Yes, you're right, I made a mistake, the conference season didn't end with Labour's conference.
The revised polling for the 8 day average before and after conference
8 Day average before conference season
Con 32.88, Lab 38.38, LD 9.13, UKIP 12.38, Lab Lead 5.50
8 Day average after conference season
Con 34.00, Lab 38.63, LD 9.88, UKIP, 11.00, Lab Lead 4.63
Changes
Con plus 1.13, Lab plus 0.25, LD plus 0.75, UKIP minus 1.38, Lab Lead minus 0.88
Thanks.
But that includes polling literally the day after Cameron's speech which is an unfair comparison. I think you have to exclude the entire week of the Con conference and start at the beginning of the following week.
Otherwise you are counting any Cameron speech bounce but Miliband speech bounce gets excluded.
It's easy really - just exclude the 3 whole weeks of the Conferences.
Yes, you're right, I made a mistake, the conference season didn't end with Labour's conference.
The revised polling for the 8 day average before and after conference
8 Day average before conference season
Con 32.88, Lab 38.38, LD 9.13, UKIP 12.38, Lab Lead 5.50
8 Day average after conference season
Con 34.00, Lab 38.63, LD 9.88, UKIP, 11.00, Lab Lead 4.63
Changes
Con plus 1.13, Lab plus 0.25, LD plus 0.75, UKIP minus 1.38, Lab Lead minus 0.88
Thanks.
But that includes polling literally the day after Cameron's speech which is an unfair comparison. I think you have to exclude the entire week of the Con conference and start at the beginning of the following week.
Otherwise you are counting any Cameron speech bounce but Miliband speech bounce gets excluded.
It's easy really - just exclude the 3 whole weeks of the Conferences.
Very true.
The one thing that does stand out in this polling analysis, Labour's share of the vote is very consistent.
They have not been lower than 38% in either of these two periods.
"From 2002 to 2010, Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year.
At the same time, it launched a propaganda offensive to persuade us that immigration on this scale would not only make us all better off, because it expanded national output by £6bn a year, but also help solve our long-term pensions crisis, because diligent newcomers would pay into the nation's retirement pot, which an ageing indigenous population was rapidly exhausting.
These were fallacies masquerading as serious politics. Neither element was true, as a House of Lords report, The Economic Impact of Immigration, made clear in 2008. Its conclusion was, in effect, the British public had been sold a false prospectus."
So basically....the Labour lead is probably about 5%...which is about what it was before the conference season and despite Ed Miliband's "game changer" policy idea seemingly polling well and the Tories not really having a counter to it, it same as you were.
Twitter Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 41s YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Labour lead down to 1% again. LAB 38%, CON 37% LD 10%, UKIP 10%. An outlier, but suggests contraction under way.
Yep, definitely an outlier
Comrade Sunil, the panzer tanks are at Khimki.
My history's a little hazy, Comrade Avery, but aren't the Barbarians supposed to lose the Battle of Carthage Stalingrad?
A little bit of irony to go with the ironware, Tovarich Sunil.
Dave couldn't even get a majority against Gordon in 2010, he will have trouble getting one against Super Ed in 2015!
To be honest, I don't pay any attention to Oxfam or Save the Children precisely because they are so political. So I may have missed something.
You certainly did. NGOs are by their nature critical of sitting governments, because they want policy focused on their particular issue, and governments always spread their atteniton and love. The NSPCC think governments don't do enough for children, Christian Aid thinks foreign aid too low, and so on. Throughout my time as MP it was quite exceptional for an NGO to say anything that wasn't basically critical - the range was normally from "A step forward but we want much more" to "A disgraceful dereliction of duty". Oxfam in particular was always critical (Christian Aid and Save the Children were a bit milder), though War on Want and Greenpeace probably topped the vehemence league.
It used to annoy me - but, on reflection, isn't it a fairly natural function of campaigns? Whether campaigns should count as charities is a separate issue, but presumably supporters of NSPCC do want them to harry the government ceaselessly to do more for children, etc., and it's perhaps an important part of the democratic process that different interest groups should have coherent lobbies to pitch their case.
However, an organisation whose chairman is senior labour executive, in the middle of an obesity epidemic claims that Britons need food parcels, is really just politicking.
If the SPD goes into a coalition government, I cannot see them giving the go ahead to changes in the working time directive, and would a renegotiation not need the consent of the other 27 members?
I think we can expect to see a lot of mumbo jumbo and extremely technical "concessions" following any negotiations by Cam after GE2015 plus one easy-to-understand marquee measure affecting a UK eurosceptic hot button that will be used to declare a victory going into the referendum.
If the SPD goes into a coalition government, I cannot see them giving the go ahead to changes in the working time directive, and would a renegotiation not need the consent of the other 27 members?
I think we can expect to see a lot of mumbo jumbo and extremely technical "concessions" following any negotiations by Cam after GE2015 plus one easy-to-understand marquee measure affecting a UK eurosceptic hot button that will be used to declare a victory going into the referendum.
The UK originally had an opt-out from the Social Chapter. That proves that unlike pretty much everything else the British might dislike about the EU, it was neither a practical necessity (like more QMV) or a quid-pro-quo (like the CAP). I doubt the SPD would be that bothered if British people want to allow themselves to work long, inefficient hours. IIUC this would need a treaty change, so it can't happen on Cameron's stated timetable, but they could get a promise that in would be in next time there was a treaty.
The rest would be the old John Major classics like saying "subsidiarity" again. Also I'd imagine they'd make up a new threat to the British sausage or whatever for Cameron to heroically avert.
The rest would be the old John Major classics like saying "subsidiarity" again. Also I'd imagine they'd make up a new threat to the British sausage or whatever for Cameron to heroically avert.
you may take my life, but you'll never take my SAUSAGE!
To be honest, I don't pay any attention to Oxfam or Save the Children precisely because they are so political. So I may have missed something.
You certainly did. NGOs are by their nature critical of sitting governments, because they want policy focused on their particular issue, and governments always spread their atteniton and love. The NSPCC think governments don't do enough for children, Christian Aid thinks foreign aid too low, and so on. Throughout my time as MP it was quite exceptional for an NGO to say anything that wasn't basically critical - the range was normally from "A step forward but we want much more" to "A disgraceful dereliction of duty". Oxfam in particular was always critical (Christian Aid and Save the Children were a bit milder), though War on Want and Greenpeace probably topped the vehemence league.
It used to annoy me - but, on reflection, isn't it a fairly natural function of campaigns? Whether campaigns should count as charities is a separate issue, but presumably supporters of NSPCC do want them to harry the government ceaselessly to do more for children, etc., and it's perhaps an important part of the democratic process that different interest groups should have coherent lobbies to pitch their case.
However, an organisation whose chairman is senior labour executive, in the middle of an obesity epidemic claims that Britons need food parcels, is really just politicking.
To be honest, I don't pay any attention to Oxfam or Save the Children precisely because they are so political. So I may have missed something.
You certainly did. NGOs are by their nature critical of sitting governments, because they want policy focused on their particular issue, and governments always spread their atteniton and love. The NSPCC think governments don't do enough for children, Christian Aid thinks foreign aid too low, and so on. Throughout my time as MP it was quite exceptional for an NGO to say anything that wasn't basically critical - the range was normally from "A step forward but we want much more" to "A disgraceful dereliction of duty". Oxfam in particular was always critical (Christian Aid and Save the Children were a bit milder), though War on Want and Greenpeace probably topped the vehemence league.
It used to annoy me - but, on reflection, isn't it a fairly natural function of campaigns? Whether campaigns should count as charities is a separate issue, but presumably supporters of NSPCC do want them to harry the government ceaselessly to do more for children, etc., and it's perhaps an important part of the democratic process that different interest groups should have coherent lobbies to pitch their case.
However, an organisation whose chairman is senior labour executive, in the middle of an obesity epidemic claims that Britons need food parcels, is really just politicking.
India is one other country where there is malnutrition and a simultaneous obesity epidemic.
To be honest, I don't pay any attention to Oxfam or Save the Children precisely because they are so political. So I may have missed something.
You certainly did. NGOs are by their nature critical of sitting governments, because they want policy focused on their particular issue, and governments always spread their atteniton and love. The NSPCC think governments don't do enough for children, Christian Aid thinks foreign aid too low, and so on. Throughout my time as MP it was quite exceptional for an NGO to say anything that wasn't basically critical - the range was normally from "A step forward but we want much more" to "A disgraceful dereliction of duty". Oxfam in particular was always critical (Christian Aid and Save the Children were a bit milder), though War on Want and Greenpeace probably topped the vehemence league.
It used to annoy me - but, on reflection, isn't it a fairly natural function of campaigns? Whether campaigns should count as charities is a separate issue, but presumably supporters of NSPCC do want them to harry the government ceaselessly to do more for children, etc., and it's perhaps an important part of the democratic process that different interest groups should have coherent lobbies to pitch their case.
However, an organisation whose chairman is senior labour executive, in the middle of an obesity epidemic claims that Britons need food parcels, is really just politicking.
India is one other country where there is malnutrition and a simultaneous obesity epidemic.
Both countries also play cricket but there's only so far you can stretch statistical correlation.
Comments
But that includes polling literally the day after Cameron's speech which is an unfair comparison. I think you have to exclude the entire week of the Con conference and start at the beginning of the following week.
Otherwise you are counting any Cameron speech bounce but Miliband speech bounce gets excluded.
It's easy really - just exclude the 3 whole weeks of the Conferences.
The one thing that does stand out in this polling analysis, Labour's share of the vote is very consistent.
They have not been lower than 38% in either of these two periods.
"From 2002 to 2010, Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year.
At the same time, it launched a propaganda offensive to persuade us that immigration on this scale would not only make us all better off, because it expanded national output by £6bn a year, but also help solve our long-term pensions crisis, because diligent newcomers would pay into the nation's retirement pot, which an ageing indigenous population was rapidly exhausting.
These were fallacies masquerading as serious politics. Neither element was true, as a House of Lords report, The Economic Impact of Immigration, made clear in 2008. Its conclusion was, in effect, the British public had been sold a false prospectus."
(Same as New Labour.)
The rest would be the old John Major classics like saying "subsidiarity" again. Also I'd imagine they'd make up a new threat to the British sausage or whatever for Cameron to heroically avert.
A mission to rescue a cat from a pole ended up with a village's electricity supplies being turned off.
Two engineers from Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution (SHEPD) saved the animal from the top of a 10-metre electricity pole in St Cyrus, Aberdeenshire after it was stuck there for almost 24 hours.
Engineers Ian Robertson and Brian Barclay arrived after Coco the cat's owners Moira and Bob Moir called SHEPD on its emergency phone line.