Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB spinners pull off the old “it’s a private poll” ruse
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB spinners pull off the old “it’s a private poll” ruse
How to get publicity for a survey that supports your position. Say it's a "private poll"
http://t.co/cemqGJdvT0 pic.twitter.com/KEDHGMDX8c
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Answer:Yes
I'm shocked...
then they came for the energy providers...
You heard it here....
Does seem to be a part of a greater anti-business malaise. The reasons for which have been talked about much before (in terms of cost of living, and general discontentment with modern life).
Indeed. Business operators in giving lesson in how to do business to out of touch MPs shocker.
But come on PB left-ers. You are all surely listening to these guys in the SC. Share your understanding of the way the energy companies are arranged and the way they do business to tell us what outrageous business practices they are engaged in.
Response 1 is favourable
Response 3 is also favourable
Response 4 is marginally hostile, but far less hostile than response 2 - some of these respondents could say Labour is playing smartish politics with this but don't really believe it or they would answer 2.
I'll take Don't know as neutral-marginally favourable to the Con position as answer 2 has been omitted.
So it is 31 Hostile, 20 marginally hostile, 14 neutral-marginally favourable, 35 favourable in my book - a quite evenish split.
The problem for the government is that people apparently like this stuff. The consequences are debatable and uncertain and pointing out the risks is easily characterised as "supporting the corporations against the people." The level of economic ignorance of those educated under Blair is such that the profits of the power companies will always look large to people who don't understand the scale of the operation or the amount of capital tied up in it. Major really didn't help in this respect and should have known better.
All the government can do is hang on and hope that the message gradually gets through that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that the consequences of such policies will be genuine poverty. But it is not a fun ride and Ed is undoubtedly on the front foot at the moment.
http://jobs.theguardian.com/job/4733553/business-editor/
I wonder if they advertised in the FT too? Surely better targeted for a 'business editor'?
But listening to them, can you really say these are corrupt practitioners ripping off the public?
Voters see there are an awful lot of people making money out there and they are not amongst them. Ed is on top because he is threatening to do something about at least one of those groups.
Its within Cameron's power to do something about the some of the others.
For example he could introduce a GBP500,000 all-in salary cap for civil servants and the BBC....or could introduce maximum total payouts to staff being made redundant in the public sector, regardless of salary or contract.
He could start to do something about unfunded public sector pensions.
It's all part of the same story for voters. They feel they are being royally shafted by everybody from bankers to energy companies to the public sector to benefit cheats. They feel everybody is on the take in a system where cash is sloshing around but they are not getting any.
And the voters are never wrong.
If Ed wants to totally split the generation and retailing, then that's a whole different story.
britishgas.co.uk/blog/articles/ian-peters-discusses-todays-price-announcement
Worth posting again.
I mean unless you think the energy cos are lying they are trying to run their businesses for the benefit of stakeholders under intense media, popular and now political scrutiny. It is already one of the most regulated industries on the planet (= anecdote, I've no idea if it is, it seems so).
And again, look at the comments - 4% margin, huge investment plans and they might as well have admitted burning cats in their plants and no tim that is not a good thing.
The public needs education. Are the Tories up to it? Would it work anyway?
Those are the questions.
I agree with you that this really, really needs to stop. It should never have started and the overall cost for the rest of us working for a living is just mind boggling.
Lab meanwhile as you say are happy to maintain and stoke the public's ignorance and outrage.
Come on David - you support a crack at the train companies' ultra bizarre pricing - as you were saying last week IIRC. As an aside, pretty sure Eric Pickles was plotting something similar but that (very wise) policy disappeared into the ether.
I wonder what Osborne's planning? Maybe tim knows.
Oh I agree that the current pricing policy on the railways is truly absurd and that the government should be taking steps to force them to simplify and clarify the costs. The modern practice of hiding low rates for advertising purposes amongst a plethora of prices which result in most people paying more than they should is one of the great irritations of modern life, along with those smart arses who think we have all day to play about on comparison websites to identify small differences that will disappear within a short period.
But I would not support a policy that resulted in an overall reduction in fares with the consequences that that would have for investment or the level of public subsidy provided to keep those trains going. I recognise that there would be a long term price to pay for such a short sighted view, just like there will be if investment in power is discouraged by us becoming a more volatile and uncertain market because of government intervention at the profit level.
Did he toss away his Tree Hugging credentials when no longer Climate Secretary?
MP "why aren't you giving away electricity for free and giving every family a free kitten and puppy"
CEO " because if we give electricity away for free we will go bust and everyone will lose their jobs and electricity"
MP "whay-aye man, that's just not good enough, think of the hardworking people freezing in their beds, I'll tell you how to run a business - I'll have you know that I manage to employ people in my office and I manage to do it without having to generate any money. ...."
CEO holds head in hands.
"First they came for the bankers, and no one spoke up...
then they came for the energy providers..."
LOL! Never have the words of Martin Neimholler been used so inappropriately!
If I was an MP on the Energy and Climate Change Committee I would consider myself not to have had a good day at the office today.
- They are genuinely concerned about energy prices? (If so, why did Labour's last Energy Secretary push them higher with green levies?)
- They are embarrassed about how the market consolidations they oversaw has resulted in a lack of competition?
- They think it's popular to be seen to be attacking big business?
- They are trying to buy votes with someone else's money?
- It's what Len McCluskey wants?
You forgot the last, and most terrifying, option:
- Ed Miliband really does believe you can ignore costs and set prices by diktat
Strange that given Cameron has employed some of the most expensive readers of the runes on the planet he could have got it so spectacularly wrong.
All the polling tells him that the Tory problem is that they're seen as not interested in 'people like us' but only in big business. So he blows an almighty raspberry in the face of the little man and puts his support behind the only group of business people more unpopular than the the bankers.
Some of the MPs on this committee are not exactly the stars of parliament.
"If I have to explain all my jokes to people of your intellectual calibre Roger it will be a long day."
On this site I'm afraid it's not obvious!
What is clear is that Labour supporters simply cannot get their heads around the concept that a politician would be so stupid as to want govern sensibly. 'If it polls well, advocate it', seems to be the entire content of Labour's political philosophy - even more so if you can invent some scapegoats and stir up hatred.
So ingrained is this cynicism that you don't even make a token effort to disguise it.
Agree about the trains stuff. Both parties should go for it.
@Richard
Liking the idea for a party of the sensible soft right. The frothing nutters among your brethren can be shorn and wander off with Ukip into some unelectable wilderness
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/29/the-realpolitik-behind-labours-energy-price-freeze/#more-17396
Hard to say from the outside whether it's an accurate account, but it rings true.
Good news! Comrade Miliband, wisely seeing that crime causes the workers and non-workers hardship, has decreed that under his leadership crime shall be frozen at a rate of zero for the entirety of the Parliament. No more shall the poor fear having their turnips pilfered by bourgeois thieves!
The very fact that the Conservative pigdogs and their Lib Dem underlings tolerate the existence of crime is certain proof of their disregard for the working class!
The rolled-up application for judicial review in Regina (on the application of Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another will be heard by a Divisional Court constituted by Laws LJ and Ouseley & Openshaw JJ. An application for permission to apply for judicial review will also be heard by a Divisional Court, constituted by Richards LJ & Sales J, in Regina (on the application of Press Standards Board Of Finance Limited) v Secretary of State For Culture, Media and Sport. The applicant seeks to have the decision of the defendant, not to recommend to the Privy Council for approval its draft royal charter on press regulation, brought up and quashed by the court.
Ed Davey
Mike Thornton
Charles Kennedy
Robert Smith
Jo Swinson
http://www.libdemvoice.org/full-list-of-lib-dems-standing-in-our-held-seats-and-top-50-targets-36690.html
Perhaps if the Tories tried it occasionally they might not be in such a mess.
Cons give you a tax cut - forever , Labour give you a freeze for 18 months.
Hardly ferking rocket science is it - supported by all except the most fundamentalist of tree molesters.
Today I've seen PBTories blame the following for their Party's woeful recent performance.
The BBC
The Guardian
Unions
The "uneducated" electorate.
Labour
This from the Party of individual responsibility!
That's before we get onto the Tory scapegoating of the unemployed, the disabled, immigrants, irresponsible parents, local authorities, trade unions, Europe etc etc.
Will you pass savings to customers if green levies rolled back, energy execs asked. SSE: "unquestionably". E.On: "absolutely". Npower: "yes"
Bingo - game over.
If not, then you'd be talking a pretty small cut in bills. Assuming, of course, that the cut is passed on by the energy companies and doesn't just lead to slightly less massive price rises.
And how would it be paid for? And would the Lib Dems agree?
I thought there was no money left, magic money tree, etc etc etc?
"So ingrained is this cynicism that you don't even make a token effort to disguise it."
You seem to fall at the same hurdle as Cameron. Before you can govern you have to be elected which is why those in my profession have always been more valued by political parties than policy wonks.
If you don't agree ask Cameron why he's spent millions getting American and Australian ad men onto his election team yet bugger all on decent policy advisers?
£112 ripe for plucking.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/coalition-parties-near-a-deal-on-energy-bills/
"The good news for the Cameroons on energy is that it looks like they’ll get an agreement by the Autumn Statement to take at least some of the green levies off energy bill. The bad news is that this means that the debate sparked by Ed Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices for 20 months if elected is going to continue until, at least, December 4th.
An agreement between Cameron and Clegg on energy bills does now appear to be close. The Lib Dem anger at Cameron using PMQs to try and bounce them into a set of concessions has been replaced by a fast-moving negotiation.
As one senior Number 10 source says, ‘There’s lots of shouting and public posturing, but 12 hours later Clegg is signalling that he’s prepared to do business.’ Interestingly, the Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes told Andrew Neil on the Sunday Politics that ‘there’s a deal to be done. We understand we have got to take the burden off the consumer.’ "
http://www.economicvoice.com/tory-bob-neill-writes-to-ed-miliband-over-unite/
"You have a responsibility to act swiftly and toughly in this matter to discipline Mr Deans, and make it clear that there is no place for this sort of activity in the Labour Party."
Free petrol will win some votes (but not amongst the tree huggers)
Who's going to pay for it?
Labour is a bit ahead in the polls.
BFD.
And yes to the party of individual responsibility. Nowhere did we say yes to the party only of Oxford PPEs.
Where education is needed, let us educate the electorate. Not fool the electorate, which is where EdM is at the moment.
Are you joking or has your mind really distorted things in that way?
But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Ed Miliband thinks he has a reasonable chance of becoming PM in just over 18 months time, then, yes, it matters very much, both for the country (of course that's of little interest to Labour supporters), and for the Labour Party.
Politics won't stop on the 8th May 2015. Nonsense now has implications for what happens then.
Miliband's brand of populism is dangerous because it is wrong and it has potentially serious implications. For some individuals it will no doubt ease financial pressures for a short period, but it hardly provides a long-term solution for anyone whose finances are that tight. All it does is encourage those people to believe that suppliers of essential services are profiteering at their expense, driving a wedge between supplier and consumer. I won't pretend that all energy companies are paragons of virtue, nor that government does not have a role in ensuring the market functions properly, but this heavy handed intervention does not address the former or achieve the latter. Cameron's idea of forcing energy companies to offer customers their lowest tariffs (which itself built on an old Miliband policy of price transparency) is a subtler and, over the long term, more effective means of delivering value for consumers and protecting them against information asymmetry.
Miliband's policy will adversely impact investment, of course, and not just in the energy sector. Other utilities, communications companies and supermarkets will also be nervous. Where does intervention end? What is an acceptable level of profit to make? Meanwhile, Miliband has to work out how on earth he fixes prices for companies whose cost bases may be wildly different. Should he not take into account input and operational costs? Should an employer that guarantees the living wage have its margin squeezed more for being socially responsible? Should a company that has invested heavily using borrowed money be allowed to charge more to cover the capital cost? What happens if employers reduce pay or hours or cut heads to preserve margins? Labour don't appear to have thought about any of these things, and that should trouble all of us.
It is instructive that the Labour supporting posters on here do not defend the policy on its merits, preferring instead to celebrate the fact that it has wrong-footed the Tories (which undoubtedly it has).
Indeed. If they cut green taxes, they walk straight into
Labour's trap.
My personal preference would be to ditch em.
"So, before conference, when Ed Miliband was faced with the political need to act on energy costs, party sources suggest a windfall tax was discussed but discarded in large part because of the political difficulties of imposing a new tax policy on the shadow chancellor.
Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy."
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/29/the-realpolitik-behind-labours-energy-price-freeze/#more-17396
Free market + lower fuel bills Vs state-meddling + frozen fuel bills
The Conservatives win.
Must say, I'm surprised, given the greenery of the leaderships, that green taxes seem to be on the table.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24724670
Obviously didn't get the 'non-story' memo.....
And I'm perfectly happy to defend the policy on its merits. It's a fantastic policy. My bills won't go up for a year and a half after Labour take power. After which the rotten energy market will be shaken up, putting a long term solution in place. What's not to like?
Mr. JS, shocking indeed. Mildly amused Channel 4 are doing it, though. When the Danish cartoon furore occurred they held a live debate about whether the cartoons should be shown. The studio audience voted to see them and Jon Snow produced an envelope from his jacket pocket which revealed they would not be shown anyway.
You can't kowtow to intimidation and thuggery of those who want "Death to the West" and then complain when people are afraid to criticise appalling behaviour for fear of being seen as racist.
FGM has been mentioned here a bit, but it never seems to make any breakthrough in the mainstream media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2478822/Female-circumcision-campaigner-horrified-shoppers-sign-pro-cutting-petition--theyre-scared-culturally-insensitive.html
Unless wholesale costs decrease, of course, in which case a freeze will mean people pay more for their fuel than they otherwise would.
We got rid of the Poll Tax, we can get rid of the pernicious Green Tax too!
Funny, I could have sworn they were vans pointing out that illegal immigrants should return whence they came, rather than foreigners generally. Which is what your post implies.
‘In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest.’
Nadine Dorries MP@NadineDorriesMP1m
On @itvdaybreak tomorrow morning with @OwenJones84 at 8.10 discussing work for benefits.
Do you think there will be as many as the 14 energy companies when Labour took office in 1997?
The coalition inherited 6.....
Name a profitable private sector company that is not profiting at your expense. How dare they offer you goods and services you might like but do not have to accept, and have the brazen effrontery to make money out of it...
Edited extra bit: just checked the rules and if the first set is not completed all bets are null and void. *sighs*
You’d pay quite a levy or premium on your fuel bill to wipe the smirk off their management faces.
It wasn’t a grilling. Parliament couldn’t afford the fuel. It was a little light poaching. It was coddling.
Wither-ringing quote of the day from Labour’s Ian Lavery: “How can the profits be fair if people can’t afford to pay them!”
Faced with such a confused and under-informed committee (Energy and Climate Change) the energy bosses realised they could say anything they liked.
http://order-order.com/2013/10/29/sketch-energy-committee-lacking-energy-power-illumination/
http://www.scotsman.com/news/lord-ashcroft-on-the-trail-of-the-scottish-tories-1-3162036
Lord Ashcroft says target voters for the Tories in Scotland prefer Mr Cameron over Ed Miliband and view the Prime Minister as being “willing to take tough decisions”.
The peer says that Mr Cameron “is an asset here” as he rejects suggestions the Prime Minister deters Scots from voting Tory.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/246135-irish-republican-terror-suspects-named-in-glasgow-court-appearance/
"Five Irish Republican terror suspects have appeared in court charged with conspiring to commit acts of terrorism.
They are all accused of plotting to carry out a terrorist campaign in the UK. It is alleged they tried to get a hold of firearms and explosives with a view to carrying out terrorist offences, including "damage to property and murder of civilians"."