group isn't the sharpest act in politics yet labour appear to be led by an even worse duo. Labour have refused to apologise for screwing up the economy and a host of other idiocies such as uncontrolled immigration and a bloated ineffcient state. Until they can do that they're stuck in the past.
having failed to make a clean break they compounded the issue by having no narrative of what they would do and no policies to keep the government on its toes. Their main hope is their tribal base and the voting system, yet even here there are holes. If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
The tories look noticeably less toxic when we see fiascos like yesterday from Chris Bryant. What on earth is he doing on the front bench?
If a Tory had made those ridiculous claims and allegations they would have been rightly pilloried.
The continuing recovery should also make the LibDems narrative more appealing to the left inclined voter, and I expect their support to pick up a bit more over the next couple of years.
The witlessness of the Labour front bench is appalling. EdM has a pretty poor team behind him, and desperately needs some fresh and competent faces.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick, it's all meaningless. The numbers will be different in 12 months time and in 18 months time as voters start to think harder about the next government. Labour has been on a slow slide downhill this year with Chris Bryant trying to take the brake off yesterday.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Tories used to win elections. It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party. It remains a widely held view. Instead of blaming others for that the Tories should ask themselves why. If the toxic Tory claims did not resonate, it would not matter who made them and how many times they did so.
The Tories could also have suggested alternatives to FPTP. They chose not to.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
I wonder whether Dan will pen a column for the Mail explaining why, despite the fact he clearly hates everything about the Labour party, Ed Miliband still has his vote.
Did Hodges not say he would vote for Boris over Ken ?
So only one person reports the figures from todays Yougov, usually we have numerous posts disecting each subsection and showing us the movements......wonder why todays Yougov poll seems as popular as a fart in a lift?
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
Pedro @PompeyGoat Remember when an "Omnishambles" consisted of trying to equalise tax on takeaway food? Well done Labour on demonstrating a proper one...
The tories look noticeably less toxic when we see fiascos like yesterday from Chris Bryant. What on earth is he doing on the front bench?
If a Tory had made those ridiculous claims and allegations they would have been rightly pilloried.
The continuing recovery should also make the LibDems narrative more appealing to the left inclined voter, and I expect their support to pick up a bit more over the next couple of years.
The witlessness of the Labour front bench is appalling. EdM has a pretty poor team behind him, and desperately needs some fresh and competent faces.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Tories used to win elections. It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party. It remains a widely held view. Instead of blaming others for that the Tories should ask themselves why. If the toxic Tory claims did not resonate, it would not matter who made them and how many times they did so.
The Tories could also have suggested alternatives to FPTP. They chose not to.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
You mean centre right parties like Berlusconi in Italy, or Sarkozy's UMP or Rajoy or Fianna Fail ? It strikes me that they have much bigger problems; and don't get me started on the Leftwing ones.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
@SO - I do love your passive aggressive remarks - if you want to post YouGov internals - go ahead. I'm sure @Financier wouldn't mind you lifting the burden. Complaining that someone else hasn't done something is very odd.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
Labour only have themselves to blame. The Cameron\Osborne group isn't the sharpest act in politics yet labour appear to be led by an even worse duo. Labour have refused to apologise for screwing up the economy and a host of other idiocies such as uncontrolled immigration and a bloated ineffcient state. Until they can do that they're stuck in the past.
having failed to make a clean break they compounded the issue by having no narrative of what they would do and no policies to keep the government on its toes. Their main hope is their tribal base and the voting system, yet even here there are holes. If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
Labour are currently on course to win most seats in 2015 though. It amazes me that this is so. I expect things to change after last week's interest rate boost for GO, but would not be that surprised if they didn't. That's the toxic Tory brand and FPTP for you.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
Hodges seems to be one of those people who agonises to people about coming "out" but agonises that much that people get bored and end up say "for F$$K sake everyone knows anyway, get on with it". Plus if/when he comes out as a Tory the paper wont be able to boast "he is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband next" but will have to say he is a "Thatcherite cuckoo in the Cameroon nest". Also he will lose his appeal to the swivel eyed's who read his articles and orally ejaculate over the fact they think they have a Labour supporter in their midst who slags off the party. You would think by now, after article 1,200 attacking Labour, even they would be able to spot a Tory.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
@SO - I do love your passive aggressive remarks - if you want to post YouGov internals - go ahead. I'm sure @Financier wouldn't mind you lifting the burden. Complaining that someone else hasn't done something is very odd.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
An odd criticism of UKIP. We have little enough 'firepower', and what little we have is aimed at the govt. It would be both ineffective and strange to aim it at a party out of power.
We are are only learning where our pockets of support are strongest. As Farage says, we are becoming the 'seaside party'.
Our approach to immigration can never repeated too often. We are not against the principle of immigration, but we are strongly against mass immigrantion. It is not partly a matter of scale---it is exclusively a matter of scale.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
Labour only have themselves to blame. The Cameron\Osborne group isn't the sharpest act in politics yet labour appear to be led by an even worse duo. Labour have refused to apologise for screwing up the economy and a host of other idiocies such as uncontrolled immigration and a bloated ineffcient state. Until they can do that they're stuck in the past.
having failed to make a clean break they compounded the issue by having no narrative of what they would do and no policies to keep the government on its toes. Their main hope is their tribal base and the voting system, yet even here there are holes. If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
Labour are currently on course to win most seats in 2015 though. It amazes me that this is so. I expect things to change after last week's interest rate boost for GO, but would not be that surprised if they didn't. That's the toxic Tory brand and FPTP for you.
It's got little to do with "brand", that's just clapped out ad speak. It's got more to do with not having sensible policies for places outside the South East and London.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Tories used to win elections. It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party. It remains a widely held view. Instead of blaming others for that the Tories should ask themselves why. If the toxic Tory claims did not resonate, it would not matter who made them and how many times they did so.
The Tories could also have suggested alternatives to FPTP. They chose not to.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
You mean centre right parties like Berlusconi in Italy, or Sarkozy's UMP or Rajoy or Fianna Fail ? It strikes me that they have much bigger problems; and don't get me started on the Leftwing ones.
You mean parties that have all won elections several times since the Tories last did? None of them have the toxicity problems the Tories do, though PP are trying and Berlusconi's lot really should.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
I did flick through them but did not see much outside of MOE or out of line with the Labour VI of the day.
Also time was too short as I had a booked conference Skype with Kuala Lumpur, which I have just finished. A company there has contracted with us to do a series of training courses in E Asia and the Middle East in the autumn.
To accommodate our quickly growing number international clients, we have changed our office ours from 6.00am to 8.00pm and so are nearly running a two-shift system with most people doing core hours from 10.00 am to 4pm.
Nick, it's all meaningless. The numbers will be different in 12 months time and in 18 months time as voters start to think harder about the next government. Labour has been on a slow slide downhill this year with Chris Bryant trying to take the brake off yesterday.
Perhaps - but the polls are all we have to go on so unless we all shut up for 12-18 months we need something to chat about. The evidence so far seems to be that
(1) There is a chunk of voters (about 5%) which slides readily between Tories and UKIP. Bloomgate seems to have given UKIP a little boost among voters who'd forgotten about them. (2) There was a chunk of froth (about 4%) that Labour briefly had and then lost (3) Labour's 38 figure (or 35 if you accept ICM's assumptions about abstainers and doubtfuls) seems very stable, +/-2 from poll to poll. I don't think there's any evidence that it's going downhill.
That said, like RedRag I do think that Hodges will switch to Cam in the end! It's painful to watch, like someone who ceaselessly complains about their spouse but takes years to get round to leaving.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
I did flick through them but did not see much outside of MOE or out of line with the Labour VI of the day.
Also time was too short as I had a booked conference Skype with Kuala Lumpur, which I have just finished. A company there has contracted with us to do a series of training courses in E Asia and the Middle East in the autumn.
To accommodate our quickly growing number international clients, we have changed our office ours from 6.00am to 8.00pm and so are nearly running a two-shift system with most people doing core hours from 10.00 am to 4pm.
Fair enough. So no more YG internal reporting from you. Maybe someone else will take up the mantle.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
Labour only have themselves to blame. The Cameron\Osborne group isn't the sharpest act in politics yet labour appear to be led by an even worse duo. Labour have refused to apologise for screwing up the economy and a host of other idiocies such as uncontrolled immigration and a bloated ineffcient state. Until they can do that they're stuck in the past.
having failed to make a clean break they compounded the issue by having no narrative of what they would do and no policies to keep the government on its toes. Their main hope is their tribal base and the voting system, yet even here there are holes. If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
Labour are currently on course to win most seats in 2015 though. It amazes me that this is so. I expect things to change after last week's interest rate boost for GO, but would not be that surprised if they didn't. That's the toxic Tory brand and FPTP for you.
You expected polled voting intention shares to change in response to an announcement that the central bank had amended its monetary policy formulation process by introducing forward guidance on interest rates, an unemployment rate threshold; and, financial and price stability knockouts?
You are a funny fellow, Southam Observer.
I think you need to lie down and recover from jet lag.
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
An odd criticism of UKIP. We have little enough 'firepower', and what little we have is aimed at the govt. It would be both ineffective and strange to aim it at a party out of power.
We are are only learning where our pockets of support are strongest. As Farage says, we are becoming the 'seaside party'.
Our approach to immigration can never repeated too often. We are not against the principle of immigration, but we are strongly against mass immigrantion. It is not partly a matter of scale---it is exclusively a matter of scale.
David
re firepower : one day UKIP are going to have to make up their minds if they have no voice or as some of their proponents claim influence elections by moving votes in key marginals. I happen to think they can do the latter if they get their strategy right.
why would it be strange to aim at a party that is out of power ? it happens all the time in politcs, other parties fire bullets at UKIP and you have no chance of being in govt in the foreseaable future. Indeed by not shooting at other you simply reinforce the perception that you are a disaffected conservative pressure gtoup.
quite why you are only learning where your support is now should be a concern to you. In the 2009 Euros it was pretty clear that Yorkshire and the Eastern counties had big chunks of unhappy voters. Though to be fair I suppose this is the first time UKIP have had a reasonable base outside their SE homelands.
Nick, it's all meaningless. The numbers will be different in 12 months time and in 18 months time as voters start to think harder about the next government. Labour has been on a slow slide downhill this year with Chris Bryant trying to take the brake off yesterday.
Perhaps - but the polls are all we have to go on so unless we all shut up for 12-18 months we need something to chat about. The evidence so far seems to be that
(1) There is a chunk of voters (about 5%) which slides readily between Tories and UKIP. Bloomgate seems to have given UKIP a little boost among voters who'd forgotten about them. (2) There was a chunk of froth (about 4%) that Labour briefly had and then lost (3) Labour's 38 figure (or 35 if you accept ICM's assumptions about abstainers and doubtfuls) seems very stable, +/-2 from poll to poll. I don't think there's any evidence that it's going downhill.
That said, like RedRag I do think that Hodges will switch to Cam in the end! It's painful to watch, like someone who ceaselessly complains about their spouse but takes years to get round to leaving.
We're all just waiting for Dan to do it. Perhaps we could have a competition on the timing and the content of the article explaining his heart-wrenching decision.
Virtually all the YG secondaries moved slightly to Labour (who have recovered the lead on taxes and reduced the Tory margin on the economy from 7 to 4), though mostly MOE. Labour's base coalition of 2010 Labour voters plus switching 2010 LibDems continues to look convincing - 2010 Labour voters will vote Labour rather than Tory by 86-4, and 2010 LibDems will vote Labour by 36 to 32 for the LibDems (and 12 Tories). UKIP gets 15% of 2010 Tories, 6% of 2010 Labour and 12% of 2010 LibDems.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
Nick - that was my point on Hodges. Despite clearly loathing everything about Ed's Labour party the toxicity of the Tory brand means that as things stand he'll still vote for Labour (though I am expecting a mind change and a big article explaining how it breaks his heart etc) before 2015.
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
Hodges seems to be one of those people who agonises to people about coming "out" but agonises that much that people get bored and end up say "for F$$K sake everyone knows anyway, get on with it". Plus if/when he comes out as a Tory the paper wont be able to boast "he is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband next" but will have to say he is a "Thatcherite cuckoo in the Cameroon nest". Also he will lose his appeal to the swivel eyed's who read his articles and orally ejaculate over the fact they think they have a Labour supporter in their midst who slags off the party. You would think by now, after article 1,200 attacking Labour, even they would be able to spot a Tory.
You think swivel-eyed loons ejaculate orally?
You are a funny fellow RedRag1.
I think you need to lie down and curb your fantasies.
So only one person reports the figures from todays Yougov, usually we have numerous posts disecting each subsection and showing us the movements......wonder why todays Yougov poll seems as popular as a fart in a lift?
Where's the bit where he hastily rewrote most of his speech at the insistance of tesco's lawyers? If even the Indy thinks this was a reference to my favourite episode of "In the thick of it" ("even the camera men are laughing") he is in trouble. I suppose he had the self awareness not to go on Newsnight to complete the parody.
Dan Hodges is getting so over the top that one wonders if he is entirely serious. What makes him think that Ed "no phone" Miliband had a part to play in yesterday's disaster at all?
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite comfortably: EdM really isn't much cop, to say the least; Labour generally lacks any real coherence; the economy is undoubtedly improving; a significant proportion of voters are clearly receptive to a strong line on the EU, immigration and welfare. So what might stop them? Two things, I'd say: the toxicity of the brand and FPTP. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Tories used to win elections. It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party. It remains a widely held view. Instead of blaming others for that the Tories should ask themselves why. If the toxic Tory claims did not resonate, it would not matter who made them and how many times they did so.
The Tories could also have suggested alternatives to FPTP. They chose not to.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
May did not say the Conservatives were the nasty party. Instead she said: "You know what some people call us: the nasty party,"
I'm afraid discussing politics with someone who repeatedly makes that self-serving misquote is rather pointless. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The worst thing about the 'nasty party' meme is that by applying it to the Conservatives, the other parties get a get-out-of-jail free card when they do nasty things. They just say: "But we're not the real nasty party!"
Looking at things, the Tories really *should* win the next GE quite P. Thus, if they do fail to win a majority, yet again, in 2015 they will only have themselves to blame.
There is nothing the Tories can really do about these things:
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
You mean centre right parties like Berlusconi in Italy, or Sarkozy's UMP or Rajoy or Fianna Fail ? It strikes me that they have much bigger problems; and don't get me started on the Leftwing ones.
You mean parties that have all won elections several times since the Tories last did? None of them have the toxicity problems the Tories do, though PP are trying and Berlusconi's lot really should.
Really ? so the PP the heirs to Franco or the MSI the heirs to Mussolini don't have issues ? I think you're just overusing the word toxicity. The Tory issues in the last 20 years have been more to do with Blair parking his tanks on their lawn - Ed is kindly them moving off now - and a weak set of leaders unable to appeal across the nation.
I read that EdM's office sent out an email to Shad Mins asking for summer stories a couple of days ago - that was to fill in the dead air we've had so far.
Where's the bit where he hastily rewrote most of his speech at the insistance of tesco's lawyers? If even the Indy thinks this was a reference to my favourite episode of "In the thick of it" ("even the camera men are laughing") he is in trouble. I suppose he had the self awareness not to go on Newsnight to complete the parody.
Dan Hodges is getting so over the top that one wonders if he is entirely serious. What makes him think that Ed "no phone" Miliband had a part to play in yesterday's disaster at all?
I expect continued low interest rates and the expectation that they will not rise until 16/17 to help fuel a boomlet in consumer spending and to solidify - until after the next GE, at least - a rise in property values. And in the normal course of events I'd expect that to translate into the Tories winning the most seats in 2015. If that does not happen it will be for the reasons I detail below.
"The Yes campaign has “virtually no chance” of victory in next year’s referendum on Scottish independence, according to one of America’s most-respected polling experts.
Nate Silver, the award-winning statistician who shot to fame when he correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential elections, says all the indicators point towards Scots voting to stay in the UK on 18 September next year."
A bit early for you to be posting divvie, normally I'd expect Stuart to be on the morning shift.
Cybernattery is just another word for insomnia. You can get a lot done between 5-7am.
I don't know if you're the late to bedder or the early riser. A few years back all serious PB Scottish business used to be done between 11 p.m. and approx 3 a.m., when proceedings were brought to an end with the phrase Nytol.
I read that EdM's office sent out an email to Shad Mins asking for summer stories a couple of days ago - that was to fill in the dead air we've had so far.
Where's the bit where he hastily rewrote most of his speech at the insistance of tesco's lawyers? If even the Indy thinks this was a reference to my favourite episode of "In the thick of it" ("even the camera men are laughing") he is in trouble. I suppose he had the self awareness not to go on Newsnight to complete the parody.
Dan Hodges is getting so over the top that one wonders if he is entirely serious. What makes him think that Ed "no phone" Miliband had a part to play in yesterday's disaster at all?
That does sound like dynamic Mr Ed but it is a fairly shoogly peg for Desperate Dan to hang his "rank hypocrisy" charge on. It may be that Ed did not expect his shadow minister to act like a complete idiot. He should have known better of course.
I read that EdM's office sent out an email to Shad Mins asking for summer stories a couple of days ago - that was to fill in the dead air we've had so far.
Where's the bit where he hastily rewrote most of his speech at the insistance of tesco's lawyers? If even the Indy thinks this was a reference to my favourite episode of "In the thick of it" ("even the camera men are laughing") he is in trouble. I suppose he had the self awareness not to go on Newsnight to complete the parody.
Dan Hodges is getting so over the top that one wonders if he is entirely serious. What makes him think that Ed "no phone" Miliband had a part to play in yesterday's disaster at all?
That does sound like dynamic Mr Ed but it is a fairly shoogly peg for Desperate Dan to hang his "rank hypocrisy" charge on. It may be that Ed did not expect his shadow minister to act like a complete idiot. He should have known better of course.
I think Dan is irritated with EdM, and his personal hypocrisy - because apparently all this stuff has to be sanctioned by his office first in a 'We Agree With Ed' meme. Apparently they were told they couldn't say anything without referencing him as policy lead. Hence the odd phraseology that pops up where its necessary to point out that EdM is Labour leader and 'as Ed Miliband said...'
I don't know if you're the late to bedder or the early riser. A few years back all serious PB Scottish business used to be done between 11 p.m. and approx 3 a.m., when proceedings were brought to an end with the phrase Nytol.
I remember. Don't see much of Oldnat on any of the sites nowadays. Hope all is well with him, perhaps his energies are directed towards the struggle on the doorstep.
May did not say the Conservatives were the nasty party. Instead she said: "You know what some people call us: the nasty party,"
I'm afraid discussing politics with someone who repeatedly makes that self-serving misquote is rather pointless. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The worst thing about the 'nasty party' meme is that by applying it to the Conservatives, the other parties get a get-out-of-jail free card when they do nasty things. They just say: "But we're not the real nasty party!"
You might want to read all of May's speech and think about the message she was trying to get across.
But in any case, if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate, if a large proportion of voters did not identify with them, they would not be useful to other parties.
I don't know if you're the late to bedder or the early riser. A few years back all serious PB Scottish business used to be done between 11 p.m. and approx 3 a.m., when proceedings were brought to an end with the phrase Nytol.
I remember. Don't see much of Oldnat on any of the sites nowadays. Hope all is well with him, perhaps his energies are directed towards the struggle on the doorstep.
He seemed to go off UKPR, but then reappeared once about a month back berating someone for being an idiot. So I assume he's out there lurking and hopefully in good health. Given where he lived on the West Coast I think it might be a long cold walk between doors !
Perhaps in the same vein we can hope that you never again mention on this site how awful the England cricket team is. You are consistently negative and always call it wrong.
Really ? so the PP the heirs to Franco or the MSI the heirs to Mussolini don't have issues ? I think you're just overusing the word toxicity. The Tory issues in the last 20 years have been more to do with Blair parking his tanks on their lawn - Ed is kindly them moving off now - and a weak set of leaders unable to appeal across the nation.
All parties have issues, but the Tories are almost unique among centre right parties in western Europe in not having won an election since 1992. Most have won several since then and have generally been up against New Labour style centre left opponents (except in Italy).
I hate the lag. It is cruel. Sore eyes, slow mind, but enough static to keep an unwilling body from any meaningful sleep. There must be a pill. Someone could make a fortune.
Just try the west coast flight.
After 2 days you think you have cracked it - waking up at 5am is bearable. Then your body clock misses a beat and starts again at 2am...
Comments
In two-party stakes, he is supreme - undoubtedly.
Looks like a three-pronged attack on the Tories !
I admit that comparison leaks like a sieve, but were you expecting incumbency to play more of a role maybe?
Thank God you don't depend on the English language for a living.
http://order-order.com/2013/08/12/ukip-meps-shortlist/
His posturing is never less than ridiculous but he did try to put his moronic snoopers charter through. He got pretty far with it too until lib dems and calamity Clegg remembered they were supposed to be against that sort of authoritarian stupidity and slapped NannyCam down.
They are not final lists. Members will now vote. So we will see how incumbency play out.
The shortlists of candidates as released today are how UKIP NEC assessed applicants.
She stood as Janice Small for the Tories in Batley and Spen in 2010 GE. She's part of Women On think tank.
I'm wondering why she went for it at all. If she'd ranked higher and got a seat then it would have severely dented one of UKIPs best chances for a parliamentary seat. Strategically she should be deployed in Eastleigh with her name recognition and any random party hack can go on a list system. And if she loses then she starts to get the perennial bridesmaid tag.
Theuniondivvie vs James Joyce ( English language )
What next ?
Theuniondivvie vs Usian Bolt ( 100 m dash )
The only question is by how much the Tories will win the popular vote in 2015...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/unemploymentratechart_tcm77-309700.png
As you can see, it has already fallen from its peak and is just below the level at the beginning of 2010.
This was an element that was overlooked in most of the commentary about the fall in real wages in Britain in the last three years. In the same period, EU unemployment has risen considerably:
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/03/01/january-2013-euro-unemplyment-chart.jpg
Other EU countries have been better at protecting the wages of the in-work, but most of them have done so with rising unemployment."
@antifrank, you hit the nail firmly on the head with that assessment. I too noted the way the commentary on this issue failed to highlight the fact that our fall in wages was matched by rising employment in the UK. The opposite of what is happening elsewhere in parts of the EU. Hence Labour's attempts to now focus on the cost of living in the hope it will deliver a vote less economic recovery for the Coalition after Labour's earlier expectations of raising unemployment becoming a giant political stick with which to hit the Government. I think that Labour are onto a loser by the way, lower wages vs economic recovery and high employment. The voters will connect the dots with the help of the Government's campaign to highlight their economic record.
Well done the England Cricket Team - this series could have been very different what with the Old Trafford weather, some DRS decisions and had Warner and Harris played in every game, as well as Cummins who bowled amazingly for the Aussies in South Africa not have been injured for this series. Yes, Cook, Root, Bell, Bairstow and Prior have not fired largely, but 3-0 I think flatters England somewhat.
An amazing and critical juncture in the financial markets right now. The whole topping process is taking longer than I've been expecting, usually the way. I've been completely on the sidelines the past 2 or 3 weeks. Waiting for a break of 1680 on the S&P500 before we can be sure the final top is in. I'm very much 50/50 between 2 or 3 scenarios up until 20/21st August.
One thing is for sure, when people come to read the archive on PB over August 2013 in the years to come, as the 4.5 year bull market off the March 2009 lows topped out, they'll be amazed at how few saw the greatest crash of all time ahead. And crowd dynamics being what they are, it just has to be that way.
Take note that the sage of Omaha aka Warren Buffett has got a record amount in cash right now, his longtime colleague Stanley Druckenmiller is similar, and Jim Rogers is warning of a huge crash ahead. Hunchman is not alone.....but it sure feels like it on some occasions!
Continental and Southern Europe: strongly regulated labour markets protecting the insiders. Even some unemployment benefits are designed to support (ex) insiders.
UK: "liberal" labour market, few regulations, easier to be fired, but easier to come back. Risk of bad job traps.
Now
basically the same but with less jobs.
I am also heavily overweight on cash. Dunno about your "huge crash", but all global markets look way overpriced.
McLetchie was a giant compared to the current incumbent. Without his input the SNP minority government of 2007-11 would never have survived the distance. In retrospect he was too harsh on FM McLeish, especially when it was an expenses erorr which later felled himself too.
Meanwhile, the wheels are falling off the 'QE generates growth' idea. Its bonkers, and it will be consigned to the dustbin of history in time......not before time!
http://www.zerohedge.com/node/477500
Gold stocks seem to have turned the corner. Thank goodness. I am heavily committed and have been a buyer between March and about two weeks ago.
I am also heavily overweight on cash. Dunno about your "huge crash", but all global markets look way overpriced.
McLetchie was a giant compared to the current incumbent. Without his input the SNP minority government of 2007-11 would never have survived the distance. In retrospect he was too harsh on FM McLeish, especially when it was an expenses erorr which later felled himself too.
Hi Stuart,
Don't follow the precious metals complex that closely, but I think you're right I think that gold stocks have put in an important bottom. Seems to me that in the early stages of the great deflation ahead, that both the gold and the dollar are going to benefit, but I expect that gold will get overwhelmed with sales eventually, but it won't be a bad place to be in the early stages. A similar thing happened in the Great Depression with silver - gold was fixed at $35 before Mr Rooseveldt intervened in January 1933, but silver did mount an impressive rally for a time in 1931 whilst nearly everything else - stocks / bonds were falling, before it too fell the victim to the deflationary meltdown.
Some very interesting stories coming out re: JP Morgan short of eligible gold. Its such a job to know who or what to believe, personally I hate all these conspiracy stories about gold, best just to follow the technical signals that the price action is giving. Not many saw gold falling from the $1920 top, that I pretty accurately called on here at the time in 2011. Equally, I think the counter trend move higher will catch a great deal of people off guard.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan
Could describe most towns and cities in central and northern England. I wonder sometimes if the London Establishment never travel within their own country?
Paris is a much grottier place than it was in the eighties. Leicester has never claimed to be a beauty spot!
You said it hunchman.
*checks*
Yes, yes you did say it. Completely unhindered too.
LOL
*innocent face etc.*
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf
This week we are rolling out a minor update to our methods, the first since October 2011. YouGov's sampling methods, prompting, analysis methods and the variables we weight by all remain exactly the same. However, we have made two small tweaks to our weighting targets.
The first takes account of the latest demographic data on the age and gender of the British population. In the past we have used population statistics from the 2001 census, now demographic data from the 2011 census is fully available we have switched over to the latest figures. This is an extremely minor change in the age profile that should make no noticeable difference to our results.
The second change is a minor update to our party identification weighting. Because YouGov is a panel based company we are able to weight using party identification of panellists recorded in May 2010, weighting it to targets based in May 2010 when they could be correlated against people's general election votes and the actual election result.
Party identification is different from current voting intention (for example, at the last election many people said they identified with the Labour party, but actually didn't vote or voted Liberal Democrat) and changes only slowly over time. However, it does change and we need to reflect that for the proportion of our panel who have joined the panel more recently than May 2010. Tracking party identification at an individual level we have found an increase in the proportion of people identifying with other parties or no party, and a decrease in identification with the established political parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats. We have reflected this in our new weightings.
The changes are only minor, and have very little impact on our topline voting intention figures. On average they make negligible difference to Labour or Conservative support, reduce Liberal Democrat support by around 0.5%, and increase UKIP support by around 0.8%. Using our old weighting targets today's poll would have shown topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, Others 7%, as opposed to CON 33%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, Others 7% using the new weights.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/13/methodology-review-summer-2013/
Closing paragraphs
"The utter shambles of the past 24 hours has made it increasingly difficult to describe Labour as a serious political party at all, let alone a serious government-in-waiting.
Never mind looking overseas for shelf-stackers. At this rate we’re going to have to start looking overseas for a whole new Opposition party
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2390711/DAN-HODGES-Labours-staggering-hypocrisy-mother-U-turns.html#ixzz2bpHXXavw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"...It’s easy to laugh at the whole sorry shambles, and yesterday many of us did. But when the laughter had died down I began to feel queasy about the whole thing and I realised that it had been brought on not by Labour’s incompetence but by their staggering hypocrisy.
Ed Miliband has a number of faults. But none is greater than his self-righteousness.
Not a speech goes by without the Labour leader invoking his own immigrant roots.
‘I am the son of immigrants and I am hugely proud of it,’ Miliband said in his own major address on immigration just over a year ago.
‘I will always talk about immigration in a way that is true to who I am, to my heritage, to my mum and dad.
‘I am not going to promise “British jobs for British workers”,’ he pledged, in reference to Gordon Brown’s memorable phrase.
Then, during last year’s local elections, he said: ‘I don’t think it is because of immigration that there aren’t the jobs that we need in this country. I think it is more complicated than that.’
But since then the debate on immigration in this country has changed.
The perceived threat from the growing popularity of UKIP, a party which is largely hostile to immigration, has forced the Conservatives to be more assertive about their own plans for limiting immigration. This was the reasoning behind the Home Office’s immigration vans, which appeared on streets in London recently asking: ‘In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest.’
Aware of a growing feeling of hostility to mass immigration, Chris Bryant’s speech was supposed to be the Labour party’s attempt to appeal to those who are anxious about this issue.
And so, with his poll lead diminishing and his critics circling, Miliband sent out his immigration spokesman to inform voters that it was indeed the immigrants who were snatching jobs from under the noses of hard-working British people.
This was a remarkable, rankly hypocritical volte face..."
Nate Silver, the award-winning statistician who shot to fame when he correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential elections, says all the indicators point towards Scots voting to stay in the UK on 18 September next year."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-chance-for-yes-silver-1-3042233
having failed to make a clean break they compounded the issue by having no narrative of what they would do and no policies to keep the government on its toes. Their main hope is their tribal base and the voting system, yet even here there are holes. If UKIP wasn't so hell-bent on poking Cameron in the eye and focused their firepower on labour's northern fiefdoms Ed would be in real trouble.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chris-bryant-on-employment-immigration-and-his-trial-by-media-my-day-in-the-thick-of-it-8758174.html
1) The alternative to FPTP proposed was AV, which was arguably a worse system. And the public comprehensively rejected it.
2) The 'toxic Tories' meme will be applied by their enemies whatever the Tories do. It's a brainless response trotted out when people have nothing better to say.
Perhaps instead of looking at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour lack coherence (as you freely admit). And it's not just a result of Ed Miliband's leadership.
SO: Hodges did do a piece a week or two back saying that things like the "Go home" vans meant that he felt the Tories were still unacceptable and although he didn't rate EdM that was why he would be voting for him.
If a Tory had made those ridiculous claims and allegations they would have been rightly pilloried.
The continuing recovery should also make the LibDems narrative more appealing to the left inclined voter, and I expect their support to pick up a bit more over the next couple of years.
The witlessness of the Labour front bench is appalling. EdM has a pretty poor team behind him, and desperately needs some fresh and competent faces.
Finnegans Wake is made up of made-up words like globeful in this example. So it is no evidence of anything.
Plus rather importantly there's no apostrophe in Finnegans.
So don't believe everything Sean tells you.
The Tories could also have suggested alternatives to FPTP. They chose not to.
Self-inflicted wounds Josias. Other centre right parties in Europe do not have these problems.
Did Hodges not say he would vote for Boris over Ken ?
I thought that it was forbidden to look at those?
Remember when an "Omnishambles" consisted of trying to equalise tax on takeaway food? Well done Labour on demonstrating a proper one...
As for the YG internals, I did wonder why Financier had not posted them.
We are are only learning where our pockets of support are strongest. As Farage says, we are becoming the 'seaside party'.
Our approach to immigration can never repeated too often. We are not against the principle of immigration, but we are strongly against mass immigrantion. It is not partly a matter of scale---it is exclusively a matter of scale.
The best you can get on Stella Creasy is now 25/1. You could have had 40 a few months ago
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-party-leaders/next-labour-leader
Also time was too short as I had a booked conference Skype with Kuala Lumpur, which I have just finished. A company there has contracted with us to do a series of training courses in E Asia and the Middle East in the autumn.
To accommodate our quickly growing number international clients, we have changed our office ours from 6.00am to 8.00pm and so are nearly running a two-shift system with most people doing core hours from 10.00 am to 4pm.
(1) There is a chunk of voters (about 5%) which slides readily between Tories and UKIP. Bloomgate seems to have given UKIP a little boost among voters who'd forgotten about them.
(2) There was a chunk of froth (about 4%) that Labour briefly had and then lost
(3) Labour's 38 figure (or 35 if you accept ICM's assumptions about abstainers and doubtfuls) seems very stable, +/-2 from poll to poll. I don't think there's any evidence that it's going downhill.
That said, like RedRag I do think that Hodges will switch to Cam in the end! It's painful to watch, like someone who ceaselessly complains about their spouse but takes years to get round to leaving.
You are a funny fellow, Southam Observer.
I think you need to lie down and recover from jet lag.
re firepower : one day UKIP are going to have to make up their minds if they have no voice or as some of their proponents claim influence elections by moving votes in key marginals. I happen to think they can do the latter if they get their strategy right.
why would it be strange to aim at a party that is out of power ? it happens all the time in politcs, other parties fire bullets at UKIP and you have no chance of being in govt in the foreseaable future. Indeed by not shooting at other you simply reinforce the perception that you are a disaffected conservative pressure gtoup.
quite why you are only learning where your support is now should be a concern to you. In the 2009 Euros it was pretty clear that Yorkshire and the Eastern counties had big chunks of unhappy voters. Though to be fair I suppose this is the first time UKIP have had a reasonable base outside their SE homelands.
You are a funny fellow RedRag1.
I think you need to lie down and curb your fantasies.
Dan Hodges is getting so over the top that one wonders if he is entirely serious. What makes him think that Ed "no phone" Miliband had a part to play in yesterday's disaster at all?
I'm afraid discussing politics with someone who repeatedly makes that self-serving misquote is rather pointless. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The worst thing about the 'nasty party' meme is that by applying it to the Conservatives, the other parties get a get-out-of-jail free card when they do nasty things. They just say: "But we're not the real nasty party!"
And Bryant obliged.
I expect continued low interest rates and the expectation that they will not rise until 16/17 to help fuel a boomlet in consumer spending and to solidify - until after the next GE, at least - a rise in property values. And in the normal course of events I'd expect that to translate into the Tories winning the most seats in 2015. If that does not happen it will be for the reasons I detail below.
Don't see much of Oldnat on any of the sites nowadays. Hope all is well with him, perhaps his energies are directed towards the struggle on the doorstep.
I'm afraid discussing politics with someone who repeatedly makes that self-serving misquote is rather pointless. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The worst thing about the 'nasty party' meme is that by applying it to the Conservatives, the other parties get a get-out-of-jail free card when they do nasty things. They just say: "But we're not the real nasty party!"
You might want to read all of May's speech and think about the message she was trying to get across.
But in any case, if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate, if a large proportion of voters did not identify with them, they would not be useful to other parties.
Perhaps in the same vein we can hope that you never again mention on this site how awful the England cricket team is. You are consistently negative and always call it wrong.
The Queen is really a phenomeon. Our politcal classes could learn so much from her pragmatism.
All parties have issues, but the Tories are almost unique among centre right parties in western Europe in not having won an election since 1992. Most have won several since then and have generally been up against New Labour style centre left opponents (except in Italy).
After 2 days you think you have cracked it - waking up at 5am is bearable. Then your body clock misses a beat and starts again at 2am...