Thanks Andy. My back of an envelope calculation made it 15 seats
Clearly Mike you don't display your ARSE as elegantly or regularly as do I but I'm sure PBers are robust enough to take in your projection for the main party scores for 2015.
Would you do us the honour and give us all a quick flash ??
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 26s Last time I saw @MsJackMonroe was in Mari Vanna - caviar £75 an oz - so take her claims of food poverty with a pinch of salt. @PSbookEditor
"For example in 2008, the super duper poll predicted the Tories would get 398 seats, and the 2009 one predicted the Tories would get 360. The same polls showed Labour would get less than 200 seats"
Weren't the measurements "as things stand today"?
Given that the big shift against the Tories happened from Jan 1 onwards, what else would you expect?
Even smaller marginal polls conducted a week before the elction showed the Tories were on course for a small majority.
FPT - Carola - from the blog you posted a link to:
"Whereas the head of a private school will usually be highly academically qualified themselves and be looking for somebody with a similar background, our state schools have not valued academic achievement in a long time. Headteachers do not go out of their way to get the best qualified staff as it is."
Fair?
The big mistake Gove is making - or not, depending on what you think his goal is - is to assume that school leaders/managers are any good. Or remotely competent.
You'd think they'd have learned from the NHS - so how do failing Heads get replaced?
I'm off out soon so a shorter answer that that Q needs...
Not easily enough or often enough imo - though it's not only the head that's the problem, it's the protective layers of management that have burgeoned over the last decade plus, and continue to do so.
Basically, the cream doesn't rise to the top in education, and there's not a great track record for 'outsiders' coming in either. It's a tough job, particularly in a tough school. Few people are up to it.
"As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. "
Major had a 30-50 point ratings lead over Kinnock, Cameron has trailed Miliband in 15 out of the last 18 months, you'd better hope you are wrong.
Not really sure what you are going on about, but then I don't suppose you are either. Are you mixing up personal approval ratings (probably dubious polls) with national voting intention figures? Major's Conservatives more-or-less narrowly trailed Kinnock's Labour right up to the wire http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
I'm talking about leader ratings, if you knew the tiniest amount about politics you would know what that means.
So you're maintaining that Miliband has consistently led Cameron on satisfaction ratings?
There's this kind of missing mental chip with you. If you posted less and thought more, counting to ten for instance, you might avoid alienating so many people.. Why do I say this? Well because a perfectly decent debate would have been possible but, no, Tim has to throw in a wind-up comment viz. 'If you knew the tiniest amount about politics'. So faced with that I can either a) tell you I studied politics or b) consider you an asshole. Actually a) and b) is a third option.
Of course Labour got almost as many seats in 2010 with 29.7% of the GB vote as they did in 1992 with 35.2%. But that does rather suggest that it is at least possible (although not all that likely) that they could increase their share by a few percentage points without winning many seats, as a kind of reversion back to a 1992 type result.
And indeed there are about 100 Labour seats (like Sheffield Central and Hull North) where a big swing from LD to Lab of around 10% could happen without any seats changing hands, which would help to bring the seats and votes situation more in line with 1992, theoretically speaking.
@Roger –“ All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.”
Really ? Even you can’t believe that – As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.
Is Priti Patel saying that Mr Casey has lied about having no affiliation to the Labour party?
I think Mr Casey falls under the category of ‘champagne socialist’ - rather than a party activist masquerading as ‘ordinary folk’ off the street.
And he is a champagne socialist because he does not believe that the energy companies are operating in a truly competitive market and that this means businesses like his have to pay more for their power than would otherwise be the case. I see. That makes perfect sense.
Surely it would have been simpler and more honest for Piri to say: "I don't like this successful businessman because he does not agree with me."
You do like to put words into people’s mouths, rather than address what they actually said?
Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.
As the discussion today has centred entirely on the characters delivering the message, rather than the massage itself, I think Priti Patel’s comment has been shown to be correct.
"For example in 2008, the super duper poll predicted the Tories would get 398 seats, and the 2009 one predicted the Tories would get 360. The same polls showed Labour would get less than 200 seats"
Weren't the measurements "as things stand today"?
Given that the big shift against the Tories happened from Jan 1 onwards, what else would you expect?
Even smaller marginal polls conducted a week before the elction showed the Tories were on course for a small majority.
For the record, I think the 2015 General election will be very difficult for the pollsters for a variety of reason.
1) The first peacetime coalition in many years
2) The emergence of UKIP
3) Incumbency, and Lib Dem incumbency in particular
4) The debates may skew things, more so than in 2010
Overall, the swing to the Conservatives in marginal seats was higher than the overall national swing. However, the big issue was incumbency. Conservative candidates performed far better in seats where Labour incumbents stood down than they did in seats where Labour incumbents stood again.
Electoral "bias" in favour of Labour peaked in 2001, and declined markedly in the next two elections. I expect that first time incumbency will reduce that bias further in 2015.
"As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. "
Major had a 30-50 point ratings lead over Kinnock, Cameron has trailed Miliband in 15 out of the last 18 months, you'd better hope you are wrong.
Not really sure what you are going on about, but then I don't suppose you are either. Are you mixing up personal approval ratings (probably dubious polls) with national voting intention figures? Major's Conservatives more-or-less narrowly trailed Kinnock's Labour right up to the wire http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
The polls were flawed up to the 1992
Ah yes of course. It is all the polls' fault. Golden Rule Mk II. When the polls don't back you up, dismiss them as errant.
Back to your envelope Mike. Wouldn't want to miss your next thread blinder.
"As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. "
Major had a 30-50 point ratings lead over Kinnock, Cameron has trailed Miliband in 15 out of the last 18 months, you'd better hope you are wrong.
Not really sure what you are going on about, but then I don't suppose you are either. Are you mixing up personal approval ratings (probably dubious polls) with national voting intention figures? Major's Conservatives more-or-less narrowly trailed Kinnock's Labour right up to the wire http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
The polls were flawed up to the 1992
Ah yes of course. It is all the polls' fault. Golden Rule Mk II. When the polls don't back you up, dismiss them as errant.
Back to your envelope Mike. Wouldn't want to miss your next thread blinder.
One reason the Tories didn't win a majority in 2010 was because they got big swings in the wrong places. In a lot of very safe Labour and Conservative seats there were huge swings, like Yvette Cooper's Pontefract constituency and Wellingborough which Peter Bone had already gained in 2005.
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
@tim - And - for the twentieth time - Leader ratings at this stage in the Parliament have zero significance. But then you know the tiniest bit about politics.
"Italy's unemployment rate hit a record high of 12.5pc in September as the country's second biggest bank hits at the country exiting the euro unless Germany shifts on EMU policy":
@tim - And - for the twentieth time - Leader ratings at this stage in the Parliament have zero significance. But then you know the tiniest bit about politics.
Agreed.
Tim you are being as slippery as ever. Post up a link to a graph for the whole parliament with satisfaction ratings for both supporters and general voters and let's see how it looks. Or would you rather be selective with your data? Let's see how those approval ratings look across this session up to the present.
"Interplanetary travel would be a lot more effective if we all had TARDISes."
I'm always surprised by how many (apparently intelligent) people think it's possible to have a crew with cameras lights hair make up and maybe ten location vehicles cruising around London in the off chance some restaurateur might happen to sit down and say something usable in a Labour PPB!
(What's more though I am loathe to mention it my London production company did all the 2010 Tory PPB's with Andy Coul**n and they used exactly the same methods)
Fairly ambivalent when it comes to trick or treating – each year we get perhaps half a dozen under-tens dressed in a variety of costumes while an adult chaperone stands at the garden gate. If it rains that night, we’ll see no one and we have to eat the sweetie stash ourselves. (bummer!)
If we lived in a more urban area perhaps, where teenagers who preferred ‘tricking’ was the norm, then no doubt we’d be one of the 70% who answered the poll.
I must say that LibDem trick or treaters are in mighty short supply at Auchentennach Castle which is surprising giving the polling indicates their more positive attitude to dungeons and all things spooky !!
It's a mystery ....
JackW, a mystery indeed – Doesn’t your faithful retainer have orders to ‘shoot on sight’ ? - Perhaps if you locked up the wolf hounds and stood the Butler down for the night, Auchentennach Castle would have more little darlings trudging up the gravel path way.
Personally I’d advise against such rashness - and let the ’mystery’ remain exactly that…!
@tim - It certainly doesnt make me angry, quite apart from anything else no-one watches Party Political Broadcasts. I really don't know why the parties bother with them.
Not arguing with you, but is this just your impression or do you have a link? My impression is that a lot of people vaguely watch whatever's on the channel they're watching, so PPBs do get an audience, though mostly not a very engaged one. (I've had a few floating voters quote PPBs to me, approvingly or otherwise, on doorsteps - but not a lot.)
On topic, if someone can be bothered, it'd be interesting to see an estimate of the impact in terms of seats if a quarter of LibDems switch to Labour in Con-Lab marginals and the Tory vote drops say 3 points to UKIP - both fairly cautious assumptions and less than current polling levels. Because the size of LibDem vote varies a lot by marginal, it'll be a quite different prediction to Baxter.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Call for Miliband to condemn Unite 'leverage tactics'
"Will you actively condemn this thuggish leverage strategy, and demand that Unite abandon this unacceptable approach? Will you now refuse to accept any more money from Unite until those responsible for threatening innocent families are disciplined? Will you open a new inquiry to investigate properly the allegations of selection rigging in Falkirk, and accept that Unite attempted to subvert Labour's internal inquiry?"
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
Provincials should be grateful that their money will be spent on HS2 so they can get down even more quickly to see what the rest of their money's been spent on (cue rash of 'because we're worth it' posts from Londoners).
For the record, I think the 2015 General election will be very difficult for the pollsters for a variety of reason.
1) The first peacetime coalition in many years
2) The emergence of UKIP
3) Incumbency, and Lib Dem incumbency in particular
4) The debates may skew things, more so than in 2010
Agreed on the first three but I'd be interested to get your thoughts on why the debates might have a greater impact than in 2010. From my perspective as a Lib Dem member, it'll certainly be interesting to see how Clegg (assuming he's still there) handles the challenge of defending the LDs' record in government while trying to differentiate them from the Conservatives.
@tim - It certainly doesnt make me angry, quite apart from anything else no-one watches Party Political Broadcasts. I really don't know why the parties bother with them.
Not arguing with you, but is this just your impression or do you have a link? My impression is that a lot of people vaguely watch whatever's on the channel they're watching, so PPBs do get an audience, though mostly not a very engaged one. (I've had a few floating voters quote PPBs to me, approvingly or otherwise, on doorsteps - but not a lot.)
On topic, if someone can be bothered, it'd be interesting to see an estimate of the impact in terms of seats if a quarter of LibDems switch to Labour in Con-Lab marginals and the Tory vote drops say 3 points to UKIP - both fairly cautious assumptions and less than current polling levels. Because the size of LibDem vote varies a lot by marginal, it'll be a quite different prediction to Baxter.
I nearly did a piece on party political broadcasts (and their futures)
One of the stats I found was this
During the 1997 campaign, 70% of people watched party political broadcasts. By the 2001 election this fell to 50%.
IIRC, 2005 it was 46% and in 2010 it was back upto to 50%
The ones that are watched are the ones most are the ones sandwiched between the local news and main news on ITV.
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
Provincials should be grateful that their money will be spent on HS2 so they can get down even more quickly to see what the rest of their money's been spent on (cue rash of 'because we're worth it' posts from Londoners).
For the record, I think the 2015 General election will be very difficult for the pollsters for a variety of reason.
1) The first peacetime coalition in many years
2) The emergence of UKIP
3) Incumbency, and Lib Dem incumbency in particular
4) The debates may skew things, more so than in 2010
Agreed on the first three but I'd be interested to get your thoughts on why the debates might have a greater impact than in 2010. From my perspective as a Lib Dem member, it'll certainly be interesting to see how Clegg (assuming he's still there) handles the challenge of defending the LDs' record in government while trying to differentiate them from the Conservatives.
Indeed. My (faded) memory recalls Cameron and Brown slugging it out while Clegg was the 'sensible' one in the middle. He was on the receiving end of, well, not a lot.
Both Cameron and Miliband will have the LibDems in their gunsights this time, as well as each other. I'd expect it to be a very different dynamic.
For the record, I think the 2015 General election will be very difficult for the pollsters for a variety of reason.
1) The first peacetime coalition in many years
2) The emergence of UKIP
3) Incumbency, and Lib Dem incumbency in particular
4) The debates may skew things, more so than in 2010
Agreed on the first three but I'd be interested to get your thoughts on why the debates might have a greater impact than in 2010. From my perspective as a Lib Dem member, it'll certainly be interesting to see how Clegg (assuming he's still there) handles the challenge of defending the LDs' record in government while trying to differentiate them from the Conservatives.
If the debates happen in the same format as last time, then Ed could be at risk, when two thirds of the participants will be trashing Labour's record in government and Ed in general and praising the current government to the rafters.
It is why I suspect we'll have 3 debates, one on one. Nick v Dave, Dave v Ed, and Ed vs Nick.
The other factor will be if Farage is added, that could have an impact, he could take votes from all three parties, he could woo disillusioned tories, people who don't like Ed but want to get rid of Dave and or the Tories, he could also go for the old Lib Dem USP we're not like the other two/three parties.
While we remain a single nation, the whole nation's needs are served by maximising the advantages that London has on the international stage. The idea that Manchester or Glasgow would magically become better off if London were held back is absurd yet widely held.
[EDIT - reply to Anorak] I recall quite a lot of 'I agree with Nick', especially from Gordon Brown! I expect there'll be rather less of that in 2015...
@TheScreamingEagles - UKIP have got to be involved somehow, surely? 'I agree with Nigel' coming to a TV screen near you. (Unless you're right to suspect there will only be one-to-one debates, of course.)
I recall quite a lot of 'I agree with Nick', especially from Gordon Brown! I expect there'll be rather less of that in 2015...
From what I read, Ed's strategy in 2015 will be to say "I agree with Nick in 2010, it's just a shame he didn't deliver on it when he got into government"
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
HS2 is not about speed, it's about railway capacity. We need a new railway for the future and we should have confidence in ourselves that we can manage this project responsibly. The nimbys of this country would condemn our children to more mediocrity and lack of ambition.
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
HS2 is not about speed, it's about railway capacity. We need a new railway for the future and we should have confidence in ourselves that we can manage this project responsibly. The nimbys of this country would condemn our children to more mediocrity and lack of ambition.
Bingo. See also power generation and house building.
Mr. Eagles, without going into why the debates are rubbish anyway, the format next time will just be wrong.
If they have 3 sets of 1v1 debates, as you outlined, then we'd have the ridiculous situation of a PM debate without the actual Prime Minister there.
The fairest solution would be to axe Clegg from the three debates. But best of all would be axing the debates altogether, or at least the pernicious worm.
@tim - And - for the twentieth time - Leader ratings at this stage in the Parliament have zero significance. But then you know the tiniest bit about politics.
In the opinion of someone who got the last election wrong they don't, in the opinion of someone who got it right they do. It's all about opinions and so far your opinions have proven to be wrong
Excuse me, bean-bag warrior, kindly point me to any post where I got the election wrong.
Now if we're talking about getting things wrong, and in truly spectacular fashion, shall we start a discussion on the politics of HS2? You've miraculously been cured of that obsession. Reduced to a humiliating silence.
Mr. Eagles, without going into why the debates are rubbish anyway, the format next time will just be wrong.
If they have 3 sets of 1v1 debates, as you outlined, then we'd have the ridiculous situation of a PM debate without the actual Prime Minister there.
The fairest solution would be to axe Clegg from the three debates. But best of all would be axing the debates altogether, or at least the pernicious worm.
We need Clegg in there.
He was the Kingmaker in 2010, and he could well be the Kingmaker in 2015
Tim, I await your link for leaders' net approval ratings for the whole of this parliament from their supporters and from general voters. Or do you withdraw your remark?
Sheffield to Manchester, and Manchester to Leeds would be good starts
Because the transport links between each of those cities and London are far more important to each of those cities than the links to each other. This is not complicated stuff.
Sheffield to Manchester, and Manchester to Leeds would be good starts
Because the transport links between each of those cities and London are far more important to each of those cities than the links to each other. This is not complicated stuff.
I thought Hunt was good on Newsnight. if it had been me I would have struggled to avoid throwing my glass of water over Paxman so inane were his questions. I'm really wondering how long the Bbc are going to keep him on if he can't up his game. He should take note they have a new producer
I think Birmingham certainly ought to make a better job of capitalising on being only about an hour by train from arguably the most dynamic city in the world.
Sheffield to Manchester, and Manchester to Leeds would be good starts
Because the transport links between each of those cities and London are far more important to each of those cities than the links to each other. This is not complicated stuff.
Perhaps, if HS2 was faster (To bring journey times from northern cities to London down to under an hour) - but I can't really see many people commuting from Leeds/Manchester/Sheffield to London each day, or do people really do this ?
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
@TSE The north could be made worse off if HS2 allowed London to take more of the cream of the work in the north. But given that there has been a massive concentration of, for example, financial services in London without HS2, it's not at all clear why that is an additional risk.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
While we remain a single nation, the whole nation's needs are served by maximising the advantages that London has on the international stage. The idea that Manchester or Glasgow would magically become better off if London were held back is absurd yet widely held.
I'm not saying policy should be devised to purposefully 'hold back' London but the idea you can build a national economy for 62m people around a single city is absurd. Britain is not Hong Kong or Singapore. Things maybe changing, but historically monetary policy has been set to suit London, the decline of regional manufacturing thanks to the over-valued pound (hat tip City of London) blithely ignored and of course the beneficiary of major infrastructure projects has been London. The performance of the UK economy overall? Meh.
I wonder if Clegg might be more critical of the government in debates than might be assumed. It'd be a good way to shore up the Lib Dem core and try to retain tactical leftists.
On the economy it's unlikely, with the 45p tax exception, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I think Birmingham certainly ought to make a better job of capitalising on being only about an hour by train from arguably the most dynamic city in the world.
Indeed, it's only 1hr and 4mins to Sheffield from Birmingham via the train.
Tim, I await your link for leaders' net approval ratings for the whole of this parliament from their supporters and from general voters. Or do you withdraw your remark?
I wouldn't bother, to be honest. Don't feed the troll...
@TSE The north could be made worse off if HS2 allowed London to take more of the cream of the work in the north. But given that there has been a massive concentration of, for example, financial services in London without HS2, it's not at all clear why that is an additional risk.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
Hmmm.
As a former resident of London, I'm not one of those anti Londoners, it's just frustrating when there's more urgent rail problems that could be resolved.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
Why is that activity now going to take place in the north because of HS2? If we need extra capacity and we can only estimate whether or not we will then fine. But let's not buy this hokum that's it's about healing the north south divide.
I thought Hunt was good on Newsnight. if it had been me I would have struggled to avoid throwing my glass of water over Paxman so inane were his questions. I'm really wondering how long the Bbc are going to keep him on if he can't up his game. He should take note they have a new producer
Hunt refused to rule out sending his kids to private school (the obvious implication of Paxman's questioning, if you couldn't work it out). How is that good for a Labour education spokesman?
I wonder if Clegg might be more critical of the government in debates than might be assumed. It'd be a good way to shore up the Lib Dem core and try to retain tactical leftists.
On the economy it's unlikely, with the 45p tax exception, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Mr Dancer, if Clegg and the Lib Dems decided that the debates would be the ideal place for them to trash their own government's achievements, I think that would be the worst strategic mistake since Darius III decided he wanted to fight Alexander the Great on the flat, open plains of Gaugamela
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
HS2 is not about speed, it's about railway capacity. We need a new railway for the future and we should have confidence in ourselves that we can manage this project responsibly. The nimbys of this country would condemn our children to more mediocrity and lack of ambition.
Correct - being anti - HS2 seems to be "en vogue" - like being anti-hunting or vegetarian.
I wonder if Clegg might be more critical of the government in debates than might be assumed. It'd be a good way to shore up the Lib Dem core and try to retain tactical leftists.
On the economy it's unlikely, with the 45p tax exception, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Indeed. Clegg's refusal to distance himself at all from Tory economic policy is one of the reasons I've lost all faith in him.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
Why is that activity now going to take place in the north because of HS2? If we need extra capacity and we can only estimate whether or not we will then fine. But let's not buy this hokum that's it's about healing the north south divide.
Because the north is cheaper (both for property costs and salaries). My own firm consciously has a national strategy of doing only that work which has to be done in London in London, and in using cheaper resources elsewhere to do the rest. This is still very high quality work that is being resourced elsewhere.
I'm not a great fan of HS2, because from my firm's perspective it won't really make much odds to this process, but I suppose there are other businesses where it might make a difference.
Mr. Eagles, the battlefield at Arbela was not bad for the Persians. If Darius hadn't been near the frontline (again, he made this mistake earlier at Issus) then the Macedonians would've been overwhelmed by the Persian cavalry and utterly destroyed.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
I wonder if Clegg might be more critical of the government in debates than might be assumed. It'd be a good way to shore up the Lib Dem core and try to retain tactical leftists.
On the economy it's unlikely, with the 45p tax exception, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Indeed. Clegg's refusal to distance himself at all from Tory economic policy is one of the reasons I've lost all faith in him.
He probably hasn't because he plans to bask in the glory of the successes of these policies which are coming thick and fast...
I think Birmingham certainly ought to make a better job of capitalising on being only about an hour by train from arguably the most dynamic city in the world.
Indeed, it's only 1hr and 4mins to Sheffield from Birmingham via the train.
It's an interesting point as to why given Birmingham's centrality between the major cities it hasn't done better in recent years. It seems like there is London and its commuter belt and everything outside of it is a step behind. Be it Cornwall, Birmingham or Newcastle.
While we remain a single nation, the whole nation's needs are served by maximising the advantages that London has on the international stage. The idea that Manchester or Glasgow would magically become better off if London were held back is absurd yet widely held.
I'm not saying policy should be devised to purposefully 'hold back' London but the idea you can build a national economy for 62m people around a single city is absurd. Britain is not Hong Kong or Singapore. Things maybe changing, but historically monetary policy has been set to suit London, the decline of regional manufacturing thanks to the over-valued pound (hat tip City of London) blithely ignored and of course the beneficiary of major infrastructure projects has been London. The performance of the UK economy overall? Meh.
I did not make the suggestion you say that I made. But as a general rule, you should run your profits and cut your losses. London is a profit to be run. We should stop encouraging people to stay in moribund areas and incentivise them to move to places with jobs. If we can convert London's economy into a national economy, that would be no bad thing. It already sprawls across most of the southern part of England. HS2 would give it the opportunity to help revitalise the north.
You seem addicted to the erstwhile Italian model of periodic devaluations to support uncompetitive industry. The Germans have managed to devise an export model with a strong currency that supports a strong manufacturing base.
You've finally realised Labour will inherit rising spending, increasing consumer debt and rampant govt induced house price inflation and will have to change course?
No, I've realised that the laws of arithmetic will still apply.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
THe problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
Why is that activity now going to take place in the north because of HS2? If we need extra capacity and we can only estimate whether or not we will then fine. But let's not buy this hokum that's it's about healing the north south divide.
Because the north is cheaper (both for property costs and salaries). My own firm consciously has a national strategy of doing only that work which has to be done in London in London, and in using cheaper resources elsewhere to do the rest. This is still very high quality work that is being resourced elsewhere.
I'm not a great fan of HS2, because from my firm's perspective it won't really make much odds to this process, but I suppose there are other businesses where it might make a difference.
It's already much cheaper in the rest of the country yet what is so dismaying is the complete lack of private sector growth in the regions. Certainly in high skilled jobs that might be deemed the knowledge economy.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
Why is that activity now going to take place in the north because of HS2? If we need extra capacity and we can only estimate whether or not we will then fine. But let's not buy this hokum that's it's about healing the north south divide.
Because the north is cheaper (both for property costs and salaries). My own firm consciously has a national strategy of doing only that work which has to be done in London in London, and in using cheaper resources elsewhere to do the rest. This is still very high quality work that is being resourced elsewhere.
I'm not a great fan of HS2, because from my firm's perspective it won't really make much odds to this process, but I suppose there are other businesses where it might make a difference.
It's already much cheaper in the rest of the country yet what is so dismaying is the complete lack of private sector growth in the regions. Certainly in high skilled jobs that might be deemed the knowledge economy.
Perhaps if the transport links were improved, more people might venture out of the London economy. That's the rationale behind HS2.
I thought Hunt was good on Newsnight. if it had been me I would have struggled to avoid throwing my glass of water over Paxman so inane were his questions. I'm really wondering how long the Bbc are going to keep him on if he can't up his game. He should take note they have a new producer
Fancy Paxman asking awkward questions of a Labour politician! How dare he?
You are in a deluded very small minority, it was car crash TV for the hapless fop. First Twigg now this idiot, obviously Labour don't take education seriously. It's almost like they don't want to challenge Gove.
...what is so dismaying is the complete lack of private sector growth in the regions. Certainly in high skilled jobs that might be deemed the knowledge economy.
A direct result of national (London excepted) pay scales for many public sector workers? In areas where the cost of living is relatively low, it's harder for the private sector to compete with the public as the latter offers a better quality of life than in high living cost areas.
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
HS2 is not about speed, it's about railway capacity
In a blog JJ pointed to yesterday, the point was made that HS2 would increase capacity on London-Birmingham from (IIRC) 1100 pax/hour to 3000-4000. If supply triples, I wonder what will happen to price?
Oh dear – Tristram on the back foot from the off, then blusters his way through the rest.
Rarely seen Paxman so animated, I thought he’d resigned himself to feigning bored affectation but the subject of teacher qualifications appears to have put the wind up his tail, I wonder why?
Getting really depressed by all this HS2 stuff. I don't know whether it's the enormous cost of the thing or peoples' general attitude towards it. It's become the latest wheeze for politicians to show just how much they 'care' about the north. And yet all the evidence suggests that it will be London that is the major beneficiary, sucking jobs and wealth out of the regions. Those people from Leeds and Manchester need to ask themselves if reducing journey time to London is so crucial, why hasn't Birmingham been doing appreciatively better than those cities when you can get from there to London in the time it will take to get from the northern cities to London under HS2. When will people realise that if we want broad-based economic growth it requires strong regional economies of their own not satellites of the London city-state?
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
HS2 is not about speed, it's about railway capacity
In a blog JJ pointed to yesterday, the point was made that HS2 would increase capacity on London-Birmingham from (IIRC) 1100 pax/hour to 3000-4000. If supply triples, I wonder what will happen to price?
"If supply triples, I wonder what will happen to price?"
It's a railway. The price will probably triple as well.
While we remain a single nation, the whole nation's needs are served by maximising the advantages that London has on the international stage. The idea that Manchester or Glasgow would magically become better off if London were held back is absurd yet widely held.
I'm not saying policy should be devised to purposefully 'hold back' London but the idea you can build a national economy for 62m people around a single city is absurd. Britain is not Hong Kong or Singapore. Things maybe changing, but historically monetary policy has been set to suit London, the decline of regional manufacturing thanks to the over-valued pound (hat tip City of London) blithely ignored and of course the beneficiary of major infrastructure projects has been London. The performance of the UK economy overall? Meh.
I did not make the suggestion you say that I made. But as a general rule, you should run your profits and cut your losses. London is a profit to be run. We should stop encouraging people to stay in moribund areas and incentivise them to move to places with jobs. If we can convert London's economy into a national economy, that would be no bad thing. It already sprawls across most of the southern part of England. HS2 would give it the opportunity to help revitalise the north.
You seem addicted to the erstwhile Italian model of periodic devaluations to support uncompetitive industry. The Germans have managed to devise an export model with a strong currency that supports a strong manufacturing base.
You seem to be going back in time a bit there. German exports are benefiting from the weak Euro, one reason why they may not want the Mark back. I'm not defending British industry circa 1960-70s but the overvalued pound up to 2008 caused by debt and financial chicanery centred in London damaged our traded goods sector. So after the second biggest devaluation in our history exports haven't recovered. Why? Because so much of our exporting capacity in the regions has been permanently lost. Of course industries can always be more competitive but it's a bit silly for government's to throw away their manufacturing capacity because of a London bubble.
You seem to be going back in time a bit there. German exports are benefiting from the weak Euro, one reason why they may not want the Mark back. I'm not defending British industry circa 1960-70s but the overvalued pound up to 2008 caused by debt and financial chicanery centred in London damaged our traded goods sector. So after the second biggest devaluation in our history exports haven't recovered. Why? Because so much of our exporting capacity in the regions has been permanently lost. Of course industries can always be more competitive but it's a bit silly for government's to throw away their manufacturing capacity because of a London bubble.
The solution is for London and environs to have its own currency, while the rest of the UK joins the Euro.
"Labour’s challenge is to show that they are economically credible. This is a struggle, given the fiscal record of the last Labour government. There is also a sense that for all the success of the energy freeze it might actually be working against Labour in this regard because it sounds just too good to be true; more than half of voters don’t think they will be able to actually do it. Miliband has made a mistake in not emphasising that he plans to use this 20-month freeze to push through changes to the energy market. At the moment, he sounds as if he wants to defy the market rather than reform it. This is not a good place to be if you’re trying to establish economic credibility."
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
The problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><</p>
LOL! There is absolutely no way an independent can win in the US, Pulpstar, even if it were Superman with the Pope as running mate.
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Manchester will become the second city under HS2 - a far more diverse, interesting and important city than Birmingham, and about the same size, in metropolitan area terms.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
The problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><</p>
LOL! There is absolutely no way an independent can win in the US, Pulpstar, even if it were Superman with the Pope as running mate.
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Koff, splutter, Michael Bloomberg.
Thanks for your piece on the USA the other day, informative and useful as always.
You seem to be going back in time a bit there. German exports are benefiting from the weak Euro, one reason why they may not want the Mark back. I'm not defending British industry circa 1960-70s but the overvalued pound up to 2008 caused by debt and financial chicanery centred in London damaged our traded goods sector. So after the second biggest devaluation in our history exports haven't recovered. Why? Because so much of our exporting capacity in the regions has been permanently lost. Of course industries can always be more competitive but it's a bit silly for government's to throw away their manufacturing capacity because of a London bubble.
The solution is for London and environs to have its own currency, while the rest of the UK joins the Euro.
London is of course dependent on the fact that it is on a single currency zone with the rest of the UK, who deposit their money in London based banks, have London based private pension funds etc. So if the rest of the UK was in the Euro (and it would never happen) much of the UK finance in London would surely leave. All hypothetical of course and I'm guessing your comment was tongue in cheek.
Banksy seemed to conduct a kind of social experiment, using the city as a rat maze into which he dropped different kinds of bait to see how New Yorkers would react. We saw paranoia, greed and competitiveness as well as camaraderie, flash-mob-like fun and sincere or cash-driven reverence. People who had barely heard of Banksy until one of his works turned up on their buildings were suddenly hiring guards or covering them with plexiglass or roll-down gates. Some graffiti pieces lasted less than two hours before they went the way of all graffiti, and much else, quickly sinking beneath the restless surface of the city.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
The problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><</p>
LOL! There is absolutely no way an independent can win in the US, Pulpstar, even if it were Superman with the Pope as running mate.
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Koff, splutter, Michael Bloomberg.
Thanks for your piece on the USA the other day, informative and useful as always.
Thank you, Pulpstar.
Here's what I have backed at Leafy Lingfield....all to small stakes.
1.20 High Master 12/1 2.20 Horsted Keknes 11/10 2.50 Indignant 5/1 3.20 Tempus Fugit 8/1
All of these have a lot more chance than Michael Bloomberg!
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
The problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><</p>
LOL! There is absolutely no way an independent can win in the US, Pulpstar, even if it were Superman with the Pope as running mate.
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Sure - Go on then. Actually I was trying to work out how to best balance the stakes in the end I came to the conclusion a skewed arb bet to zero profit on Repubs and 11% on Dems would be best... But now its only 5.5% for which I'd rather keep the liquidity.
It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.
Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
Theres an arb with Ladbrokes and Bet365 on Dem/Rep winning the 2016 presidency (Ladbrokes) @ 5/4 Rep, 365 1/1 Dem... thats 1.9%/year - so not a good return. But it could be a useful tool to clear the Bet365 bonus...
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
Bloody prices changed on 365 >< - Just as I worked out my plan.
The Power of PB !
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
The problem is I second guess myself - wonder - can an indpendent win it etc... so I post here - then the price goes. Could still do it at 10-11 and 5-4 I guess ><</p>
LOL! There is absolutely no way an independent can win in the US, Pulpstar, even if it were Superman with the Pope as running mate.
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Koff, splutter, Michael Bloomberg.
Thanks for your piece on the USA the other day, informative and useful as always.
Thank you, Pulpstar.
Here's what I have backed at Leafy Lingfield....all to small stakes.
1.20 High Master 12/1 2.20 Horsted Keknes 11/10 2.50 Indignant 5/1 3.20 Tempus Fugit 8/1
All of these have a lot more chance than Michael Bloomberg!
Comments
Would you do us the honour and give us all a quick flash ??
Last time I saw @MsJackMonroe was in Mari Vanna - caviar £75 an oz - so take her claims of food poverty with a pinch of salt. @PSbookEditor
Caviar socialists....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7673406/General-Election-2010-marginal-poll-points-to-Conservative-majority.html
For the record, I think the 2015 General election will be very difficult for the pollsters for a variety of reason.
1) The first peacetime coalition in many years
2) The emergence of UKIP
3) Incumbency, and Lib Dem incumbency in particular
4) The debates may skew things, more so than in 2010
Not easily enough or often enough imo - though it's not only the head that's the problem, it's the protective layers of management that have burgeoned over the last decade plus, and continue to do so.
Basically, the cream doesn't rise to the top in education, and there's not a great track record for 'outsiders' coming in either. It's a tough job, particularly in a tough school. Few people are up to it.
There's this kind of missing mental chip with you. If you posted less and thought more, counting to ten for instance, you might avoid alienating so many people.. Why do I say this? Well because a perfectly decent debate would have been possible but, no, Tim has to throw in a wind-up comment viz. 'If you knew the tiniest amount about politics'. So faced with that I can either a) tell you I studied politics or b) consider you an asshole. Actually a) and b) is a third option.
And indeed there are about 100 Labour seats (like Sheffield Central and Hull North) where a big swing from LD to Lab of around 10% could happen without any seats changing hands, which would help to bring the seats and votes situation more in line with 1992, theoretically speaking.
Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.
As the discussion today has centred entirely on the characters delivering the message, rather than the massage itself, I think Priti Patel’s comment has been shown to be correct.
Electoral "bias" in favour of Labour peaked in 2001, and declined markedly in the next two elections. I expect that first time incumbency will reduce that bias further in 2015.
Back to your envelope Mike. Wouldn't want to miss your next thread blinder.
The UK Tories are morphing into our own version of the Republican Tea Party. With as much appeal.
"That's a bad question......."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03gppmz/Newsnight_Scotland_30_10_2013/
What's most depressing I think is that regional imbalances will go off the political agenda because everyone will say 'It'll all be fixed when we have HS2.' No it won't. Still the Tories think it's good PR for their northern problem, Labour have got northern councils breathing down their necks who think this is the only chance of major infrastructure investment in their cities being agreed by the London-elite and the desperate Nick Clegg trying to associate himself with something other than student fees.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/business-news-markets-live/10416516/Business-news-and-markets-live.html
Tim you are being as slippery as ever. Post up a link to a graph for the whole parliament with satisfaction ratings for both supporters and general voters and let's see how it looks. Or would you rather be selective with your data? Let's see how those approval ratings look across this session up to the present.
"Interplanetary travel would be a lot more effective if we all had TARDISes."
I'm always surprised by how many (apparently intelligent) people think it's possible to have a crew with cameras lights hair make up and maybe ten location vehicles cruising around London in the off chance some restaurateur might happen to sit down and say something usable in a Labour PPB!
(What's more though I am loathe to mention it my London production company did all the 2010 Tory PPB's with Andy Coul**n and they used exactly the same methods)
Personally I’d advise against such rashness - and let the ’mystery’ remain exactly that…!
On topic, if someone can be bothered, it'd be interesting to see an estimate of the impact in terms of seats if a quarter of LibDems switch to Labour in Con-Lab marginals and the Tory vote drops say 3 points to UKIP - both fairly cautious assumptions and less than current polling levels. Because the size of LibDem vote varies a lot by marginal, it'll be a quite different prediction to Baxter.
"Will you actively condemn this thuggish leverage strategy, and demand that Unite abandon this unacceptable approach?
Will you now refuse to accept any more money from Unite until those responsible for threatening innocent families are disciplined?
Will you open a new inquiry to investigate properly the allegations of selection rigging in Falkirk, and accept that Unite attempted to subvert Labour's internal inquiry?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24758166
http://tinyurl.com/or962ze
One of the stats I found was this
During the 1997 campaign, 70% of people watched party political broadcasts. By the 2001 election this fell to 50%.
IIRC, 2005 it was 46% and in 2010 it was back upto to 50%
The ones that are watched are the ones most are the ones sandwiched between the local news and main news on ITV.
Or after the main news and the soap at 7pm.
http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/L/lifestuff/content/whorules/elections/whorules_ne_ppb.html
I'll try and dig out the links for the 2005 and 2010 figures.
Oh dear.
Both Cameron and Miliband will have the LibDems in their gunsights this time, as well as each other. I'd expect it to be a very different dynamic.
It is why I suspect we'll have 3 debates, one on one. Nick v Dave, Dave v Ed, and Ed vs Nick.
The other factor will be if Farage is added, that could have an impact, he could take votes from all three parties, he could woo disillusioned tories, people who don't like Ed but want to get rid of Dave and or the Tories, he could also go for the old Lib Dem USP we're not like the other two/three parties.
@TheScreamingEagles - UKIP have got to be involved somehow, surely? 'I agree with Nigel' coming to a TV screen near you.
HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say
Opponents of HS2 have said the Government is overestimating how much time HS2 will cut from train journeys between London and major northern cities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10411885/HS2-time-savings-exaggerated-critics-say.html
If they have 3 sets of 1v1 debates, as you outlined, then we'd have the ridiculous situation of a PM debate without the actual Prime Minister there.
The fairest solution would be to axe Clegg from the three debates. But best of all would be axing the debates altogether, or at least the pernicious worm.
So why not boost Northern Intercity travel.
Sheffield to Manchester, and Manchester to Leeds would be good starts
Now if we're talking about getting things wrong, and in truly spectacular fashion, shall we start a discussion on the politics of HS2? You've miraculously been cured of that obsession. Reduced to a humiliating silence.
He was the Kingmaker in 2010, and he could well be the Kingmaker in 2015
Have you read this?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/hs2-wont-solve-the-norths-economic-problems-it-might-make-them-worse/
Yes, I noticed that, Pulpstar, and thought about betting the GOP to balance out my existing portfolio, which leans Dem. But I suspect the GOP price will drift a bit yet, especially if the market becomes convinced Hillary will run.
Rahm was emphatic about it, and he is of course very close to Obama.
On the other hand, the north would be made better off if HS2 allowed activities currently undertaken in London to be undertaken more efficiently in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds (or in some dark satanic milltown). This seems much more probable.
On the economy it's unlikely, with the 45p tax exception, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As a former resident of London, I'm not one of those anti Londoners, it's just frustrating when there's more urgent rail problems that could be resolved.
:young-turks:
The Bumkinocracy completely failing to grasp the wonder and greatness of our nation's fair capital
I'm not a great fan of HS2, because from my firm's perspective it won't really make much odds to this process, but I suppose there are other businesses where it might make a difference.
Always place your bet BEFORE you post here, not after.
Seriously.
Make your own mind up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M0xZSsxU5k
You seem addicted to the erstwhile Italian model of periodic devaluations to support uncompetitive industry. The Germans have managed to devise an export model with a strong currency that supports a strong manufacturing base.
Now while none of these could remotely be called objective sources, he does rather appear to have given his opponents plenty of ammunition:
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/10/from-harryph-paxman-and-gove-go-on-a-tristram-hunt.html
http://www.economicvoice.com/tristram-hunts-car-crash-newsnight-interview/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100243799/judging-from-his-car-crash-interview-on-newsnight-tristram-hunt-was-born-with-a-silver-foot-in-his-mouth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/30/tristram-hunt-newsnight-paxman_n_4179585.html
Special prize to Huffpost for the screen grab.....
You are in a deluded very small minority, it was car crash TV for the hapless fop. First Twigg now this idiot, obviously Labour don't take education seriously. It's almost like they don't want to challenge Gove.
Rarely seen Paxman so animated, I thought he’d resigned himself to feigning bored affectation but the subject of teacher qualifications appears to have put the wind up his tail, I wonder why?
It's a railway. The price will probably triple as well.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9069191/why-the-2015-election-will-break-all-the-rules/
"Labour’s challenge is to show that they are economically credible. This is a struggle, given the fiscal record of the last Labour government. There is also a sense that for all the success of the energy freeze it might actually be working against Labour in this regard because it sounds just too good to be true; more than half of voters don’t think they will be able to actually do it. Miliband has made a mistake in not emphasising that he plans to use this 20-month freeze to push through changes to the energy market. At the moment, he sounds as if he wants to defy the market rather than reform it. This is not a good place to be if you’re trying to establish economic credibility."
Quick - post about the McCanns...Roma....
You shouldn't have wasted more than a milisecond on that one. :-(
Would you like some tips for Lingfield this afternoon to cheer you up?
Thanks for your piece on the USA the other day, informative and useful as always.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/arts/design/banksy-makes-new-york-his-gallery-for-a-month.html
Banksy seemed to conduct a kind of social experiment, using the city as a rat maze into which he dropped different kinds of bait to see how New Yorkers would react. We saw paranoia, greed and competitiveness as well as camaraderie, flash-mob-like fun and sincere or cash-driven reverence. People who had barely heard of Banksy until one of his works turned up on their buildings were suddenly hiring guards or covering them with plexiglass or roll-down gates. Some graffiti pieces lasted less than two hours before they went the way of all graffiti, and much else, quickly sinking beneath the restless surface of the city.
Thank you, Pulpstar.
Here's what I have backed at Leafy Lingfield....all to small stakes.
1.20 High Master 12/1
2.20 Horsted Keknes 11/10
2.50 Indignant 5/1
3.20 Tempus Fugit 8/1
All of these have a lot more chance than Michael Bloomberg!