"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."
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.
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'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....*
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.
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%
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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%
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.
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).
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%
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
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.
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.
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.
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%
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
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.
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%
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
'We must save the beleaguered middle class, writes Ed Miliband in the @Telegraph splash tmrw. 'In crisis' re living standards slump, he says' gallagher
@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.
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%
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 !
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Comments
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 …
"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."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/danny-alexander-blog-on-uk-government-debt-1-3266453
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.
Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 15%, UKIP 6%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6886
So UKIP are the only year-on-year winner.
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.
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:
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
I give you the First Mistress of Russia:
http://bit.ly/1dKHWxF
At least Alinka knows how to deal with balls.
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.
Con ain't going up tho...
So NOM.,
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.
In January 2014, not.
Still Ed may get a visiting professorship at the LSE as compensation.
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."
http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
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.
Jack's ARSE is going to go down as the greatest predictor in human history !
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.
Titters ....
Labour are likely to get a narrow majority and be absolutely trashed when the promised sweeties fail to appear.
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
Andrew Tyrie: I did not sign Conservative EU veto letter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25722778
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......
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.
To the nearest decade will do.
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.
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.
Only a small fraction of my pension will come from the state. The obese smokers' healthcare will be entirely paid for via the government.
In Scotland: who will stick up for Scotland vs rUK?
In rUK: who will stick up for England-Wales-N.Ireland vs Scotland?
We should encourage retired people to take up smoking.
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
CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%
Ex-Labour spin chief @campbellclaret says @Ed_Miliband has NO chance of winning a majority in 2015: http://bit.ly/1a2BgiV
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.
Brought to mind Mr Jones's 'plantation economy' viewpoint.
Reassuringly I found that I did. All is right and well with the world
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!