Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An amazing statistic from the Survation Dudley North poll

SystemSystem Posts: 12,597
edited December 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An amazing statistic from the Survation Dudley North poll

None of the 2010 LD voters in the Survation Dudley N poll said they'd be backing party at GE2015. They're now "don't know" or LAB backers

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    The LD vote is only holding up where they can convincingly say 'we're not as bad as the Tories and no-one else can win here'. For almost everyone else they're pointless.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    What about areas where LDs are in contention with Labour for control of councils, how do they compare with areas with LDs v Tories, or Tories v Labour?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,011
    That paddy power market on Lib Dem deposit losses....
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    That paddy power market on Lib Dem deposit losses....

    When I first tipped it I meant because I thought the high end was value but Richard Nabavi thanked me for pointing out the value at the low end!

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT @Neil
    Neil said:

    DavidL said:


    It is an excellent backdrop to George's Autumn speech tomorrow. He should be able to announce a hat trick of more investment (sorry a Brownian moment there) spending, tax cuts on business rates and green levies and much reduced borrowing. No wonder he was looking so chipper at PMQs today.

    We already know he has to produce Tory sweeties (marriage tax relief), Lib Dem sweeties (school meals) and Labour raspberries (energy bill stuff) and the business rates freeze has been well trailed too but it is far from clear that the OBR projections will show him meeting the targets he set himself. Which does beg the question of whether his focus on the deficit is laser-like.
    The two self-set targets are to achieve:

    1. a "cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling, five year forecast period" (the Primary Fiscal Mandate); and,

    2. public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to be falling at a fixed date of 2015-16.

    OBR's March EFO forecast that the government was on target to meet the primary mandate but not the supplementary debt ratio target.

    Specifically, the OBR forecast that the government, as a result of measures introduced in the March 2013 budget, would put the CACB back into surplus in 2016-17 and achieve a full year net surplus in 2017-18. The OBR claimed this forecast outcome had a greater probability than 50% and therefore that the government was meeting its target.

    Chote backed off making a specific prediction on the supplementary target ("unfortunately, one cannot estimate the probability of achieving the supplementary target, given that we do not have a joint distribution that would allow us to apply the same technique."), but produced forecast growth, expenditure and borrowing figures from which headline estimates (without probability assessment) were produced. These forecast PSND as a % of GDP to rise by 2.4% in 2015-16 and by another 0.5% in 2016-17. These forecasts imply that the government would not meet its supplementary target but without the confirmation of a probability assessment.

    What we know now is that the OBR's March EFO greatly underestimated growth and revenues this financial year. Given this and, with their forecasts for expenditure being (so far) in line with ONS actuals, the OBR's borrowing forecast ended up being far too high.

    Given the pessimism of the March EFO and intervening gaps in forecast to actual, it is almost certain that the OBR will confirm that the government is continuing to meet its primary mandate and highly likely that the dates for achieving the surplus will be brought forward.

    [to be continued]
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013
    @Neil

    [...continued]

    The ONS stats show that the supplementary Debt to GDP target is being met for the aggregate figures (PSND) but not on the narrower but headline PSND ex figures: 
    ONS       PSND ex    PSND
               %GDP      %GDP
    -------------------------
    2009/10    56.4     151.7
    2010/11    65.9     147.2
    2011/12    71.0     139.2
    2012/13    74.1     137.4
    What is revealing though is the topping out of the ratio in this year's monthly figures. This suggests that the current level of growth is beginning to turn the balance:
    ONS PSND ex as % of GDP           
    F/Y  2012-13   2013-14 
    -----------------------
    Apr    69.8     73.6   
    May    70.1     74.0   
    Jun    71.5     74.7   
    Jul    71.0     74.4   
    Aug    71.4     74.6   
    Sep    72.6     75.9   
    Oct    72.6     75.4   
    Nov    73.3      ..    
    Dec    74.6      ..    
    Jan    72.9      ..    
    Feb    72.8      ..    
    Mar    74.1      ..
    We need to wait until the OBR releases its December EFO tomorrow to see what revisions are made to their Debt ratio forecasts. The new forecasts will certainly reduce the growth in debt ratios as forecast in the March publication, but it will be touch and go as to whether Chote will predict that Osborne is now on course to meeting both primary and supplementary targets.

    I would not like to bet against Osborne achieving both targets by the end of this parliamentary term, regardless of what revisions Chote makes to his forecasts tomorrow!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,011
    Neil said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    That paddy power market on Lib Dem deposit losses....

    When I first tipped it I meant because I thought the high end was value but Richard Nabavi thanked me for pointing out the value at the low end!

    A rare mistake by Richard I suspect.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Rosberg out to 23 for the 2014 title on Betfair.

    Tempted to put a little on. Hamilton's only 6, so Rosberg's over four times as long. But the two men have practically identical points-per-finish levels (10.5 for Hamilton, 10.6875 for Rosberg). The difference in points at the end of the season was a DNF for Hamilton and three (all reliability) for Rosberg. I think they're extremely closely matched.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013
    tim said:

    Well done Dave

    Times News ‏@TimesNewsdesk 1h
    Cameron trade trip secures £45 million UK-China pig semen deal http://thetim.es/IH6bnU


    ‏pic.twitter.com/pVAqhvlwjX

    Pork will be relieved.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Admittedly the sub-set of 2010 LDs, at just 11 responses, was very small but you’d expect one or two to still be loyal to the yellows. In fact the data records zero.
    Mike's expectation was that upto two of the 11 2010 LDs would still be loyal to the Lib Dems, a rate of 2/11.

    Thus the probability of none being found in the sample of 11, assuming that this rate is true, is (9/11)^11 = 0.11. Thus there is not enough evidence to overturn the null hypothesis (of Mike's expectation) that 1 or 2 out of 11 2010 Lib Dems tell the pollsters they will stay loyal.

    However, in the November ICM, the rate of Lib Dem loyalty was 30%*. So, the probability of no loyal Lib Dems being found in a sample of 11, assuming a loyalty rate of 3/10, is (7/10)^11 = 0.020. This is significant at the 5% level, so this opinion poll does provide evidence that:
    there’s been a disproportionate switch from LD>LAB in the marginals.
    * Incidentally, I've just checked this rate in the latest national Survation poll, and it is also 30%.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Avery

    That's still exactly what I said with far fewer yellow boxes! Well, except the bit about betting against Osborne. The golden rule on betting against Osborne is to always have tim on the other side of the bet.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    FrankBooth said:

    The LD vote is only holding up where they can convincingly say 'we're not as bad as the Tories and no-one else can win here'.

    Indeed. And "we're not as bad as the Tories" will be the message of their 2015 campaign. They will appeal to tactical anti-Tory voting. This is their best hope of minimising their losses. And having their erstwhile coalition partners condemning them as an unmodernised nasty party will add further height to the electoral mountain the Tories have to climb if they are to have any hope of a majority.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:

    @Avery

    That's still exactly what I said with far fewer yellow boxes! Well, except the bit about betting against Osborne. The golden rule on betting against Osborne is to always have tim on the other side of the bet.

    Don't worry, Neil.

    The yellow boxes are there as part of my campaign to make tim's posts more evidence based.

    It is a step too far to expect the betting strategy to follow.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,488
    tim said:

    Well done Dave

    Times News ‏@TimesNewsdesk 1h
    Cameron trade trip secures £45 million UK-China pig semen deal http://thetim.es/IH6bnU

    "At Leeds Station, and rather good it was too"

    Are we giving or receiving?
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    anothernick said:

    FrankBooth said:

    The LD vote is only holding up where they can convincingly say 'we're not as bad as the Tories and no-one else can win here'.

    Indeed. And "we're not as bad as the Tories" will be the message of their 2015 campaign. They will appeal to tactical anti-Tory voting. This is their best hope of minimising their losses. And having their erstwhile coalition partners condemning them as an unmodernised nasty party will add further height to the electoral mountain the Tories have to climb if they are to have any hope of a majority.
    If wishes were horses...

    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    Labour will have to do a lot better than hope the Tories implode.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Theuniondivvie said:

    tim said:

    Well done Dave

    Times News ‏@TimesNewsdesk 1h
    Cameron trade trip secures £45 million UK-China pig semen deal http://thetim.es/IH6bnU

    "At Leeds Station, and rather good it was too"

    Are we giving or receiving?
    Giving.

    Perhaps the site's resident farmer could write an article on the deal?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    said the pig with a sneer, come away from my rear...
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited December 2013
    The Court Martial Appeal Court (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Tugendhat & Holroyde JJ) will be handing down judgment in the cases of Marines "A" to "E" tomorrow. The marines have applied for leave to appeal against a ruling of the Judge Advocate General (HHJ Blackett) revoking their anonymity. It is questionable whether CMAC has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order of the Court Martial which eliminates (rather than imposes) reporting restrictions, so it is possible that the Marines will be named tomorrow. There is the possibility of a further appeal from CMAC to the Supreme Court if there is a point of law of general public importance.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Retiring MPs:

    Total: 36
    Lab: 15
    Con: 11
    LD: 7
    PC: 1
    Ind: 2 (Joyce and Mercer)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    AndyJS said:

    Retiring MPs:

    Total: 36
    Lab: 15
    Con: 11
    LD: 7
    PC: 1
    Ind: 2 (Joyce and Mercer)

    So 16-12 to Lab, Con as J + M were elected under those parties - not as indies.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    FPT
    Charles said:

    Thatcher in her prime would have little to no truck with UKIP. She was ultimately a bold but pragmatic politician. UKIP in too many cases looks at the world as they wished it was, not as it really is, and therefore offer only superficially appealing but impractical policy solutions.

    ...Hmmh. I can see why they appeal to erstwhile Labour voters...

    This started to go exponential around 12 years ago

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22617339

    "Police are investigating 54 alleged gangs in a crackdown on child grooming in England and Wales, peers have heard."

    This started to go exponential around 12 years ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html

    "Britain's worst gang hit neighbourhoods are seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as in war zones, it was claimed today."


    Why would the (c. 10%-15%?) of voters who know about this - mostly erstwhile labour voters - vote for people who are quite happy to collude in covering it up?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Next said:

    anothernick said:

    FrankBooth said:

    The LD vote is only holding up where they can convincingly say 'we're not as bad as the Tories and no-one else can win here'.

    Indeed. And "we're not as bad as the Tories" will be the message of their 2015 campaign. They will appeal to tactical anti-Tory voting. This is their best hope of minimising their losses. And having their erstwhile coalition partners condemning them as an unmodernised nasty party will add further height to the electoral mountain the Tories have to climb if they are to have any hope of a majority.
    If wishes were horses...

    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    Labour will have to do a lot better than hope the Tories implode.
    The fact that the energy price freeze remains at the top of the agenda 3 months after Miliband's speech, and the Tories are still not clear whether to copy the idea or criticise it, tells its own story.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    BBC must tackle diversity 'problem' says news director
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    TGOHF said:

    AndyJS said:

    Retiring MPs:

    Total: 36
    Lab: 15
    Con: 11
    LD: 7
    PC: 1
    Ind: 2 (Joyce and Mercer)

    So 16-12 to Lab, Con as J + M were elected under those parties - not as indies.
    Yes, either way of looking at it is valid I think.

    Percentages of total MPs for each party standing down:

    Lab: 6.2%
    Con: 3.9%
    LD: 12.3%
    PC: 33.3%

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940

    Goldman Sachs appear to think that threatening to downsize their UK operation post Brexit will be seen as a bad thing.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100249028/goldman-sachs-would-drastically-cut-its-london-office-if-the-uk-quits-the-eu/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    Next said:

    BBC must tackle diversity 'problem' says news director

    Oh no, not the "hideously white" meme again...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Interesting article...

    And still the LDs do nothing about it. Really odd.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Alanbrooke said:


    Goldman Sachs appear to think that threatening to downsize their UK operation post Brexit will be seen as a bad thing.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100249028/goldman-sachs-would-drastically-cut-its-london-office-if-the-uk-quits-the-eu/

    Corporate FUD. I'll believe it when I see it.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Jonathan said:

    Interesting article...

    And still the LDs do nothing about it. Really odd.

    Trying to build back support in Dudley North would be just about the most insane thing the Lib Dems could possibly do.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    Much more of a joke policy, than a policy joke, though.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Clegg is an idiot. Discuss
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    edited December 2013
    Most Labour policy, so far as I understand it, is negative. So they will reintroduce the spare room subsidy, they will remove the cap on benefits, they will fiddle about and increase housing benefit again, they will re-introduce a 10% tax band somewhere at some level somehow, they will reinstate lost benefits for the disabled, they might make CB universal again etc etc.

    Most of this is oppositionism and perfectly legitimate in that context. It makes as much sense as Clegg claiming that Labour has opposed £83bn of cuts to welfare. These are promises to be made and quietly forgotten.

    I really have no idea what their economic plan is. At one time it was to invest spend more because the cuts were too deep too fast but I can't believe even Balls thinks that any more. Mr Blanchflower is the last man standing on that position. There have been comments that they are going to be tough on benefits but they are understandably vague on the details. I really don't know where they stand and sooner or later that is going to be a problem for them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    Bobajob said:

    Clegg is an idiot. Discuss

    Ed is crap. Discuss.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Good post. It's one of the best ways of pushing money into the economy - the working poor spend their earnings, they do not save it. Good all round move. Agreed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Politically, that sounds like a good plan. I'm not sure what the economics would be, although we could probably generate a great deal of energy from business complaints ...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Next said:

    BBC must tackle diversity 'problem' says news director

    "New editors for education and health will also be appointed,"

    Jings - there must be some other public sector centric areas that need a news editor too ?

    For lefties, by lefties - paid for by everyone.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    DavidL said:

    I really don't know where they stand and sooner or later that is going to be a problem for them.

    Come on, you were never going to vote for them so how you feel about their policy approach is never going to be a problem for them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    DavidL said:

    Most Labour policy, so far as I understand it, is negative. So they will reintroduce the spare room subsidy, they will remove the cap on benefits, they will fiddle about and increase housing benefit again, they will re-introduce a 10% tax band somewhere at some level somehow, they will reinstate lost benefits for the disabled, they might make CB universal again etc etc.

    Most of this is oppositionism and perfectly legitimate in that context. It makes as much sense as Clegg claiming that Labour has opposed £83bn of cuts to welfare. These are promises to be made and quietly forgotten.

    I really have no idea what their economic plan is. At one time it was to invest spend more because the cuts were too deep too fast but I can't believe even Balls thinks that any more. Mr Blanchflower is the last man standing on that position. There have been comments that they are going to be tough on benefits but they are understandably vague on the details. I really don't know where they stand and sooner or later that is going to be a problem for them.


    "I really have no idea what their economic plan is"

    Do you think they do ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Rumours that employers on NI for under 21s will be removed - that plus your two ideas would be a real positive.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Alanbrooke said:

    Bobajob said:

    Clegg is an idiot. Discuss

    Ed is crap. Discuss.
    Cameron is a fop. Discuss.

    House!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    It's not my party. I'm not a Conservative member, and try to vote for candidates not parties. Indeed, the last time I voted it was Green. Needless to say, he didn't win. ;-)

    Of course the coalition are rattled - Labour have thrown an idea into the ring that is unworkable but sounds good. It is very hard for a responsible government to respond to that.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    Neil said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Bobajob said:

    Clegg is an idiot. Discuss

    Ed is crap. Discuss.
    Cameron is a fop. Discuss.

    House!
    You win the collected works of the three stooges. Commiserations :-(
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    @JJ

    The joke must be on the Tories, as they have spent fully a quarter of a year trying to work out how to laugh it off.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Nick Clegg ought to open a wind farm in Dudley North.

    At least he won't lose any votes there.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    It's not my party. I'm not a Conservative member, and try to vote for candidates not parties. Indeed, the last time I voted it was Green. Needless to say, he didn't win. ;-)

    Of course the coalition are rattled - Labour have thrown an idea into the ring that is unworkable but sounds good. It is very hard for a responsible government to respond to that.
    Yeah but what about the Coalition? :-)
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Most Labour policy, so far as I understand it, is negative. So they will reintroduce the spare room subsidy, they will remove the cap on benefits, they will fiddle about and increase housing benefit again, they will re-introduce a 10% tax band somewhere at some level somehow, they will reinstate lost benefits for the disabled, they might make CB universal again etc etc.

    Most of this is oppositionism and perfectly legitimate in that context. It makes as much sense as Clegg claiming that Labour has opposed £83bn of cuts to welfare. These are promises to be made and quietly forgotten.

    I really have no idea what their economic plan is. At one time it was to invest spend more because the cuts were too deep too fast but I can't believe even Balls thinks that any more. Mr Blanchflower is the last man standing on that position. There have been comments that they are going to be tough on benefits but they are understandably vague on the details. I really don't know where they stand and sooner or later that is going to be a problem for them.


    "I really have no idea what their economic plan is"

    Do you think they do ?

    Labour have been most successful when they followed the Tories plans (eg. 1997-2001). It's when they start to think for themselves that we have problems.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    JosiasJessop said:

    Politically, that sounds like a good plan. I'm not sure what the economics would be, although we could probably generate a great deal of energy from business complaints ...

    You say that like it's a bad thing. ;)

    Just like Labour getting a boost when they have an argument with the unions, the Tories will get a boost if they have an argument with big business and the CBI as they will be seen to be acting in the interests of the people rather than big business. Taking up the minimum wage cause is the easiest way for the government to beat Labour at their own game and target the aspirational working classes who are looking at UKIP right now.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,269
    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    Bobajob said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    It's not my party. I'm not a Conservative member, and try to vote for candidates not parties. Indeed, the last time I voted it was Green. Needless to say, he didn't win. ;-)

    Of course the coalition are rattled - Labour have thrown an idea into the ring that is unworkable but sounds good. It is very hard for a responsible government to respond to that.
    Yeah but what about the Coalition? :-)
    A good point. :-)

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,131
    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    It's not my party. I'm not a Conservative member, and try to vote for candidates not parties. Indeed, the last time I voted it was Green. Needless to say, he didn't win. ;-)

    Of course the coalition are rattled - Labour have thrown an idea into the ring that is unworkable but sounds good. It is very hard for a responsible government to respond to that.
    It also shows Lab's tremendous disdain for the electorate. It is saying, in effect, that we value your ability to assess economic rationality so little, that we will brazenly make ridiculous claims and watch you all applaud.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited December 2013
    TGOHF said:

    Next said:

    BBC must tackle diversity 'problem' says news director

    "New editors for education and health will also be appointed,"

    Jings - there must be some other public sector centric areas that need a news editor too ?

    For lefties, by lefties - paid for by everyone.
    Leave them to fiddle away with diversity appointments, whilst Rome burns around them. Sky and BT are snapping at their heels, with some very good original programming and sport.

    They won't know what's hit them when Google and Amazon ramp up their TV operations.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    edited December 2013
    Also, with Labour/Ed Balls pledging to follow the Coalition spending plans for a few years if they win, it is time to ratchet up the rhetoric on Labour's special interest groups, make it untenable for Labour to sign up to the plans. In doing so it will give the Coalition parties the initiative on spending/waste. Labour won't follow the plans and piss away all of the hard won gains of the last few years of austerity, a vote for Labour is a vote for waste etc...

    18 months out from the election and the Coalition need to put some blood in the water and give Labour's core voters a massive beatdown to ensure Labour aren't able to hitch themselves to government spending plans and gain any credibility.

    Massively political, but Osborne has never shied away from such moves in the past.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    LD candidate selections in top 10 targets from Conservatives:

    1. Camborne & Redruth: no selection
    2. Oxford West & Abingdon: Layla Moran
    3. Truro & Falmouth: Simon Rix
    4. Newton Abbot: Richard Younger-Ross**
    5. Harrogate & Knaresborough: Helen Flynn
    6. Watford: no selection
    7. Montgomeryshire: Jane Dodds
    8. St Albans: Sandy Walkington*
    9. Weston-super-Mare: Mike Bell*
    10.Hereford & South Herefordshire: Lucy Hurds

    *: stood last time
    **: former MP
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/12/leaders-debates-are-on-officially/

    Remember when the AGW (always gurning wrongly) types were saying Cameron was "running scared" of debates ?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Oh no, not the "hideously white" meme again...''

    The comments below that article are quite funny and not what the BBC must have been expecting.

    Some people genuinely thought that the headline meant the BBC was going to be less diverse!!! LOL.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,131
    AndyJS said:

    LD candidate selections in top 10 targets from Conservatives:

    1. Camborne & Redruth: no selection
    2. Oxford West & Abingdon: Layla Moran
    3. Truro & Falmouth: Simon Rix
    4. Newton Abbot: Richard Younger-Ross**
    5. Harrogate & Knaresborough: Helen Flynn
    6. Watford: no selection
    7. Montgomeryshire: Jane Dodds
    8. St Albans: Sandy Walkington*
    9. Weston-super-Mare: Mike Bell*
    10.Hereford & South Herefordshire: Lucy Hurds

    *: stood last time
    **: former MP

    Do the lists show how many of these LD candidates are, you know, non-white?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    TOPPING said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Neil said:

    Next said:


    The only policy so far from the Labour party is Ed "Canute" Miliband's energy price freeze. Which will turn into a pensioner's-freeze policy if ever enacted.

    I wish anti Labour posters were consistent. One day they say they only have one policy. Another day they say they are using the same bankers' tax to pay for loads of different policies. Which is it?
    It depends on whether you define things like the energy price freeze as policy or a joke.
    Well I presume you dont think that your party has been rattled for months by a joke so shall we agree to call it a policy?
    It's not my party. I'm not a Conservative member, and try to vote for candidates not parties. Indeed, the last time I voted it was Green. Needless to say, he didn't win. ;-)

    Of course the coalition are rattled - Labour have thrown an idea into the ring that is unworkable but sounds good. It is very hard for a responsible government to respond to that.
    It also shows Lab's tremendous disdain for the electorate. It is saying, in effect, that we value your ability to assess economic rationality so little, that we will brazenly make ridiculous claims and watch you all applaud.
    They spent their time in office deliberately dumbing down so that precisely this sort of irresponsible but nice sounding crap is electorally successful. Never forget - there's alot of votes to be had in ruining a country.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,269
    My daily trip to the Café / read of the Currant Bun today...

    Big feature on immigration, particularly in Boston, Lincs written by Rod Liddle... it was almost a double page advert for UKIP. Locals wages through the floor, Eastern Europeans driving around in flash cars, beating up British people... It ended with something along the lines of "At least there is some hope, UKIP might take charge of the council soon"

    The Latvians, Lithuanians and Russians are said to be horrified by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians undercutting them.

    Leading The Sun editorial was a plea not to blame the immigrants but those whose policies allowed them in... the atmosphere in Boston was said to be that of a "tinderbox"

    I am probably the only person on PB to read this today, but millions of working class voters will have







  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Well done Dave

    Times News ‏@TimesNewsdesk 1h
    Cameron trade trip secures £45 million UK-China pig semen deal http://thetim.es/IH6bnU

    "At Leeds Station, and rather good it was too"

    Titter ye not.

    Approximately 19% of industrialised swine production (by number of animals) is in China, rising to 25% over the next few years (far larger if you include backyard production).

    Genus Plc, which includes PIC (the "pig improvement company" - I tried to persuade them to call it "group" instead of company") is an industry in which the UK is a genuine world leader (albeit strong in the bovine semen market). It's an important market position in a growing sector and a significant source of foreign earnings.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Sky and BT are snapping at their heels, with some very good original programming and sport.

    Sky's rolling sports news programme is a good watch if its a busy sports night. It's often got plenty of footage/comment/soundbites you just never see elsewhere.

    It'll be especially good tonight with Premier league reaction, ashes up ahead.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    edited December 2013
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Well done Dave

    Times News ‏@TimesNewsdesk 1h
    Cameron trade trip secures £45 million UK-China pig semen deal http://thetim.es/IH6bnU

    "At Leeds Station, and rather good it was too"

    Titter ye not.

    Approximately 19% of industrialised swine production (by number of animals) is in China, rising to 25% over the next few years (far larger if you include backyard production).

    Genus Plc, which includes PIC (the "pig improvement company" - I tried to persuade them to call it "group" instead of company") is an industry in which the UK is a genuine world leader (albeit strong in the bovine semen market). It's an important market position in a growing sector and a significant source of foreign earnings.
    Sounds good, BUT isn't it the same problem as selling/giving your IP...

    What is to stop the Chinese taking the semen, creating vast numbers of new pigs from it, then selling semen to everyone cheaper than us?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The Latvians, Lithuanians and Russians are said to be horrified by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians undercutting them.''

    I had to smile at a recent news report from Sheffield, where gangs of vigilantes from the Pakistani community are apparently going around telling the newly arrived Roma about how the British behave.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Of what the BBC produce I would pay for BBC1, BBC2 , Radio 5 live and er..

    I wouldn't pay for BBC news 24 - far inferior to Sky news.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Increasing the minimum wage will just make it harder for unskilled workers to find jobs.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    Another irritation today. Tesco coming out and saying the economy is struggling in light of their poor performance. Idiots. Tesco is struggling yes, but lower cost supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi are seeing huge growth, while at the top end Tesco are being scalped by Waitrose and Sainsbury's. Tesco is a dog of a company right now and Philip Clark needs to go. He doesn't have any vision and Tesco have been continually outmanoeuvred by their lower cost rivals and by Sainsbury's and Waitrose who's marketing is far, far superior.

    From talking to a close friend who works there, the whole company is a bit of a shambles internally too, no one knows what to do and their management structure has broken down with Clark too worried about internal rivals for his position and trying to sabotage the careers of successful people in order to protect his job. Just horrible all around.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    w"nk word bingo for Osborne's Autumn Statement.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25219432

    Are the odds good enough?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,131
    anotherDave said:

    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Increasing the minimum wage will just make it harder for unskilled workers to find jobs.

    you can point out this truth to left-ers all day long but they will just not get it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    dr_spyn said:

    w"nk word bingo for Osborne's Autumn Statement.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25219432

    Are the odds good enough?

    1/4 for "deficit" is surely free money. Where the hell can I get these odds?!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    I sat in on a part of the hearing before Lady Smith in the Court of Session before the last election where the SNP challenged their exclusion from the debates in Scotland. They had a number of sitting MPs and majority control of the Scottish Government! Their poll rating was well above the highest dreams of UKIP. They lost. Comprehensively.

    I really cannot see UKIP doing any better.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MaxPB said:

    Another irritation today. Tesco coming out and saying the economy is struggling in light of their poor performance. Idiots. Tesco is struggling yes, but lower cost supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi are seeing huge growth, while at the top end Tesco are being scalped by Waitrose and Sainsbury's. Tesco is a dog of a company right now and Philip Clark needs to go. He doesn't have any vision and Tesco have been continually outmanoeuvred by their lower cost rivals and by Sainsbury's and Waitrose who's marketing is far, far superior.

    From talking to a close friend who works there, the whole company is a bit of a shambles internally too, no one knows what to do and their management structure has broken down with Clark too worried about internal rivals for his position and trying to sabotage the careers of successful people in order to protect his job. Just horrible all around.

    Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    I sat in on a part of the hearing before Lady Smith in the Court of Session before the last election where the SNP challenged their exclusion from the debates in Scotland. They had a number of sitting MPs and majority control of the Scottish Government! Their poll rating was well above the highest dreams of UKIP. They lost. Comprehensively.

    I really cannot see UKIP doing any better.
    If the BBC version of reality was true that would be a 100% certainty.

    (But it's not.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    MaxPB said:

    The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.

    The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.

    Totally agree on both points here Max. Tomorrow would be a good time to announce it as there would be implications for the public sector wage bill in such an increase.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    Big news on the Nigella front.

    (insert joke here)
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    isam said:

    My daily trip to the Café / read of the Currant Bun today...

    Big feature on immigration, particularly in Boston, Lincs written by Rod Liddle... it was almost a double page advert for UKIP. Locals wages through the floor, Eastern Europeans driving around in flash cars, beating up British people... It ended with something along the lines of "At least there is some hope, UKIP might take charge of the council soon"

    The Latvians, Lithuanians and Russians are said to be horrified by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians undercutting them.

    Leading The Sun editorial was a plea not to blame the immigrants but those whose policies allowed them in... the atmosphere in Boston was said to be that of a "tinderbox"

    I am probably the only person on PB to read this today, but millions of working class voters will have

    How many of those working-class voters put Labour in power and therefore caused their own problems of mass immigration?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    anotherDave said:

    Increasing the minimum wage will just make it harder for unskilled workers to find jobs.

    The UK doesn't have many non-essential unskilled positions remaining that pay the minimum wage. Those jobs have already gone to Asia and Eastern Europe, they aren't coming back. They went the day we introduced the minimum wage, which is why there is so much reticence in Germany to follow suit despite massive political pressure from the EU and their labour unions to do so. We must deal with the situation we have, people in the UK who earn the minimum wage work in essential jobs such as cleaning, service positions, administrative positions and such. Manufacturing and assembly in this country is all semi-skilled and workers there are paid well above the minimum wage already so it makes literally no difference to our production industries.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.

    Most Popular

    Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine
    Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’
    Nigella Lawson denies drug claims
    Rapist attacked six women in a night
    What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.

    So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.

    Regarding the earlier question about whether the Sun could back UKIP, I think for entirely cynical reasons they will not. The Murdoch empire - I suspect - is quite keen to merge Sky Deutschland, BSkyB and Sky Italia to create a Sky Europe group. A pan European pay-TV outfit that bid for pan-European rights would require the approval of the EU competition authority, and therefore Rupert and James will be keen not to antagonise the Eurocrats too much. (In fact, threatening to go UKIP, but not actually doing so, probably maximises their leverage in discussions with Brussels.)
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    Define decent chance? How many seats do you think UKIP could seriously expect to win or come close?

    But election coverage has long been done on the past set of results, just as an objective measure.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rcs1000 said:


    So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.

    No, it will take significant representation in Parliament for them to be "invited"
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,205
    TOPPING said:

    AndyJS said:

    LD candidate selections in top 10 targets from Conservatives:

    1. Camborne & Redruth: no selection
    2. Oxford West & Abingdon: Layla Moran
    3. Truro & Falmouth: Simon Rix
    4. Newton Abbot: Richard Younger-Ross**
    5. Harrogate & Knaresborough: Helen Flynn
    6. Watford: no selection
    7. Montgomeryshire: Jane Dodds
    8. St Albans: Sandy Walkington*
    9. Weston-super-Mare: Mike Bell*
    10.Hereford & South Herefordshire: Lucy Hurds

    *: stood last time
    **: former MP

    Do the lists show how many of these LD candidates are, you know, non-white?
    Layla Moran has an Arab mother.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    MrJones said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    I sat in on a part of the hearing before Lady Smith in the Court of Session before the last election where the SNP challenged their exclusion from the debates in Scotland. They had a number of sitting MPs and majority control of the Scottish Government! Their poll rating was well above the highest dreams of UKIP. They lost. Comprehensively.

    I really cannot see UKIP doing any better.
    If the BBC version of reality was true that would be a 100% certainty.

    (But it's not.)
    But it is. read it for yourself: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.html

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Zora Suleman ‏@ZoraSuleman 4h
    Love the court artists pic of Nigella Lawson giving evidence ... pic.twitter.com
    /ZwvaT5W0bx
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    isam said:

    Eastern Europeans driving around in flash cars, beating up British people...

    Did Rod say whether this was a game of GTA or real life?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    re debates: more importantly, I don't think Farage wants to be at them.

    Being excluded fits much better with the UKIP 'discrimination' message, and makes it clear that the old parties are seeking to exclude them. It also allows them to avoid being grilled on some of their more clueless policies, and stops Farage looking like just another politician.

    So, my guess is that Farage will be publicly fuming at being excluded the debates, but privately will be rather please.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    They should have a division 2 debate - Farage, Greens, Galloway, Eck, - would probably be better than the top tier one.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,269
    Next said:

    isam said:

    My daily trip to the Café / read of the Currant Bun today...

    Big feature on immigration, particularly in Boston, Lincs written by Rod Liddle... it was almost a double page advert for UKIP. Locals wages through the floor, Eastern Europeans driving around in flash cars, beating up British people... It ended with something along the lines of "At least there is some hope, UKIP might take charge of the council soon"

    The Latvians, Lithuanians and Russians are said to be horrified by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians undercutting them.

    Leading The Sun editorial was a plea not to blame the immigrants but those whose policies allowed them in... the atmosphere in Boston was said to be that of a "tinderbox"

    I am probably the only person on PB to read this today, but millions of working class voters will have

    How many of those working-class voters put Labour in power and therefore caused their own problems of mass immigration?
    How many Sun readers voted Labour in 97- 05? I guess it would be easy enough to find out.

    Where in the manifesto did it say there would be millions of immigrants from Eastern Europe?

    Wasn't Labour's estimate for rather fewer?

    What does it matter if they voted Labour then and wont now?





  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,131
    slade said:

    TOPPING said:

    AndyJS said:

    LD candidate selections in top 10 targets from Conservatives:

    1. Camborne & Redruth: no selection
    2. Oxford West & Abingdon: Layla Moran
    3. Truro & Falmouth: Simon Rix
    4. Newton Abbot: Richard Younger-Ross**
    5. Harrogate & Knaresborough: Helen Flynn
    6. Watford: no selection
    7. Montgomeryshire: Jane Dodds
    8. St Albans: Sandy Walkington*
    9. Weston-super-Mare: Mike Bell*
    10.Hereford & South Herefordshire: Lucy Hurds

    *: stood last time
    **: former MP

    Do the lists show how many of these LD candidates are, you know, non-white?
    Layla Moran has an Arab mother.
    It's a start.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,374
    TGOHF said:

    Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.

    That and they seem to have lost their drive to open up in new markets and break new ground. Tesco used to be absolutely ruthless at snuffing out local competition under Leahy, that doesn't exist today.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,360
    edited December 2013
    dr_spyn said:

    Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.

    Most Popular

    Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine
    Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’
    Nigella Lawson denies drug claims
    Rapist attacked six women in a night
    What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?

    That ship... My god. 600,000 tonnes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25213845
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_FLNG
    http://abarrelfull.wikidot.com/prelude-floating-lng-terminal

    That's over five times the weight of the latest American aircraft carriers.

    I've just soiled my pants.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    DavidL said:

    MrJones said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    I sat in on a part of the hearing before Lady Smith in the Court of Session before the last election where the SNP challenged their exclusion from the debates in Scotland. They had a number of sitting MPs and majority control of the Scottish Government! Their poll rating was well above the highest dreams of UKIP. They lost. Comprehensively.

    I really cannot see UKIP doing any better.
    If the BBC version of reality was true that would be a 100% certainty.

    (But it's not.)
    But it is. read it for yourself: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.html

    "I really cannot see UKIP doing any better."

    If the BBC version of reality was true that would be a 100% certainty.

    (But it's not.)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Anorak said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    Goldman Sachs appear to think that threatening to downsize their UK operation post Brexit will be seen as a bad thing.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100249028/goldman-sachs-would-drastically-cut-its-london-office-if-the-uk-quits-the-eu/

    Corporate FUD. I'll believe it when I see it.
    No link with Peter Sutherland, chairman of GS International, being an ex-EU Commissioner. And absolutely nothing to do with taxi ranks. Or the London Diocesan Fund's property team having to gumption to tell them where to go.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,269
    edited December 2013
    corporeal said:

    isam said:

    @DavidL

    Re UKIP being involved in the debates

    Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.

    But they are not.

    They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.

    Define decent chance? How many seats do you think UKIP could seriously expect to win or come close?

    But election coverage has long been done on the past set of results, just as an objective measure.
    Could seriously expect to come in the top 2 in 20-25 seats

    I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote

    There has long been only 3 parties that poll in double figures

    And as there has only ever been one election to feature debates, its hardly wrecking history to include the third/fourth most popular party at the time in one or two of them
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    MaxPB said:

    They went the day we introduced the minimum wage, which is why there is so much reticence in Germany to follow suit despite massive political pressure from the EU and their labour unions to do so.

    MaxPB, that's not strictly true. In certain sectors in Germany there are minimum wages - in construction for example. And in Germany it is illegal to pay an 'immoral' wage, which the German courts have interpreted as being about €5.50/hour (although, this varies on a state-by-state, and industry-by-industry basis).

    The SPD have been very vocal in attempting to get a minimum wage implemented, and have made it a cornerstone of their coalition negotiations - and IIRC have been successful in getting one.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,269
    edited December 2013
    rcs1000 said:

    re debates: more importantly, I don't think Farage wants to be at them.

    Being excluded fits much better with the UKIP 'discrimination' message, and makes it clear that the old parties are seeking to exclude them. It also allows them to avoid being grilled on some of their more clueless policies, and stops Farage looking like just another politician.

    So, my guess is that Farage will be publicly fuming at being excluded the debates, but privately will be rather please.

    I agree with you (on Farage not being too bothered about being included, not the rub down on clueless policies #bigsociety #tuitionfees )
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,131
    what on earth is going on at the DM??

    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517953/Nigella-Lawson-court-quizzed-drug-taking-claims-Charles-Saatchi-marriage-breakdown.html
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    isam said:


    I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote

    And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025