Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January ICM poll sees LAB lead down to 3 and the LDs th

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January ICM poll sees LAB lead down to 3 and the LDs the main gainer

More follows

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Twitter
    electionista ‏@electionista 49s

    UK - ICM/Guardian poll: CON 32% LAB 35% LDEM 14% UKIP 10% http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/support-labour-shrinks-economic-recovery-icm-poll?CMP=twt_gu
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    UKIP are at 10 +1 not 9 as graphic
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Guardian - Support for Labour shrinks as faith in recovery grows, ICM poll finds

    "Support for Labour is sinking as faith in the UK's economic recovery builds, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

    Ed Miliband's party drops two points on the month to stand at just 35%, which is just three points ahead of David Cameron's Conservatives, who stand still on 32%. Labour's lead in the Guardian's respected 30-year polling series is thus squeezed to just three percentage points, down from five last month and eight points in November.

    The Liberal Democrats climb two, to reach 14%, and Ukip edges up one, to stand at 10%.

    The scores of both the main government and opposition parties are now back to where they were last August, before Miliband's popular conference promise to freeze domestic fuel bills. The economic news since has mostly been positive since, with falling inflation as well as unemployment, which could reduce the resonance of Labour's "cost of living crisis" pitch."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Time for an Ed is crap thread.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Re: debt. Danny Alexander has an article on the Scotsman website.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/danny-alexander-blog-on-uk-government-debt-1-3266453
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    That soaraway Labour...impossible to stop now..a full 3 points ahead..amazing stufF..Time for an Ed is Great thread...
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited January 2014
    We should call it a cost of Labour crisis and suggest that a freeze on Labour Governments for the foreseeable future would certainly help make life a little more affordable in the longer term. :)

    Time for an Ed is crap thread.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Gives Lib Dems 35 seats. The +32.5 seats bet on LD is looking very good right now.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Chart now corrected. Thanks to those who pointed it out
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    "They're going home, they're going home,
    The Lib Dems are going home"

    After the misery and disappointment of the last few days a little over reaction and exuberence is called for.
  • RowdieRowdie Posts: 8
    What will be the vehicle of attack for Labour now? First handling of the economy, Then the cost of living argument........next.....immigration.?...don't think so.....welfare & benefits.....unemployment?.....no don't think so......what about..'fairness'?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    A poll for compouter to be cross over.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    fitalass said:

    We should call it a cost of Labour crisis and suggest that a freeze on Labour Governments for the foreseeable future would certainly help make life a little more affordable in the longer term. :)

    Time for an Ed is crap thread.

    Actually I've been laughing more at the mess Salmond has managed to get himself in to on Uni fees and childcare. 8 months to go and he's still winging it.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Jan 2013 ICM:
    Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6886

    So UKIP are the only year-on-year winner.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AveryLP said:

    A poll for compouter to be cross over.

    You've been waiting weeks for that!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    This is a great poll for Nick Clegg.

    If the rise of the Lib Dems is reflected in other polling this may be the year of his resurrection and vindication.

    Poor young Miliband. Not good at all. If this continues I can see eds rolling.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    ICM always a bit tricky for Labour !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    And UKIP
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Spare a thought for those of us that actually have to live in First Minister Salmond's Scottish utopia! :)

    fitalass said:

    We should call it a cost of Labour crisis and suggest that a freeze on Labour Governments for the foreseeable future would certainly help make life a little more affordable in the longer term. :)

    Time for an Ed is crap thread.

    Actually I've been laughing more at the mess Salmond has managed to get himself in to on Uni fees and childcare. 8 months to go and he's still winging it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    A poll for compouter to be cross over.

    You've been waiting weeks for that!
    :D
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited January 2014
    First ICM of the year:

    A marker but to what? The Lib-Dhimmie share points to an outlier - surely ~ 1/6th of the sample are not mentally senile (hi Marque) - so we should expect the following in February:

    Lab : 36% Con : 33% UKIP : 12% Others : Who gives a feck....

    Noise; just noise. Let us see the New Year pattern emerge....*

    * It could be "eight"! :snigger:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    This is a great poll for Nick Clegg.

    If the rise of the Lib Dems is reflected in other polling this may be the year of his resurrection and vindication.

    Poor young Miliband. Not good at all. If this continues I can see eds rolling.

    Ed will just have to go and get a mistress now he needs to raise his profile.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2014
    This has to be concerning for Miliband. What happens with another 18 months of economic recovery? I suspect he will get into office thanks to Labour's built-in advantage in the electoral map, and then be Britain's answer to Francois Hollande, absent the sex appeal.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    A poll for compouter to be cross over.

    You've been waiting weeks for that!
    Not long before I can concatenate, Neil!

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AveryLP said:

    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    A poll for compouter to be cross over.

    You've been waiting weeks for that!
    Not long before I can concatenate, Neil!

    Please, Avery, this is a family website.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    A poll for compouter to be cross over.

    You've been waiting weeks for that!
    Not long before I can concatenate, Neil!

    Please, Avery, this is a family website.
    The family that polls together stays together?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Do Lib Dems come out of hiding in January ?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Just as long as a helmet wearing Ed Miliband is not caught on camera riding pillion on a motorbike. :)

    AveryLP said:

    This is a great poll for Nick Clegg.

    If the rise of the Lib Dems is reflected in other polling this may be the year of his resurrection and vindication.

    Poor young Miliband. Not good at all. If this continues I can see eds rolling.

    Ed will just have to go and get a mistress now he needs to raise his profile.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    fitalass said:

    Just as long as a helmet wearing Ed Miliband is not caught on camera riding pillion on a motorbike. :)

    AveryLP said:

    This is a great poll for Nick Clegg.

    If the rise of the Lib Dems is reflected in other polling this may be the year of his resurrection and vindication.

    Poor young Miliband. Not good at all. If this continues I can see eds rolling.

    Ed will just have to go and get a mistress now he needs to raise his profile.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BW9_umSwolU/Svq7NYK4vLI/AAAAAAAADJw/b1alGhkfTM8/s400/1239304726-wallace-gromit.jpg
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    AveryLP said:

    This is a great poll for Nick Clegg.

    If the rise of the Lib Dems is reflected in other polling this may be the year of his resurrection and vindication.

    Poor young Miliband. Not good at all. If this continues I can see eds rolling.

    Ed will just have to go and get a mistress now he needs to raise his profile.
    Ed will find it difficult to compete with Russia in upstaging France.

    I give you the First Mistress of Russia:

    http://bit.ly/1dKHWxF

    At least Alinka knows how to deal with balls.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited January 2014

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    This poll is pointing firmly at NOM mate !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Or well it points to Lab Majority 24, but Lab will drop a bit from this far out.

    Con ain't going up tho...

    So NOM.,
  • Time to watch Benefits Street and find out what all the fuss is about!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    A Hung Parliament is looking like a nailed-on certainty with polls like this. Throws Clegg's comments about being unable to work with Balls into sharp relief.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Just spent a couple of hours on the local council estate canvassing to get people signed up on the electoral roll. I am now firmly convinced that humanity has split into two evolutionary paths, and one is heading backwards towards the simians, though once they get there they will lower the average IQ of the group.

    In one block of flats not one single household had manager to send back the electoral registration form or register on line or even by phone. In another, of the six that answered their door to me the total IQ of the lot of them probably wasn't much above 500. The worse thing is thanks to my efforts they have now all got votes.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    35% is, but below it isn't and Labour won't hold 35%. Blues will get some boune back but not enough for a majority.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    In May 2015, maybe.

    In January 2014, not.

    Still Ed may get a visiting professorship at the LSE as compensation.

  • The lates installment of the Scargill v NUM feud:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-25681118

    He started off with a big union and a small house and ended up with a small union and big house.

    Though I think it was multiple houses in the end:

    "Documents arising from the case show that Mr Scargill, a fierce opponent of Margaret Thatcher, tried to use her "right-to-buy" legislation for council tenants when he made an application in 1993 to buy the Barbican flat at a discounted price."
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    Peter Kellner thinks it wont be:

    http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    edited January 2014
    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.


    And if you injure yourself through exercise or indulge in dangerous sports or even drive a car? The reality is if you start compiling a list of all those things which people choose to do which might cause serious injury or illness which arguably they could avoid it would be so long and so comprehensive that it would include just about everybody in one way or another.

    Now if you don't compile a list and just "cherry pick" those things that suit you or you 'don't like'. That's called bigotry.

    The answer is that the model of how health provision is funded is archaic and should be scrapped completely and a new model introduced. Of course Government will not even consider that for decades I suspect.
  • Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    Survival of the fattest is replacing survival of the fittest.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    35% is, but below it isn't and Labour won't hold 35%. Blues will get some boune back but not enough for a majority.
    Continuation of the coalition ///

    Jack's ARSE is going to go down as the greatest predictor in human history !
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    These two years stick out to me. 2012 was just after vetogasm, getting a lot of the anti-EU people on side that now support UKIP. Whatever the machinations, it looks like an 4 point swing from Con > UKIP.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    edited January 2014

    In one block of flats not one single household had manager to send back the electoral registration form or register on line or even by phone. In another, of the six that answered their door to me the total IQ of the lot of them probably wasn't much above 500. The worse thing is thanks to my efforts they have now all got votes.

    Look on the bright side, they probably won't use them. (Or else an enterprising party worker will call round and use the vote postally).

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    Are you also volunteering to pay more national insurance for your state pension seeing as you will be expected to receive it for longer?
  • Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Spot the flounce bounce.

    Even when shown hard evidence about what is popular Cameron still caved afterwards.

    And still people claim he's going to be able to negotiate a new EU treaty.
  • The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    A projection I did based on the recent Ashcroft poll suggested that if that was the election outcome Cameron would poll around 8.5 million votes. Howard polled around 8,780,000
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    You miserable innumerate git. You will live a long and turgid life and use the NHS for years and years while still drawing a pension and voting yourself more benefits. The smpking drinking fatties will die early, not need old age drugs, not draw pensions and will have been taxed at extortionate rates on their pleasures. They're subsidising you.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    35% is enough for Labour to win a majority if their vote increases uniformly across the country, but all the evidence is that that isn't what's happening: they're doing much better in the northern cities where they already hold most of the seats, and less well in the medium-sized and small towns in the south and Midlands where most of the marginals are to be found.
  • Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.


    And if you injure yourself through exercise or indulge in dangerous sports or even drive a car? The reality is if you start compiling a list of all those things which people choose to do which might cause serious injury or illness which arguably they could avoid it would be so long and so comprehensive that it would include just about everybody in one way or another.

    Now if you don't compile a list and just "cherry pick" those things that suit you or you 'don't like'. That's called bigotry.

    The answer is that the model of how health provision is funded is archaic and should be scrapped completely and a new model introduced. Of course Government will not even consider that for decades I suspect.
    Another point being that you should live much longer than those with an unhealthy lifestyle and will probably cost the NHS more in the long run. That's the way annuities work anyway.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    35% is, but below it isn't and Labour won't hold 35%. Blues will get some boune back but not enough for a majority.
    Continuation of the coalition ///

    Jack's ARSE is going to go down as the greatest predictor in human history !
    Damned with faint praise I see !!

    Titters ....

  • Presumably a number of Conservatives will seek solace in this poll. It happened many times last year.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Nothing in this that changes my opinion that we're heading for a hung Parliament.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036

    Presumably a number of Conservatives will seek solace in this poll. It happened many times last year.

    We prefer the term 'PB Tory', thank you very much. ;-)
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    edited January 2014

    Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Spot the flounce bounce.

    Even when shown hard evidence about what is popular Cameron still caved afterwards.

    And still people claim he's going to be able to negotiate a new EU treaty.
    I think after Hague's latest admission, the Tories EU policy (well the one they've spoken about in public) is in tatters. Nobody with any sense is going to believe them
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Hugh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    This poll is pointing firmly at NOM mate !
    Polling at the moment is clearly pointing to a Labour majority (PBTories seem to be getting excited about a MoE poll, perhaps they've been starved of "good news" recently?)

    The likely outcome ranges from Labour most seats but struggling to get coalition numbers, to a 2005 size Labour majority. Anything outside that range is a long shot.
    Labour should be doing considerably better. Single opposition party, Tories dishing out nasty medicine and the rise of UKIP.

    Labour are likely to get a narrow majority and be absolutely trashed when the promised sweeties fail to appear.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Presumably a number of Conservatives will seek solace in this poll. It happened many times last year.

    And so they should. 16 months out from the GE and with a steadily improving economy Labour leads by only 3 points in the gold standard poll.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited January 2014

    Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Spot the flounce bounce.

    Even when shown hard evidence about what is popular Cameron still caved afterwards.

    And still people claim he's going to be able to negotiate a new EU treaty.
    I think after Hague's latest admission, the Tories EU policy (well the one they've spoken about in public) is in tatters. Nobody with any sense is going to believe them
    I'm quite looking forward to the EU parliament campaign.

    The LDs are apparently going to campaign as the pro-EU party.
    Michael Fallon has advocated the Conservatives campaigning on a pro-EU platform. (I don't think they will, but it would be fun!)
    The IEA Brexit prize will be announced in March.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/brexit
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312

    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    You miserable innumerate git. You will live a long and turgid life and use the NHS for years and years while still drawing a pension and voting yourself more benefits. The smpking drinking fatties will die early, not need old age drugs, not draw pensions and will have been taxed at extortionate rates on their pleasures. They're subsidising you.
    They might not draw a pension but they will spend the latter years of their lives claiming ESA, PIP, Housing Benefit... you name it.

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Hugh said:

    saddened said:

    Hugh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    This poll is pointing firmly at NOM mate !
    Polling at the moment is clearly pointing to a Labour majority (PBTories seem to be getting excited about a MoE poll, perhaps they've been starved of "good news" recently?)

    The likely outcome ranges from Labour most seats but struggling to get coalition numbers, to a 2005 size Labour majority. Anything outside that range is a long shot.
    Labour should be doing considerably better. Single opposition party, Tories dishing out nasty medicine and the rise of UKIP.

    Labour are likely to get a narrow majority and be absolutely trashed when the promised sweeties fail to appear.
    You could argue that the Tories should be doing much better. Economy growing at last, a fresh start after many years of a tired Government, an unpopular leader of the opposition etc.

    As for "sweeties", that's silly, but there's no doubt that the Tories will leave a poisonous legacy for Labour to clean up should they win, a difficult hand for sure.
    In your honest opinion were the coalition left a poisonous legacy? If not why not?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Tory MPs unrevolting:

    Andrew Tyrie: I did not sign Conservative EU veto letter

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25722778
  • I've taken this comment off Conhome because it demonstrates how its not only the right of the party that getting cheesed off with this sorry farce of an EU policy. I believe this is John Stevens the guy who contested and beat Nigel Farage in Buckingham under a democracy banner coming 2nd behind Bercow.

    AL is right. Frankly I cannot see how Dan Hannan, having expressed the views he has, can stand on the Conservative platform, or how Bernard Jenkin, having signed the letter he has, can vote for the Conservative list, for the Euro elections this May. Perhaps they can explain? And what of Toby Young, apparently urging Conservatives in the forthcoming Manchester by-election to vote UKIP, yet suffering no sanction whatever? At the very least the PM's strategy to secure a renegotiated UK membership of the EU, should he win the next election, has been holed below the water line. He would need it seems an outright majority of at least 95.This sorry farce of deception and dishonesty must be coming to some sort of denouement soon, surely?

    Even the left of the party has had enough......
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,343
    Coming belatedly if I may to the discussion of the debt assurance issue in the case of Scottish independence - the significance seems deeper than even that. To sum up, it seems to me that the Unionists are admitting the possibility of losing and indeed of two different cases:

    1. Scotland doesn't pay the debt. The Unionists in London have been going on ad nauseam about Scotland being a new state (as if the Parliament was not the 1707 one reconvened, but never mind) so they can claim to be the continuing UK and keep the nukes, UN Security Council seat, etc. (well, it will be realpolitik that determines that anyway). Yet that would mean that Scotland gets no assets other than those on its soil, but no debts either (now that would astound me, I have to say). Ergo rUK (a tendentious term in itself) has to promise to pay all the debt, which it has done. And Scotland then has no debt to pay, so all the stuff about reneging is meaningless.

    2. The other option is the current SNP proposal, that Scotland pays its share of the debt. But UK assurance of the whole debt surely only makes sense if this debt is all denominated in sterking and not converted on indy to, say, the merk Scots, assurance surely only makes sense in the event of a continuing sterling union (if only because anything else gets terribly complicated).

    Of course it is being spin as protection against the spendthrift Scots - but if London could spend money with the efficiency of John Swinney with absolutely no borrowing at all (barring recent capital fund developments) we wouldn't be in such a bad problem.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    You miserable innumerate git. You will live a long and turgid life and use the NHS for years and years while still drawing a pension and voting yourself more benefits. The smpking drinking fatties will die early, not need old age drugs, not draw pensions and will have been taxed at extortionate rates on their pleasures. They're subsidising you.
    They might not draw a pension but they will spend the latter years of their lives claiming ESA, PIP, Housing Benefit... you name it.

    So stop moaning and get them in to jobs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    You miserable innumerate git. You will live a long and turgid life and use the NHS for years and years while still drawing a pension and voting yourself more benefits. The smpking drinking fatties will die early, not need old age drugs, not draw pensions and will have been taxed at extortionate rates on their pleasures. They're subsidising you.
    As bizarre as it seems, Alanbrooke is right on this one. Ask the evidence points to smokers as being tax positive, mostly due to dying younger
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Interesting piece on BBC News about obesity. I think it's about time our national insurance rates are based on our lifestyle choices. As someone that exercises regularly, drinks in moderation, doesn't smoke and watches his weight, I think it's very unfair I have to pay for those who are less responsible. Particularly as I only use the NHS a couple of times a year.

    You miserable innumerate git. You will live a long and turgid life and use the NHS for years and years while still drawing a pension and voting yourself more benefits. The smpking drinking fatties will die early, not need old age drugs, not draw pensions and will have been taxed at extortionate rates on their pleasures. They're subsidising you.
    As bizarre as it seems, Alanbrooke is right on this one. Ask the evidence points to smokers as being tax positive, mostly due to dying younger
    £7 a box might also be a factor. And no I never smoked - too expensive a habit.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Looking at the stats for children, something has brought down the obesity rates from c. 2004. Combination of more exercise, greater awareness of what children are eating, health education policies.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Carnyx said:

    Coming belatedly if I may to the discussion of the debt assurance issue in the case of Scottish independence - the significance seems deeper than even that. To sum up, it seems to me that the Unionists are admitting the possibility of losing and indeed of two different cases:

    1. Scotland doesn't pay the debt. The Unionists in London have been going on ad nauseam about Scotland being a new state (as if the Parliament was not the 1707 one reconvened, but never mind) so they can claim to be the continuing UK and keep the nukes, UN Security Council seat, etc. (well, it will be realpolitik that determines that anyway). Yet that would mean that Scotland gets no assets other than those on its soil, but no debts either (now that would astound me, I have to say). Ergo rUK (a tendentious term in itself) has to promise to pay all the debt, which it has done. And Scotland then has no debt to pay, so all the stuff about reneging is meaningless.

    2. The other option is the current SNP proposal, that Scotland pays its share of the debt. But UK assurance of the whole debt surely only makes sense if this debt is all denominated in sterking and not converted on indy to, say, the merk Scots, assurance surely only makes sense in the event of a continuing sterling union (if only because anything else gets terribly complicated).

    Of course it is being spin as protection against the spendthrift Scots - but if London could spend money with the efficiency of John Swinney with absolutely no borrowing at all (barring recent capital fund developments) we wouldn't be in such a bad problem.

    In the event of the scots voting to leave the UK, the asset/debt split will not be dictated by Scotland.

  • Hugh said:

    saddened said:

    Hugh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hugh said:

    The tory vote share appears to have a hard limit well under 35%.

    32% now, 33% 12 months ago. It's core vote, Howard 2005 type numbers.

    The show no sign of breaking out from that. Nothing else really matters, Lead doesn't matter, it's all about vote share.

    The more concerning thing for EdM if it sticks, is he's at 35%, I'm on for him dropping below 35% by year end.
    35% is probably enough for a Labour majority.

    This poll is pointing firmly at NOM mate !
    Polling at the moment is clearly pointing to a Labour majority (PBTories seem to be getting excited about a MoE poll, perhaps they've been starved of "good news" recently?)

    The likely outcome ranges from Labour most seats but struggling to get coalition numbers, to a 2005 size Labour majority. Anything outside that range is a long shot.
    Labour should be doing considerably better. Single opposition party, Tories dishing out nasty medicine and the rise of UKIP.

    Labour are likely to get a narrow majority and be absolutely trashed when the promised sweeties fail to appear.
    You could argue that the Tories should be doing much better. Economy growing at last, a fresh start after many years of a tired Government, an unpopular leader of the opposition etc.

    As for "sweeties", that's silly, but there's no doubt that the Tories will leave a poisonous legacy for Labour to clean up should they win, a difficult hand for sure.
    Incredible, unspoofable
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    'We must save the beleaguered middle class, writes Ed Miliband in the @Telegraph splash tmrw. 'In crisis' re living standards slump, he says' gallagher
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Carnyx said:

    Scotland doesn't pay the debt.

    How long after that can Scotland raise its own debt on the international debt market?

    To the nearest decade will do.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MaxPB said:

    Jan 2011: Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2012: Con 40%, Lab 35%, LD 16%, UKIP 2%
    Jan 2013: Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
    Jan 2014: Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 14%, UKIP 10%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    These two years stick out to me. 2012 was just after vetogasm, getting a lot of the anti-EU people on side that now support UKIP. Whatever the machinations, it looks like an 4 point swing from Con > UKIP.
    8% swing from CON to UKIP since 2012. Good for democracy !
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Just spent a couple of hours on the local council estate canvassing to get people signed up on the electoral roll. I am now firmly convinced that humanity has split into two evolutionary paths, and one is heading backwards towards the simians, though once they get there they will lower the average IQ of the group.

    In one block of flats not one single household had manager to send back the electoral registration form or register on line or even by phone. In another, of the six that answered their door to me the total IQ of the lot of them probably wasn't much above 500. The worse thing is thanks to my efforts they have now all got votes.

    HG Wells' The Time Machine?

    Eloi on the surface and Morlocks subterranean.

    Considering the number of giant basements being excavated in Central London nowadays and your friends/pets in the blocks, it looks like Wells got his directions round the wrong way.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Who do you want to negotiate with the Scottish Parliament? would be an important issue in the 2015 election. The issue.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Who do you want to negotiate with the Scottish Parliament? would be an important issue in the 2015 election. The issue.
    Would be a difficult issue for the PM who lost the referendum in the first place, I'd imagine.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Quincel said:

    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Who do you want to negotiate with the Scottish Parliament? would be an important issue in the 2015 election. The issue.
    Would be a difficult issue for the PM who lost the referendum in the first place, I'd imagine.
    It depends on the circumstances. If, for example, the referendum were perceived to have been lost on xenophobic anti-English sentiment, the most English party might do well as the presumptive negotiators.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Neil

    Only a small fraction of my pension will come from the state. The obese smokers' healthcare will be entirely paid for via the government.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Quincel said:

    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Who do you want to negotiate with the Scottish Parliament? would be an important issue in the 2015 election. The issue.
    Would be a difficult issue for the PM who lost the referendum in the first place, I'd imagine.
    Different issue.

    In Scotland: who will stick up for Scotland vs rUK?
    In rUK: who will stick up for England-Wales-N.Ireland vs Scotland?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2014
    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Socrates said:

    @Neil

    Only a small fraction of my pension will come from the state. The obese smokers' healthcare will be entirely paid for via the government.

    The longer you live, the more your health costs will be. Non smokers simply get health problems later.

    We should encourage retired people to take up smoking.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036
    Socrates said:

    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.

    what reason has tim got to hide behind another moniker?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Could that be when he refuses to sign that cheque for the Treasury unless he gets to join a sterling union?
    That is one scenario that's been examined by Unionist politicians.
    However, they also reckon that the Treasury could counter any such move by simply saying that, in such a case, it will refuse to hand over to an independent Scotland the tax, duty and VAT revenue it would still be collecting.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10569918/Salmonds-hollow-victory-in-a-phoney-war-over-debt.html
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    RobD said:

    Socrates said:

    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.

    what reason has tim got to hide behind another moniker?
    I dunno, if I were tim I'd do it just for the entertainment of seeing all the guessing.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Socrates said:

    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.

    I like to imagine all posters are Peter Andre, Sandi Toksvig or Ant McPartlin. It's a more constructive use of time than speculating in detail over their identities.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    There are also a lot of Crown assets in Scotland, which would be owned by the rUK, possibly including Salmonds trousers.

    antifrank said:

    @Carnyx Scotland does not get to set unilaterally the terms of its independence.

    The debt could be owed by Scotland to rUK, denominated in sterling but the rUK decline to allow Scotland to stay in the sterling zone. If Scotland refused these terms, it might need, for example, to give up on entry to the EU, without rUK's support. Or it may simply not be allowed to secede with rUK's consent if Scotland refuses to accept reasonable terms. It can't play pick n mix secession.

    Could that be when he refuses to sign that cheque for the Treasury unless he gets to join a sterling union?
    That is one scenario that's been examined by Unionist politicians.
    However, they also reckon that the Treasury could counter any such move by simply saying that, in such a case, it will refuse to hand over to an independent Scotland the tax, duty and VAT revenue it would still be collecting.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10569918/Salmonds-hollow-victory-in-a-phoney-war-over-debt.html
  • RobD said:

    Socrates said:

    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.

    what reason has tim got to hide behind another moniker?
    None, if he comes baćk it will be as himself
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Labour lead five points:

    CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited January 2014
    Socrates said:

    @Neil

    Only a small fraction of my pension will come from the state.

    So? The point is that you are expected to receive tens of thousands more in state pension than obese smokers will. You dont seem as enthusiastic about paying an appropriate premium for these pension costs as you are about charging others a premium for what you think are higher healthcare costs.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Sun Politics Twitter:

    Ex-Labour spin chief @campbellclaret says @Ed_Miliband has NO chance of winning a majority in 2015: http://bit.ly/1a2BgiV
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565
    Encouraging poll for the LDs, albeit coming off a lousy one last time. Hoping it's the start of a trend.

    Surely the Tories will have to learn sooner or later that 'sulk' isn't a credible policy on the EU? It would be comical if it didn't look like they were splitting down the middle and (in my view) damaging the country. Cameron has got to lead here; he had a point when he promised to stop banging on about Europe. But he's opened Pandora's box by talking about referenda and renegotiation, but he seems to have lost control and doesn't have a plan to get it back.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    @Neil

    Only a small fraction of my pension will come from the state. The obese smokers' healthcare will be entirely paid for via the government.

    The longer you live, the more your health costs will be. Non smokers simply get health problems later.

    And more expensive ones. The costs of treating a smoker dying of lung cancer or heart disease is peanuts compared to keeping a drooling vegetable in a nursing home for years. Encouraging people to smoke and drink to excess by cutting taxes and booze and fags would save the NHS a fortune in the long term.

  • Anyone watch Benefits Street ?

    Brought to mind Mr Jones's 'plantation economy' viewpoint.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.

    I like to imagine all posters are Peter Andre, Sandi Toksvig or Ant McPartlin. It's a more constructive use of time than speculating in detail over their identities.
    I had to google for "Ant McPartlin" - mostly to discover if I actively disliked all three of your examples.

    Reassuringly I found that I did. All is right and well with the world :)

  • For anyone who missed it Benefits Street was fascinating if depressing TV. Certainly don't think it is unfair to the people who live there.

    I must admit I came away with a lot of sympathy for the Romanians - one lot were scrounging stuff out of bins and taking it to the tip to make money. The 2nd lot had about 13 of them living in a house and were exploited by their boss as slave labour. Some of them eventually ended up sleeping rough in London and said that was better than living in Brum.

    I couldn't help wondering how all the Romanians had got here considering this was filmed last year before they were allowed to come here officially. Ditto how the Algerian bloke got here.

    As for the locals, what a shower! White Dee was pretty much a poster child for where the benefits system has gone wrong - smoking, drinking, massively obese, playing the lotto, poor mother and no sign of looking for a job!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Hugh ain't Tim. Tim's a blairite, Hugh isn't from what I can work out. Further to the left.
This discussion has been closed.