politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON might have big leads with all voters on best PM and ec

This poll is old. In terms of the political standing of the parties as a whole it is not so different from now but the underlying factors that it is highlighting are. In particular recent polling has shown that Osborne has increasingly gained respect (still not liked of course) for his handling of the economy as the good news has rolled in and Balls and Miliband have looked increasingly irrelevant.

So the gap overall in perceptions of economic competence in particular and leadership to a lesser extent are materially different from the time the poll was taken. Where has that change in perception come from? Well at the time this poll was taken the tories were already on board in a very big way so it is unlikely to be from there. I suspect some UKIP supporters may have drifted back on these issues even if they have not yet changed their voting intentions. But surely some must have come from 2010 Lib Dems.

For the reasons Mike says it is unlikely that those who have gone all the way to backing Labour are likely to have changed in such large numbers but my guess would be that more of the remaining Lib Dems would select Cameron on a binary choice than at the time this poll was taken.

@AveryLP

"So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services."

But surely the skill sets required are more demanding and require a higher standard of education.

Mr. T, I quite agree Miliband is not like Blair (although he's doing a pretty good impersonation of mannerisms and intonation. Watch his next speech, and even through the rather different voice it's quite apparent).

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

Lizzy Vaid ‏@LizzyVaid 43m

The story about @Nigel_Farage in The Times today is completely untrue and without substance. Just another #UKIP smear attempt by lefties.

isam said:

Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.

So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?

He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000

Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..

The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.

As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"

Any excuse. Miliband conducts the smell test, and doesn't look weird at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkFtUYfnpqs

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).

Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.

Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.

We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).

Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.

Yes

Basically the powers that be change the definition of a word knowing the old meaning will still resonate with the public

"Milions living in poverty" conjours images of people sleeping rough on the streets, when the truth is that millions are earning less than £15,000 a year or something similar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, we abuse the term 'crisis' in the same way 'human rights' and 'poverty' have become practically meaningless.

Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.

Spot on, Mr. Dancer. Not only would political discourse become much better of politicians stopped using over dramatic language, but also if they stopped using military metaphors. For example, instead of "fighting for x" they could "argue in favour of x", or maybe "seek to convince voters that the best thing would be x".

The problem with the military or war-fighting metaphor is that in war one seeks to beat ones enemy, by fair means or foul. Is that what we want from our politicians? I am not sure it is, not least because it leads to some ludicrous attitudes (e.g. a poster on here claiming that the Yes campaign in Scotland would achieve a resounding victory - a victory over who? Their fellow Scots presumably as the are the only people who have a vote). The language we use not only reflects but also conditions the way we think. Treating someone who disagrees with you as an enemy to be crushed is not healthy.

BobaFett said:

JackW said:

MikeSmithson said:

@JackW PB's new Stuart Truth refusing to believe the polling.

Ouch .....

I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.

It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :

ICM Poll :

06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13

Result :

09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18

So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?

Single data point from the days before the spiral of shame adjustment. As I said yesterday, and which you ignored.

You may pick as many data points as you wish. The evidence is clear if you wish to seek it out.

As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.

However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.

Mr. Llama, it's that sort of mindset which leads particularly the left to try and alter the rulebook by dominating and manipulating language.

Spending = investment, you know.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).

Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.

Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.

We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).

Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.

Firstly Mr Dancer I'm skeptical of your claims about relative poverty.

As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.

A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

Lizzy Vaid ‏@LizzyVaid 43m

The story about @Nigel_Farage in The Times today is completely untrue and without substance. Just another #UKIP smear attempt by lefties.

isam said:

Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.

So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?

He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000

Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..

The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.

As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"

Da rools are clear.

As set out in The Mirror's version of the story:

A former senior UKIP official has filed a formal complaint about Mr Farage’s expenses claims to the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.

EU guidelines - followed by UKIP - say the funds must be spent only on rent, utilities, insurance and business rates.

In line with all MEPs, Mr Farage gets a general expenditure allowance of around £3,800 a month to rent and run an office in his home country.

But no MEP has to file receipts to prove how they have spent the cash, leaving the system open to abuse.

[My bolding].

Farage has a simple task to prove he has abided by the guidelines: he only needs to publish the accounts maintained by the Littlehampton office. We know from The Times article that such books exist and were compiled by David Samuel-Camps.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, we abuse the term 'crisis' in the same way 'human rights' and 'poverty' have become practically meaningless.

Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.

There are two things which, in contemporary academia, are always in crisis. The first is capitalism and the second is masculinity. It is rather like how there is a Gaelic revival in every period of Irish history, if we follow Irish nationalist historiography.

@Morris-Dancer

I absolutely agree with you that term 'poverty' has been devalued by politicians - most of them have never experienced real poverty but use the word as a political football.

In the same way, children that have free school meals are seen as a deprived category that excuses lower educational performance.

Most children in East Africa would laugh as using that as an excuse. as not only do most have to pay to go to the simplest school, but many do not know whether their one daily meal will be there when they get home.

It is about time that our politicians accepted realism and stopped inventing sub-standard excuses for poor performance under their watch.

Have MEP candidate entries closed? Wikipedia is showing far fewer minor parties in comparison to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

Mr. Anorak, I will never miss envy politics, which is as despicable and contemptible as identity politics. Anybody who believes that sort of thing ought to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.

Mr. Financier, I think that's a key part of fuel bills and why some politicians are so green. For them, a few hundred more pounds to fund a green levy is a 'sacrifice', but a token one. They can bear it easily and then feel good about themselves 'fighting climate change'. For those with very little it's a burden they struggle to bear, and then they feel angered when millionaire frontbenchers seem to consider it a noble thing.

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.

I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.

I think all attacks on political parties during election campaigns get discounted by voters as politically motivated.

UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.

anotherDave said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.

I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.

I think all attacks on political parties during election campaigns get discounted by voters as politically motivated.

UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.

Agreed. Not a dog will bark in the street over this story.

anotherDave said:

Have MEP candidate entries closed? Wikipedia is showing far fewer minor parties in comparison to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

I expect a lot of last minute candidacies will occur, from political parties no one has ever heard of.

Quite so, Dr. Spyn.

Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.

F1: Ricciardo/Red Bull lose their appeal, and rightly so:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/27009862

Off-topic:

A few days ago I posted a link about a UKIP councillor saying some rather unfortunate comments. To even things up, Swindon's Conservative mayor's just resigned for similar stupidity:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/swindon-mayor-says-sorry-for-calling-disabled-people-mongols--but-charities-dismiss-forced-apology-9258603.html

The other nonsense about the current definition of poverty is that it presents a huge temptation for politicians to obfuscate. Say the poverty line is £100 per week (the actual numbers don't matter for this discussion) and there are 2 million of people with an in come of £90-£100 p.w.. Then by upping the benefit payable by £11, the politician can say we lifted two million people out of poverty. However, the difference in living standards achievable on £101 p.w. and £99 p.w. isn't going to be noticeable and the people in real poverty are not going to helped to a reasonable standard of living by and extra £11. The effect is to give the politicians a chance to manipulate the system to score points whilst not helping the people who really need it.

I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.

AveryLP said:

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

Lizzy Vaid ‏@LizzyVaid 43m

The story about @Nigel_Farage in The Times today is completely untrue and without substance. Just another #UKIP smear attempt by lefties.

isam said:

Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.

So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?

He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000

Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..

The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.

As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"

Da rools are clear.

As set out in The Mirror's version of the story:

A former senior UKIP official has filed a formal complaint about Mr Farage’s expenses claims to the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.

EU guidelines - followed by UKIP - say the funds must be spent only on rent, utilities, insurance and business rates.

In line with all MEPs, Mr Farage gets a general expenditure allowance of around £3,800 a month to rent and run an office in his home country.

But no MEP has to file receipts to prove how they have spent the cash, leaving the system open to abuse.

[My bolding].

Farage has a simple task to prove he has abided by the guidelines: he only needs to publish the accounts maintained by the Littlehampton office. We know from The Times article that such books exist and were compiled by David Samuel-Camps.

I would have thought it was nigh on impossible to prove or disprove anything in this case.

Farage could quite easily say he used any money not accounted for to pay for all manner of work related things... and if anyone says "But the EU guidelines say it can only be used to pay for this office" he will say "So what?"

Unless he is shown to have spent the money on something that is nothing to do with UKIP, ie a House, having his chimney cleared, a second mortgage, a duck house etc then there is nowhere for this story to go, because he has already boasted of taking as much as possible from the EU to fund the party.

BobaFett said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).

Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.

Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.

We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).

Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.

Firstly Mr Dancer I'm skeptical of your claims about relative poverty.

As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.

A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."

Adam Smith = leftie shill.

Worse, Jock leftie shill.

BobaFett said:

AveryLP said:

JosiasJessop said:

BobaFett said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."

Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.

When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?

Six years ago in 2009.

Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.

An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.

The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.

Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.

Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.

Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.

BobaFett said:

HurstLlama said:

The other nonsense about the current definition of poverty is that it presents a huge temptation for politicians to obfuscate. Say the poverty line is £100 per week (the actual numbers don't matter for this discussion) and there are 2 million of people with an in come of £90-£100 p.w.. Then by upping the benefit payable by £11, the politician can say we lifted two million people out of poverty. However, the difference in living standards achievable on £101 p.w. and £99 p.w. isn't going to be noticeable and the people in real poverty are not going to helped to a reasonable standard of living by and extra £11. The effect is to give the politicians a chance to manipulate the system to score points whilst not helping the people who really need it.

I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.

It doesn't. The state-mandated measure of relative poverty is 60% of median household income. It's not hard to grasp this. That's about where it should be because, as Adam Smith alludes to in the essay kindly posted by Corporeal below, if you fall too far behind the caravan you are no longer in the caravan.

You can argue the toss about where the threshold should be set, but you would find very few serious economists arguing for an absolute measure that ignored general living standards in the country.

Unless you fancy setting our threshold to that of Africa?

Why not just admit that very few people in England are living in poverty, and that is a good thing? Does it have to exist regardless?

By your definition it is impossible to eradicate, even if we were all millionaires

"Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig."

You are at it again. Anyone who disagrees with me on here is a Tory and therefore thick, is not a helpful way of furthering interesting debate and is also insulting to those who are trying to have a sensible conversation. Not helpful.

This leadership poll ratings are a waste of time. With Lib Dems in coalition, Cameron gets a little support from LD supporters and UKIP supporters would generally prefer Cameron to Miliband. And Cameron is PM, so he gets some recognition for that, whereas Miliband is just leader of the main opposition party.

Having said that Miliband looks like a geek who can't get a suit to fit and is up against a smart shiny foreheaded PR man. Perception is still a very important factor, when people consider leadership. It is not what they do, but how they look and speak when debating. So pretty superficial stuff really.

hucks67 said:

john_zims said:

@dr_spyn



Well the Co-Op was Ed's model bank.

Evidence for this ?

Co-op bank has been subject of discussion between regulators and The Treasury for sometime, because there has been concern about the way it is set up.

My personal view is that there needs to be a review of banking, not just in this country, but around the world. I don't think regulation is sophisticated enough to be able to understand all the risks. Then there is the issue of rigged markets and dodgy dealing. UK banks have made large profits from mis-selling of PPI etc.

If I say I agree with this am I underlining my soft left credentials, or am I getting harder.

BobaFett said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Quite so, Dr. Spyn.

Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.

If you oppose the concept 'relative poverty' you disagree with Smith, since that is the definition he's advocating. Where 'poverty' can be at different levels in different cultures, or even different people in the same culture.

So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.

As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.

Why the PB Conservative have such a blind spot over basic economics remains a mystery.

Because in the land of the blind (Labour posters - who think, for example, that the 'cost of living crisis' started under the coalition) the one eyed man - or woman - is king.....

Mr. Llama, well quite.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Charles, indeed, that's it.

GDP per head fell by c.8% in 2008/9. Real wages declined gradually between 2008-13. As a result, unemployment rose by much less than one might have expected.

Both unemployment and inflation are now below their levels of May 2010, 2% more of the working age population are in work, and GDP per head is on the rise, so there is little doubt the economy is in better shape than in May 2010.

One can argue that Labour would have done better; or that the government deserves no credit for this improvement, but it's not really open to debate now that the economy is in better shape than it was four years ago.

BobaFett said:

AveryLP said:

BobaFett said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."

Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.

What do you mean by "spiralling housing costs", Bobafett?

Rents have been falling at a faster rate than inflation.

Mortgage interest rates have also been falling.

Capital values of housing stock have been rising.

Leaving aside occupancy costs such as maintenance and repair (which are calculated by the ONS but have relatively little significance in total housing costs), this would indicate that, on average, UK householders have got richer at the same time as their expenses have reduced relative to inflation.

This is "win, win" for householders unless I have the sums or theory wrong.

Please advise if you believe I have.

Capital values of housing stock have been rising.

My house in the London suburbs has gained £42,000+ in value since I bought it in July. Unimproved.

Great me for me, you might opine. But how do you think this affects affordability for those millions who are trying to get on the ladder?

It's price has increased, not it's value. And it's worth nothing until you try to liquidate it.

Q: Can we have no people in relative poverty under present definitions?

A: No. It is impossible to re-allocate all wealth in a uniform way. Communist and socialist countries tried it and failed. Some people were always more equal than others.

The definition of relative poverty is one of the hang overs from socialism. However we should not expect socialists to understand this or agree that the definition of relative poverty should be dropped. Otherwise it ends another socialist policy.

BobaFett said:

Financier said:

BobaFett said:

AveryLP said:

BobaFett said:

AveryLP said:

JosiasJessop said:

BobaFett said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."

Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.

When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?

Six years ago in 2009.

Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.

An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.

The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.

Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.

Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.

Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.

In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis.
Four years of going backwards under the Coalition.
Good luck with it all Avery.

BobaFett - and how would Labour have made better progress out of the mess they made and with "no money".

The government does.
The opposition critiques.

And what 'solutions' have Labour advanced for the 'cost of living crisis' that started on their watch?

Doesn't look like voters are impressed:

the Tories' team is most trusted on economic management, with Cameron and Osborne now beating Ed Miliband and Ed Balls on this score by 40% to 22%, a decisive margin. That is the biggest economic lead for the Conservative duo in more than two years, and the second worst score for Miliband/Balls to date......

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/14/support-tories-falls-budget-boost-deflated-maria-miller-row

BobaFett said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.

I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.

This is not a recent change of the word.

Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig.

You forgot to mention that it's also a waste of make-up. Anyway. I'll nominate you for comment of the year, even if it's only April.

isam said:

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.

My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.

So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?

My definition would be to be unable to afford to simultaneously eat enough food to live and be able to live in a home with a roof... and it would never need to be updated

So according to you someone who couldn't afford to clothe their children wouldn't be living in poverty?

There is a word for people like you, but it can't be used on this site.

Charles said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.

I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.

Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.

It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.

He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).

What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.

This is not a recent change of the word.

No, he's not. What he is advocating is that the threshold for absolute poverty shifts over time as a society develops. That's not the same as relative poverty (measured as a % of median income)

Your definition of relative poverty is overly restrictive, the % of median income is one (common) measure of relative poverty but is not the entirety of the concept.

Smith's use of societal custom (including all the possible illogical foibles between different cultures or within a culture) as a measuring stick place his definition firmly in the territory of relative poverty.