Instead, expect problems to spread to Iraqi and Iranian Kurdish areas, and for increased terrorism by the Kurdish PKK in Turkey itself. Which itself would play into Erdogan's hands ...
I would not worry about the PKK, as the Kurds "will be buried in their ditches when the time comes" by Erdogan's men apparently.
It's extraordinary to compare the UK stock market with those of Germany France the US Japan Europe. Since the Brexit result we've become a basket case. That's what happens when you have a PM whose only policy-as yet undeliverable-is Brexit means Brexit and a LOTO who doesn't know what a stock market is.
Pretty bad everywhere, with several bear markets around the world. Brexit is merely a minor part of the epidemic of self harm of the world trading systems.
I compared it from March 20 2017 till today. If you go back from when the Tories got into power it's even worse
You should be comparing overall return, not index. (The DAX is apparently already total return)
If the unskilled immigrants can work and support themselves with zero rights to in-work benefits then I have no qualms with that as I said.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
Hand washing cars (for payment) is a backward step as far as UK productivity is concerned.
Absolutely. And it's a completely unnecessary job. The economy would survive just fine if we machine washed for payment or hand washed ourselves our vehicles.
That makes literally no sense. You are basically saying that you can't be trusted to choose how your car should be washed, and the government should make that choice for you.
By all means remove the subsidies on immigration, but the government shouldn't be making minor economic decisions for its citizens. If people preferred an automatic car wash, or it was meaningfully cheaper, then they would choose it.
Your thesis works if the cost if labour covers all the externalities
(Eg competition for housing, overcrowding, the social corrosion from tolerating modern slavery*)
If these are not properly accounted for then social costs are higher, wear and tear on infrastructure is greater and productivity is lower so that (a) the consumer can get a lower cash cost car wash by pushing the true cost onto society and (b) that a (typically) Albanian gang master can (i) make some money and (ii) have to opportunity to launder the proceeds of crime
I do hope you are wrong. Cox was quoted as saying she’ll be gone by April. I hope he is right. May is a disaster and has been since she called the snap election. She has achieved nothing in office.
Mogg might have made a total pratt of himself recently but the Tories need someone with a lot more charisma than May and someone with a much broader policy horizon than Brexit, important though Brexit is. The Tories also need someone who is not a control freak in charge. A new leader would get rid of all the dead wood like Grayling, Smith, Clark, Hunt, etc
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Given May gave jobs to the likes of Boris and Davis, I find the idea a new leader would get rid of all the dead wood in cabinet unlikely. Some will be kept.
Agree with OGH that May is no quitter - I suspect in the end the Tories will do what they did to Thatcher and oust her - but she has to become a liability first.
Anmer Hall Birkhall House Craigowan Lodge Delnadamph Lodge Bagshot Park Balmoral Castle Buckingham Palace Clarence House Gatcombe Park Highgrove House Hillsborough Castle Kensington Palace Llwynywermod Nottingham Cottage Palace of Holyroodhouse Sandringham House St James's Palace Tamarisk Thatched House Lodge The Royal Lodge Windsor Castle Wren House
Still only 4 “Palaces”.
Whatever they're officially "called", there are still 22 of them.
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Nah, if she wins the vote on the deal then she is immediately more vulnerable to a VONC. If she loses heavily then it might be death by cabinet walkout. A narrow loss followed by a no deal pivot could see Tory remainers VONC her; a narrow loss followed by a 2nd referendum pivot probably sees her resign.
Her surviving is the sum of the DUP not VONCing her in the event of the deal passing (Or being saved by Woodcock and a couple of others !), her being too stubborn to resign if she gets thrashed; Tory remainers being frit to VONC her in a no deal pivot and May wanting to fight the 'deal/leave' cause in another referendum.
If May's deal gets through she will be significantly more insulated by an increase in her popularity in the country. She will be the new Maggie, sticking to her guns and getting stuff done through sheer bloody mindedness. There will be some level of rejoicing in the now pro-Deal Tory press and perhaps even in the country, which will be pleased to have it all over with. No way the Tories will move against her at that point. Maybe later in the year.
If she gets it through it'd be a good time to go, a like minded figure would have a good shot at replacing her.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
It's extraordinary to compare the UK stock market with those of Germany France the US Japan Europe. Since the Brexit result we've become a basket case. That's what happens when you have a PM whose only policy-as yet undeliverable-is Brexit means Brexit and a LOTO who doesn't know what a stock market is.
A basket case? More hyperbole.
To lose 10% over nearly 2 years isn't at Argentinian levels but if you'd bought a house and it did the same when properties in Hamburg New York Paris and Tokyo had gone up by 10% over the same time frame you might think it significant and the media certainly would.
Anmer Hall Birkhall House Craigowan Lodge Delnadamph Lodge Bagshot Park Balmoral Castle Buckingham Palace Clarence House Gatcombe Park Highgrove House Hillsborough Castle Kensington Palace Llwynywermod Nottingham Cottage Palace of Holyroodhouse Sandringham House St James's Palace Tamarisk Thatched House Lodge The Royal Lodge Windsor Castle Wren House
Still only 4 “Palaces”.
Whatever they're officially "called", there are still 22 of them.
So if we ignore that you were wrong then you were right? Solid argument.
And homelessness is a problem in places without monarchies too.
It's extraordinary to compare the UK stock market with those of Germany France the US Japan Europe. Since the Brexit result we've become a basket case. That's what happens when you have a PM whose only policy-as yet undeliverable-is Brexit means Brexit and a LOTO who doesn't know what a stock market is.
A basket case? More hyperbole.
To lose 10% over nearly 2 years isn't at Argentinian levels but if you'd bought a house and it did the same when properties in Hamburg New York Paris and Tokyo had gone up by 10% over the same time frame you might think it significant and the media certainly would.
Yes, but we aren't talking about house prices, are we?
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
Mrs May's problem is that although she voted Remain herself, her selling point was her Brexit means Brexit proclamation. She was unaware of the opposition tactics, or thought she could ignore them.
What the stubborn Remainers (and that included the EU) wanted was delay at all costs. It was always going to be difficult to disentangle 45 years of gradual but steady ntanglement, and delay was their friend. Time then for revocation, another referendum or a continuation of Project Fear to become embedded.
Anti-democratic without doubt, but that didn't matter. What could they lose? Bureaucrats are very good at delaying and the EU was never in a hurry to lose billions in revenue. They are the Higg's Boson of politics, they add mass and turn progress into a wade through treacle.
Mrs May has bogged down as they planned.
Going forward will mean more entanglement, but this time, there'll be no more consultation. A once in a forty years referendum was a UK mistake and won't be repeated. You'll have a choice at most seats between Labour and Tory candidates, and both will probably be pro-EU. Unless you also have a LD in the mix, and they'll be even more pro-EU.
Some things are not for the common herd to decide, so suck it up and bend the knee.
That link is a link to an article by Daniel Hannan ("How the Europhiles are blowing up Britain", Daniel Hannan, December 24, 2018 12:00 AM). It contains the statement "...In June 2017, in an ill-judged election, Prime Minister Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority. And from that moment, Brussels lost any incentive to reach a deal. It understood that a coalition of pro-EU MPs and peers would prevent a no-deal outcome, thus taking away Britain’s bottom line...".
I don't know what Brussels understands, but I'm pretty sure there is no coalition of pro-EU MPs and peers that can/will prevent a no-deal outcome. Happy to be corrected.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
While I agree about the power of perception and it's primacy among the public, the actual facts are still important in judging how fair that perception is.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
This whole worldview is so sick. You're talking as if a huge government bureaucracy preventing people from going where the work is across an inaginary line is the natural state of affairs and people going to work somewhere if their own free will is someone "importing" them, as if they have no agency of their own. Supply and demand isn't what you think it is. It doesn't involve a huge government bureaucracy at all. If people go where the work is, *that's supply and demand in action*.
I am not sure I would call Philip's worldview 'sick'. But certainly I think his is wrong and yours is right. Though I would add that one other factor that does involve the Government is the place of benefits. We do hear all too often that local unskilled labour are generally unwilling to go out and do certain jobs because they are hard and unpleasant and it is easier to stay on benefits rather than do that work. Certainly that is a driving factor in farming. I am not sure that it is a situation we should be perpetuating. But the answer to that is not to put artificial barriers in the way of the movement of labour but to make 'not working' less attractive.
Of course to do that requires a flexible, imaginative and proactive Government who recognise the need for benefits when work is not available but also recognise that those benefits need to be withheld to some extent when work is available. Unfortunately we have one party who believes benefits should always be available as an alternative to work and another party who believes that benefits should be almost non existent. Both are wrong.
Mrs May's problem is that although she voted Remain herself, her selling point was her Brexit means Brexit proclamation. She was unaware of the opposition tactics, or thought she could ignore them.
What the stubborn Remainers (and that included the EU) wanted was delay at all costs. It was always going to be difficult to disentangle 45 years of gradual but steady ntanglement, and delay was their friend. Time then for revocation, another referendum or a continuation of Project Fear to become embedded.
Anti-democratic without doubt, but that didn't matter. What could they lose? Bureaucrats are very good at delaying and the EU was never in a hurry to lose billions in revenue. They are the Higg's Boson of politics, they add mass and turn progress into a wade through treacle.
Mrs May has bogged down as they planned.
Going forward will mean more entanglement, but this time, there'll be no more consultation. A once in a forty years referendum was a UK mistake and won't be repeated. You'll have a choice at most seats between Labour and Tory candidates, and both will probably be pro-EU. Unless you also have a LD in the mix, and they'll be even more pro-EU.
Some things are not for the common herd to decide, so suck it up and bend the knee.
That link is a link to an article by Daniel Hannan ("How the Europhiles are blowing up Britain", Daniel Hannan, December 24, 2018 12:00 AM). It contains the statement "...In June 2017, in an ill-judged election, Prime Minister Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority. And from that moment, Brussels lost any incentive to reach a deal. It understood that a coalition of pro-EU MPs and peers would prevent a no-deal outcome, thus taking away Britain’s bottom line...".
I don't know what Brussels understands, but I'm pretty sure there is no coalition of pro-EU MPs and peers that can/will prevent a no-deal outcome. Happy to be corrected.
There is clearly a coalition that will try. The question is how far they are willing to go and whether or not they will be successful.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Yet when the campaign starts and people get to hear Labours offer because the rules kick in around TV coverage people start reading it and liking it. In the intervening years between elections the groups supportive of Corbyn are more likely to switch off or become 'Don't knows' and the coverage of Labour and Corbyn in the media is overwhelmingly negative.
It is all well and good to assert that Corbyn actually drags Labour down but our actual electoral evidence shows the opposite, we have very little proof that a different Labour leader would be doing as well let alone even better.
It may be convincing if Labour were crashing under Corbyn but it is exactly the opposite, Labour looked to have turned around and started going in the right direction electorally. Peoples complaints are the political direction.
That is blind faith. You’re entitled to it, of course.
Actually I think you'll find Labour and Corbyn were struggling before the last election campaign.
Also I listened to an interesting episode of polling matters not long ago where they talked about the Don't Know groups tending to be younger and more female... groups that also tend Labour and Corbyn.
There is also the lack of polling showing some great alertanate leader doing better. If it was so obvious why do we not have this proof? There was a poll a long time ago before GE17 when Corbyn was doing badly which showed him around the level or beating potential replacements.
'Blind faith'
hmm... I suspect yours is the blind faith, not only does the idea of Labour doing better under a different leader lack evidence it also seems to fly in the face of the evidence available.
People want a different leader so they assert an electoral argument for doing so without actually doing any work to prove one.
Look young jezziah, I’ve canvassed for two decades. Up until,very very recently those older white men, or ‘gammons’ as you call them, regularly voted labour. Now you can knock on a door and if an over 65 answers almost guarantee they’ll be Tory voting. Keep insulting them.
If losing some over 65's is the trade off for gaining for more under 65's then electorally it is an obvious choice.
Also I referred to those who called Corbyn a cnut of epic proportions (or something along those lines) on vox pops gammons, there are some lovely over 65's...
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
It's also optimistic to assume that Labour's manifesto next time will get as little scrutiny as it did last time.
Bit of a mis judgement there. Not saying she should lay off the Tories at Xmas time, but come on - that's the same attitude that acts like no one can ever even smile and joke because bad things exist
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
It's extraordinary to compare the UK stock market with those of Germany France the US Japan Europe. Since the Brexit result we've become a basket case. That's what happens when you have a PM whose only policy-as yet undeliverable-is Brexit means Brexit and a LOTO who doesn't know what a stock market is.
A basket case? More hyperbole.
To lose 10% over nearly 2 years isn't at Argentinian levels but if you'd bought a house and it did the same when properties in Hamburg New York Paris and Tokyo had gone up by 10% over the same time frame you might think it significant and the media certainly would.
I think the sickness in the markets is an ominous indicator of economictroubles ahead, but worldwide rather than Brexit related.
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
It's also optimistic to assume that Labour's manifesto next time will get as little scrutiny as it did last time.
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Agree with OGH that May is no quitter - I suspect in the end the Tories will do what they did to Thatcher and oust her - but she has to become a liability first.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
Just do a few vox pops mate, ask the ordinary "man" in the street. Most think Corbyn is a Cnut of epic proportions.
We had these before the election and Labour had a massive vote share rise...
There is a small chance that asking a random man in a street a question might not produce a representative answer... specifically if ordinary man in the street is repeatedly white people over the age of 50, many of who don't like him*... but they already have their own party called the Conservatives. Labour is the party for those that don't qualify as ordinary man in the street.
*So it is representative but of its own group only not the rest of us.
Ipsos MORI have the longest running series asking if people are satisfied or dissatisfied with party leaders’ performance. Jeremy Corbyn is currently at minus 32%, with just 27% satisfied.
40% of Labour supporters are dissatisfied.
I imagine they were before the previous election as well.
Then you'd be mistaken.
The last survey before the GE had Corbyn on -11, May on -7 - a gap of 4 points.
The most recent survey has Corbyn on -32 and May on -22 - a gap of 10 points.
For perspective, before GE1997 Blair was on +22. Before GE2015 Miliband was on -19.
Sort of proves my point.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
He's a known quantity now. To think he can expect a similar increase again is for the birds.
It's not impossible. But to believe it a certainty if very complacent.
It's also optimistic to assume that Labour's manifesto next time will get as little scrutiny as it did last time.
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I've never hidden away from it. I just always thought it was worth the trade off for the greater numbers brought in instead.
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
Given the next VONC in May can be held early next December ie before Christmas but after Brexit should have taken place it really depends on how Brexit looks.
If we have left with May's Deal passing the Commons then she will be secure, unless the DUP have no confidenced the government and Corbyn has become PM after a general election in which case the Tories will be looking for a leader of opposition. In that case Boris looks a good prospect as he also looks a good prospect for PM if we have left the EU with No Deal.
If somehow we end up with EUref2 and Remain wins then it is possible May could still stay as PM or someone like Rudd comes into play
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
I thought he owned all the turnips. ALL THE TURNIPS.
Mr. Code, the turnip magnates will be smashed! (Unlike their turnips, which will be mashed!*).
The new People's Commissariat of Turnips will handle all turnips in the future.
*These and other wonderful witticisms will be released in the Supreme Leader's Mirthful Crushing of Capitalism, a short volume of 762 pages which will be furnished to Inner Party members.
Agree with OGH that May is no quitter - I suspect in the end the Tories will do what they did to Thatcher and oust her - but she has to become a liability first.
She might be already. Much is made of Corbyn's drag on Labour but pb Tories from time to time remind us there is a booming economy with record employment and tax receipts. If so, then surely there ought to be a huge Conservative lead in the polls, but there isn't. Is Theresa May the reason?
First time I have seen it seriously suggested that economic growth of less than 1.5% amounts to a boom!
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I would agree , Starmer gives that reassurance to many previous Labour voters. He also looks like a PM in waiting.
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
I thought he owned all the turnips. ALL THE TURNIPS.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
Leaving aside the fact he's not a far left lunatic, the talent Labour has which refuses to sit on the benches alongside the incumbent and his Marxist chum would do so if Starmer or someone of his ilk were leading the party. By itself, that'd be hugely helpful for Labour. They'd have a numerate Shadow Chancellor and Home Secretary, for a start.
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I've never hidden away from it. I just always thought it was worth the trade off for the greater numbers brought in instead.
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
In your dreams.
YouGov political tracker favourability ratings:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Jeremy Corbyn...
Dec 2018: Favourable 26%, Unfavourable 61%, Net -35%
On the eve of the last GE, at the end of May 2017 it was Net -14%
Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's polling and the only thing preventing double digit leads for the Conservatives is that May's own favourability ratings are almost as bad.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
Substantially more. When things turn sour, and they always will, we will look back and think about the Full Employment we currently have and go ‘wow’....
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I've never hidden away from it. I just always thought it was worth the trade off for the greater numbers brought in instead.
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
In your dreams.
YouGov political tracker favourability ratings:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Jeremy Corbyn...
Dec 2018: Favourable 26%, Unfavourable 61%, Net -35%
On the eve of the last GE, at the end of May 2017 it was Net -14%
Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's polling and the only thing preventing double digit leads for the Conservatives is that May's own favourability ratings are almost as bad.
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I would agree , Starmer gives that reassurance to many previous Labour voters. He also looks like a PM in waiting.
He's also had a senior job (although admittedly as a lawyer) well outside politics.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 7.87745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 78.7745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
Looks like it'd be in sterling, unless the index divisor is also in units of sterling, in which case it would be dimensionless.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 7.87745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
Looks like it'd be in sterling, unless the index divisor is also in units of sterling, in which case it would be dimensionless.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
Leaving aside the fact he's not a far left lunatic, the talent Labour has which refuses to sit on the benches alongside the incumbent and his Marxist chum would do so if Starmer or someone of his ilk were leading the party. By itself, that'd be hugely helpful for Labour. They'd have a numerate Shadow Chancellor and Home Secretary, for a start.
Morris , I am not so sure about the lead you state Labour would be ahead. As any Labour leader is always a danger according to most of the print media. Blair had to go cap in hand flying to Australia to beg for better coverage,
Trump and to a lesser extent Corbyn have shown we now live in a new era.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 78.7745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
Looks like it'd be in sterling, unless the index divisor is also in units of sterling, in which case it would be dimensionless.
I think it has to be dimensionless because the index divisor has to have the same unit as the numerator had in 1984, which is the same as it has now?
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I've never hidden away from it. I just always thought it was worth the trade off for the greater numbers brought in instead.
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
In your dreams.
YouGov political tracker favourability ratings:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Jeremy Corbyn...
Dec 2018: Favourable 26%, Unfavourable 61%, Net -35%
On the eve of the last GE, at the end of May 2017 it was Net -14%
Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's polling and the only thing preventing double digit leads for the Conservatives is that May's own favourability ratings are almost as bad.
In your inability to understand statistical data and its practical application.
It doesn't matter, If Labour get more seats, which they could do come the next election if doesn't matter if the one leader has a positive rating and the other a negative rating.
All that matter in terms of the leader and his electoral effect is how that affects votes and in the last election it had a positive effect. Someone voting Conservative liking him or someone voting Conservative not liking him means the same thing in the end.
Mr. City, it's possible to overstate that. Both Trump and Corbyn got in due to complacency from the mainstream, coupled, in the latter case, with dimwitted Labour MPs who didn't understand their own leadership rules.
All that matter in terms of the leader and his electoral effect is how that affects votes and in the last election it had a positive effect. Someone voting Conservative liking him or someone voting Conservative not liking him means the same thing in the end.
I think Labour could benefit at the polls if they were to spice up their Left populism with some gammony 'Britain First' stuff.
That they show no signs of doing so is to their credit.
Mr. Jezziah, no baggage on anti-Semitism/wreath-laying, more competence, less far left insanity, no Momentum eating Labour from the inside out, MP unity, and a coherent position on the EU.
Actually putting pressure on the Conservatives could see the blues drop by about 7-8 points and that shift red.
And let's not forget Cameron at one point had a 28 point lead (around 2009).
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
I think the picture becomes even more lopsided once you take dividends into account.
Dividends are why superficial analysis of the FTSE against the Dax are wrong, but using total return accounts for them.
Well my point was that the raw number for the FTSE doesn't include divis but the DAX does include them as reinvestments.
To repeat my earlier comment with slightly more detail, given how much of the FTSE-100's earnings are in currencies outside sterling, you also need to constant currency the FTSE total return and the DAX, otherwise you are mainly measuring sterling depreciation.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 7.87745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
The index is a weighted average of share prices in local currency (sterling for FTSE and euro for the DAX). However the share price of many shares are strongly influenced by currency movements. So BP for example does well when the dollar is strong against sterling because its income is related to the oil price quoted in dollars.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
How does the 15 point lead happen exactly?
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
You can't even count. If Labour are on 45 and Tories on 30, they're 15 points ahead!
Their average of 38.3% in December's polls would reduce seat numbers significantly compared to their earlier 40%. You seem to need ukpollingreport.co.uk/ for the polls and electoralcalculus.co.uk to do calculations.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
More than double the amount of homeless though, I believe?
Well, in England anyway.
They may be a lot more but 2010 was not a normal year for homeless figures. Even with a doubling homelessness is still a fraction it 05/06 in fact it is still slower than every year with the exception of 09 and 10.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
How does the 15 point lead happen exactly?
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
That's a good point. But I remember during the 92 election a Labour Party official was on Newsnight. In those pre-internet days you could assume that only political anoraks and partisans were watching that late. The polls were looking pretty good for Labour at this point. But he said that although there was a lot of support for his party, the support was rather soft and he was far from happy. He said that the trouble was that there were a lot of people who wanted to vote Labour, and would tell a pollster that they would. But they had questions that might stop them actually putting the cross against the paper.
It is a shame that the current political culture punishes such honesty. As we now know, Labour didn't succeed that time.
I have a feeling that Mr Corbyn has a similar problem as Mr Kinnock did. Liked but not respected. 15-20% poll leads are fantasy with any leader, but failing to quite close the deal on a majority looks quite likely. And I have a feeling that the extra 2-3% a different leader might pull in might just make the difference.
All that matter in terms of the leader and his electoral effect is how that affects votes and in the last election it had a positive effect. Someone voting Conservative liking him or someone voting Conservative not liking him means the same thing in the end.
I think Labour could benefit at the polls if they were to spice up their Left populism with some gammony 'Britain First' stuff.
That they show no signs of doing so is to their credit.
I have heard left wing authoritarian is one of the least represented sections and quite big too, although I wouldn't want a Labour party that went too far in that direction to win anyway... so not selfless from me.
It's extraordinary to compare the UK stock market with those of Germany France the US Japan Europe. Since the Brexit result we've become a basket case. That's what happens when you have a PM whose only policy-as yet undeliverable-is Brexit means Brexit and a LOTO who doesn't know what a stock market is.
You say that but I don't know what you mean by "total return basis" and I'd wager 99 people out of 100 wouldn't either. The FTSE 100 index is mentioned on most news bulletins - if it goes up people assume everything is well, if it goes down people assume things are going badly.
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
The FTSE index excludes dividend income whilst the DAX includes dividend income. So the DAX has fallen even more relative to the FTSE.
Yeah, but you aren't adjusting for currency moves. It makes no sense to measure stock market performance without rebasing to constant currency Otherwise somewhere with high inflation and a really weak currency would always "win".
I'm going to make myself look stupid here. Are the various indices expressed in units and (if so) what are they? I've looked at the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index and I'm not sure whether it's in pounds or dimensionless.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 7.87745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
The index is a weighted average of share prices in local currency (sterling for FTSE and euro for the DAX). However the share price of many shares are strongly influenced by currency movements. So BP for example does well when the dollar is strong against sterling because its income is related to the oil price quoted in dollars.
Yes, but that doesn't answer my question...
My question boils down to "Is the index dimensionless (eg 1000) or dimensioned (eg £1000)?" @RobD and @Donny43 both point out that if the index divisor (the thing on the bottom of the weighted index) is in pounds and the top line is in pounds, then the index is dimensionless - i.e. 1000, not £1000. Given that this is the way indices are usually calculated, I'm tempted to say "yes; they're dimensionless".
Mr. Jezziah, no baggage on anti-Semitism/wreath-laying, more competence, less far left insanity, no Momentum eating Labour from the inside out, MP unity, and a coherent position on the EU.
Actually putting pressure on the Conservatives could see the blues drop by about 7-8 points and that shift red.
And let's not forget Cameron at one point had a 28 point lead (around 2009).
Surely some of Labour supporters have been attracted by the 'far left insanity' and even moderates admitted they were aided by Momentum campaigning, who probably wouldn't just disappear straight away if Corbyn went. Some Labour voters actually like Corbyn and the policies.
According to yougov that was 41% of peoples primary reason for voting Labour last time. Surely you don't just keep all that support by changing leader and policy?
I know hypothetical polling like this isn't completely reliable but is there any recent polling on "how would you vote if Labour was led by [Starmer or some other non-terrible person]? I don't think I've seen any, which I guess either means that nobody has bothered polling it for a while or that switching to [non-terrible Labour leader] doesn't actually seem to produce a newsworthy polling boost.
This story is in part the reason why US banks are having meetings with the Treasury Secretary so that they can be reassured.
It is worrying because the entire financial system is based on trust and confidence. Any problems in the US will rapidly affect us here.
Trump has upset the Iraqis and the Afghans, has likely made it easier for IS to regroup, has sold out the Kurds and is now, at best, careless of the effects his words can have on the financial system. Alastair is right. 2019 could easily look a whole load worse than 2018.
If the Turks go after the Kurds, Europe could well see another wave of refugees next year.
Regular readers may remember me warning about what would happen to the Kurds when the sick pro-Assad asshats on here got their way. I fear that I'm going to be proved right, and that the Kurds, perhaps the cleanest side in that nasty little conflict, and who fought on 'our' side, are going to be abandoned.
As for it causing a wave of refugees through Europe; it might not. The Kurdish areas are away from the Mediterranean, and would have to pass through Assad-held territory. Likewise, the other easy route through Turkey will prove difficult for Kurds, especially non-Turkish kurds. Unless Assad or Erdogan want to cause mischief - but that might not be in their interests.
Instead, expect problems to spread to Iraqi and Iranian Kurdish areas, and for increased terrorism by the Kurdish PKK in Turkey itself. Which itself would play into Erdogan's hands ...
British and American always dump their partners in these situations , why anybody deals with them it is hard to believe. Hopefully the Kurds will give them a bloody nose, they will not give it up easily.
I do hope you are wrong. Cox was quoted as saying she’ll be gone by April. I hope he is right. May is a disaster and has been since she called the snap election. She has achieved nothing in office.
Mogg might have made a total pratt of himself recently but the Tories need someone with a lot more charisma than May and someone with a much broader policy horizon than Brexit, important though Brexit is. The Tories also need someone who is not a control freak in charge. A new leader would get rid of all the dead wood like Grayling, Smith, Clark, Hunt, etc
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Given May gave jobs to the likes of Boris and Davis, I find the idea a new leader would get rid of all the dead wood in cabinet unlikely. Some will be kept.
If that was the case there would be no-one left, I cannot think of any that are not dead wood.
I know hypothetical polling like this isn't completely reliable but is there any recent polling on "how would you vote if Labour was led by [Starmer or some other non-terrible person]? I don't think I've seen any, which I guess either means that nobody has bothered polling it for a while or that switching to [non-terrible Labour leader] doesn't actually seem to produce a newsworthy polling boost.
Another bit of hypothetical polling is how Tory support would be affected if they advocated a second referendum. Curious that.
For all the predictable jibes and sneers against Laura Pidcock, it's a point. Not the party political sniping but there is an overall point about relative poverty which we shouldn't forget at this time of year (and indeed at any time of year).
There are many people who find it economically tough going for whatever reason and Christmas, with its gaudy commercialism and siren calls for consumption and expenditure, can be doubly hard.
Political people of all persuasions should make the alleviation of this poverty a priority but I confess neither preaching about self-responsibility nor expecting the State to do it all seem to cut the mustard.
I applaud those who do their bit to help, whether through charitable donation, volunteering, hosting a lonely elderly person or just being there. They deserve our support and praise. Being alone at Christmas, particularly after a bereavement, can be especially distressing.
I know hypothetical polling like this isn't completely reliable but is there any recent polling on "how would you vote if Labour was led by [Starmer or some other non-terrible person]? I don't think I've seen any, which I guess either means that nobody has bothered polling it for a while or that switching to [non-terrible Labour leader] doesn't actually seem to produce a newsworthy polling boost.
I remember one from possibly 2015 or 2016 when Corbyn was a lot less secure showing his rivals doing worse or similarly. I wouldn't be surprised to see him doing better now but for whatever reason none have been released.
I would have expected if you could show that Corbyn is a drag on Labour by polling someone would have made the effort show it.
I do hope you are wrong. Cox was quoted as saying she’ll be gone by April. I hope he is right. May is a disaster and has been since she called the snap election. She has achieved nothing in office.
Mogg might have made a total pratt of himself recently but the Tories need someone with a lot more charisma than May and someone with a much broader policy horizon than Brexit, important though Brexit is. The Tories also need someone who is not a control freak in charge. A new leader would get rid of all the dead wood like Grayling, Smith, Clark, Hunt, etc
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Given May gave jobs to the likes of Boris and Davis, I find the idea a new leader would get rid of all the dead wood in cabinet unlikely. Some will be kept.
If that was the case there would be no-one left, I cannot think of any that are not dead wood.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
How does the 15 point lead happen exactly?
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
That's a good point. But I remember during the 92 election a Labour Party official was on Newsnight. In those pre-internet days you could assume that only political anoraks and partisans were watching that late. The polls were looking pretty good for Labour at this point. But he said that although there was a lot of support for his party, the support was rather soft and he was far from happy. He said that the trouble was that there were a lot of people who wanted to vote Labour, and would tell a pollster that they would. But they had questions that might stop them actually putting the cross against the paper.
It is a shame that the current political culture punishes such honesty. As we now know, Labour didn't succeed that time.
I have a feeling that Mr Corbyn has a similar problem as Mr Kinnock did. Liked but not respected. 15-20% poll leads are fantasy with any leader, but failing to quite close the deal on a majority looks quite likely. And I have a feeling that the extra 2-3% a different leader might pull in might just make the difference.
I'd disagree but it seems a more realistic prospect.
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
How does the 15 point lead happen exactly?
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
You can't even count. If Labour are on 45 and Tories on 30, they're 15 points ahead!
The Tories being on 30 would be part of the explanation of what happens, they aren't on 30 at the moment.
Saying the Tories would lose 10 (ish) and Labour gain 5 (ish) is a fairly big shout.
With LD and UKIP both becalmed it wouldn't be weird to see something like Lab 47, Con 32. But I don't think a merely competent Labour leader would be enough for that, I think you'd need someone positively charismatic, like Blair at the height of his powers.
But like I say, this argument really needs some polling data.
Comments
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
Your thesis works if the cost if labour covers all the externalities
(Eg competition for housing, overcrowding, the social corrosion from tolerating modern slavery*)
If these are not properly accounted for then social costs are higher, wear and tear on infrastructure is greater and productivity is lower so that (a) the consumer can get a lower cash cost car wash by pushing the true cost onto society and (b) that a (typically) Albanian gang master can (i) make some money and (ii) have to opportunity to launder the proceeds of crime
It’s a retrograde step for society as a whole
But I still see no path to getting it through
It's as simple as that - it's called perception. You have posted some figures which I'm sure are correct but are and will be meaningless to most people who aren't professional investors or economists.
I've posted some figures which any idiot can find on a graph and that's how it works - get the BBC or CNBC or Bloomberg to talk about "total return basis" and you might get somewhere.
The same is true of GDP figures - no one knows what they mean or how they are calculated but a number going up sounds better than a number going down - ditto employment statistics.
And homelessness is a problem in places without monarchies too.
I don't know what Brussels understands, but I'm pretty sure there is no coalition of pro-EU MPs and peers that can/will prevent a no-deal outcome. Happy to be corrected.
Of course to do that requires a flexible, imaginative and proactive Government who recognise the need for benefits when work is not available but also recognise that those benefits need to be withheld to some extent when work is available. Unfortunately we have one party who believes benefits should always be available as an alternative to work and another party who believes that benefits should be almost non existent. Both are wrong.
The last survey before a GE will be carried out at the end of the election campaign period, it isn't suddenly in the ballot box that people were swayed but in the campaign leading up to it where Corbyn's ratings improved as people paid attention and the coverage is guided by election rule. Compare to his ratings just before May called the Election.
Also I referred to those who called Corbyn a cnut of epic proportions (or something along those lines) on vox pops gammons, there are some lovely over 65's...
Labour aren't 20 points behind the Tories.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
Did anyone notice it committed Labour to Brexit?
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
If we have left with May's Deal passing the Commons then she will be secure, unless the DUP have no confidenced the government and Corbyn has become PM after a general election in which case the Tories will be looking for a leader of opposition. In that case Boris looks a good prospect as he also looks a good prospect for PM if we have left the EU with No Deal.
If somehow we end up with EUref2 and Remain wins then it is possible May could still stay as PM or someone like Rudd comes into play
The new People's Commissariat of Turnips will handle all turnips in the future.
*These and other wonderful witticisms will be released in the Supreme Leader's Mirthful Crushing of Capitalism, a short volume of 762 pages which will be furnished to Inner Party members.
He also looks like a PM in waiting.
Leaving aside the fact he's not a far left lunatic, the talent Labour has which refuses to sit on the benches alongside the incumbent and his Marxist chum would do so if Starmer or someone of his ilk were leading the party. By itself, that'd be hugely helpful for Labour. They'd have a numerate Shadow Chancellor and Home Secretary, for a start.
YouGov political tracker favourability ratings:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Jeremy Corbyn...
Dec 2018: Favourable 26%, Unfavourable 61%, Net -35%
On the eve of the last GE, at the end of May 2017 it was Net -14%
Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's polling and the only thing preventing double digit leads for the Conservatives is that May's own favourability ratings are almost as bad.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1srrdfz0ub/YG Trackers - Favourability.pdf
Well, in England anyway.
So for example consider the closing FTSE_100_Index on 22 May 2018 of 7,877.45. Is that £7,877.45, or just 7.87745 times the size of the FTSE_100_Index on 3 January 1984 of 1000?
As any Labour leader is always a danger according to most of the print media.
Blair had to go cap in hand flying to Australia to beg for better coverage,
Trump and to a lesser extent Corbyn have shown we now live in a new era.
It doesn't matter, If Labour get more seats, which they could do come the next election if doesn't matter if the one leader has a positive rating and the other a negative rating.
All that matter in terms of the leader and his electoral effect is how that affects votes and in the last election it had a positive effect. Someone voting Conservative liking him or someone voting Conservative not liking him means the same thing in the end.
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
That they show no signs of doing so is to their credit.
Actually putting pressure on the Conservatives could see the blues drop by about 7-8 points and that shift red.
And let's not forget Cameron at one point had a 28 point lead (around 2009).
Ah, another people's vote whine.
It is a shame that the current political culture punishes such honesty. As we now know, Labour didn't succeed that time.
I have a feeling that Mr Corbyn has a similar problem as Mr Kinnock did. Liked but not respected. 15-20% poll leads are fantasy with any leader, but failing to quite close the deal on a majority looks quite likely. And I have a feeling that the extra 2-3% a different leader might pull in might just make the difference.
Very telling.
My question boils down to "Is the index dimensionless (eg 1000) or dimensioned (eg £1000)?" @RobD and @Donny43 both point out that if the index divisor (the thing on the bottom of the weighted index) is in pounds and the top line is in pounds, then the index is dimensionless - i.e. 1000, not £1000. Given that this is the way indices are usually calculated, I'm tempted to say "yes; they're dimensionless".
According to yougov that was 41% of peoples primary reason for voting Labour last time. Surely you don't just keep all that support by changing leader and policy?
Saying the Tories would lose 10 (ish) and Labour gain 5 (ish) is a fairly big shout.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1077172056247226370
For all the predictable jibes and sneers against Laura Pidcock, it's a point. Not the party political sniping but there is an overall point about relative poverty which we shouldn't forget at this time of year (and indeed at any time of year).
There are many people who find it economically tough going for whatever reason and Christmas, with its gaudy commercialism and siren calls for consumption and expenditure, can be doubly hard.
Political people of all persuasions should make the alleviation of this poverty a priority but I confess neither preaching about self-responsibility nor expecting the State to do it all seem to cut the mustard.
I applaud those who do their bit to help, whether through charitable donation, volunteering, hosting a lonely elderly person or just being there. They deserve our support and praise. Being alone at Christmas, particularly after a bereavement, can be especially distressing.
I would have expected if you could show that Corbyn is a drag on Labour by polling someone would have made the effort show it.
Are you talking about homeless people or rough sleepers?
These are tricky statistics. Homeless figures include those in temprary accommodation with a roof over their head.
Rough sleepers are spending the night without a formal shelter and are only a tenth of the 'homeless' numbers.
ONS figures for England show 4751 rough sleepers of which 760 are EU nationals, 193 non EU and 402 unknown nationality.
But like I say, this argument really needs some polling data.