Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first general election after the AV referendum looks s

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first general election after the AV referendum looks set to see unprecedented levels of tactical voting

Reproduced above is some fascinating data from today’s YouGov/ST poll on questions which try to tease out how people would cast their ballots if their party of choice didn’t look like winning in their constituency.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Double First!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    FPT
    ZenPagan said:

    My experience so far over my last 5 companies is that its no, one allowed it for special times only such as deliveries etc. There is absolutely no need for me to trek the 20 miles there and back each day. My output is measurable, my resources at home for working are actually better than in my office.

    It will take government inducements to get most firms to consider it I fear.

    Two other plus points would be if you reduce the need for office space by hotdesking then that would free up brownfield land which could be used for homes and people would not be so tied to needing to live in the south east but could telecommute from farther afield revitalising the economy of those parts of the country.

    I suspect a 1% tax break offered would more than pay for itself in terms of reduction of strain on infrastructure


    Maybe one (or more) of the parties can add it to their manifesto. Seems like a good idea.

  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    "Where there is a realistic chance of a LibDem candidate winning"

    Very droll.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    A respectable 4th?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    MarkHopkins said:

    FPT

    ZenPagan said:

    My experience so far over my last 5 companies is that its no, one allowed it for special times only such as deliveries etc. There is absolutely no need for me to trek the 20 miles there and back each day. My output is measurable, my resources at home for working are actually better than in my office.

    It will take government inducements to get most firms to consider it I fear.

    Two other plus points would be if you reduce the need for office space by hotdesking then that would free up brownfield land which could be used for homes and people would not be so tied to needing to live in the south east but could telecommute from farther afield revitalising the economy of those parts of the country.

    I suspect a 1% tax break offered would more than pay for itself in terms of reduction of strain on infrastructure


    Maybe one (or more) of the parties can add it to their manifesto. Seems like a good idea.

    When I worked for the NHS "home working" in my area of activity was hamstrung with all sorts of issues around security, especially of possible patient identification, since although I didn't need to identify patients, uncommon drugs could, it was thought, allow identification.

    However, that was 10+ years ago; I'm sure the problem's been solved since. Has it?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    UKIP got 51% of the vote across this week's two Westminster by-elections (Clacton and Heywood):

    UKIP 32,192 (51%)
    Labour Lefties 15,590 (25%)
    Tory-Boys 12,205 (19%)
    LimpDems 1,940 (3%)
    Greenies 688 (1%)
    also-rans 388 (<1%)
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    edited October 2014
    Do I vote LD to keep Greens or Labour out...
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited October 2014
    If there is going to be a lot of tactical voting, shouldn't the deposit be dispensed with as you had the support but they didn't vote for you?

    Perhaps this could all be formalised like in the French system.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FPT:
    foxinsoxuk said:

    anotherDave said:

    Itajai said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    Plato said:

    I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.

    There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?

    1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?

    2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?

    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

    UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
    And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?

    Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
    For a start, people who have already learned English.

    When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?

    ???????????????

    As I understand it UKIP are in favour of stopping open door immigration, and having a points based system for skilled immigrants like the one used in Australia.

    http://www.ukip.org/steven_woolfe_ukip_s_ethical_migration_policy

    https://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/points-test.htm
    Net migration to Australia ran at 254 737 for 2012-13, and has been over 200 000 every year since 2007; for a population about a third of our own.

    In 2013 there were 990 553 new legal permanent migrations to the USA, so fairly similar to our figures on a per capita basis.

    Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.

    The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Will the Daily Mail and the Sun do a reverse Obs in 1997?

    A week before the election identify those seats where UKIP are better poised to beat Labour than the Tories and urge their readers to vote UKIP?

    Similarly will there be a reverse Billy Bragg operation? Didn´t he start a Labour/LD vote swap operation in 1997?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Of course, first you have to work out who has a realistic chance of winning ...
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The 2010 Lib Dems switchers to Lab have already moved and are already counted in current polling, so they aren't potential add ons to current numbers.

    The remaining tactical vote in Tory/Lab marginals supports the Tories, and in Lib Dem/Labour run offs, it backs the Lib Dems.

    People are lining up to block Labour.

    It almost certainly happened in Heywood.


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    foxinsoxuk said:

    FPT:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    anotherDave said:

    Itajai said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    Plato said:

    I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.

    There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?

    1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?

    2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?

    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

    UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
    And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?

    Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
    For a start, people who have already learned English.

    When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?

    ???????????????

    As I understand it UKIP are in favour of stopping open door immigration, and having a points based system for skilled immigrants like the one used in Australia.

    http://www.ukip.org/steven_woolfe_ukip_s_ethical_migration_policy

    https://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/points-test.htm
    Net migration to Australia ran at 254 737 for 2012-13, and has been over 200 000 every year since 2007; for a population about a third of our own.

    In 2013 there were 990 553 new legal permanent migrations to the USA, so fairly similar to our figures on a per capita basis.

    Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.

    The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.
    All well and good if you're comparing it with another way of controlling immigration, but you're not, you're comparing it with uncontrolled immigration -utterly unrestricted chaos. There is NO WAY a party that is serious and responsible about the well-being of the nation can enter an election proposing to maintain the current state of affairs.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    Itajai said:

    Will the Daily Mail and the Sun do a reverse Obs in 1997?

    A week before the election identify those seats where UKIP are better poised to beat Labour than the Tories and urge their readers to vote UKIP?

    Similarly will there be a reverse Billy Bragg operation? Didn´t he start a Labour/LD vote swap operation in 1997?

    The Sun is a long shot to do that, given Murdoch's seeming volatility and anti-establishment mood. The Mail will never imo. They are establishment to the hilt -they like to grumble about it, but not to actually do anything. The Mail was at the forefront of Farage bashing in the euros.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    OldKingCole said:


    When I worked for the NHS "home working" in my area of activity was hamstrung with all sorts of issues around security, especially of possible patient identification, since although I didn't need to identify patients, uncommon drugs could, it was thought, allow identification.

    However, that was 10+ years ago; I'm sure the problem's been solved since. Has it?

    Just because some home working may have issues around it preventing it, or not all people could work from home does not invalidate it as a potentially good policy to have. Indeed not all people who work from home would want to even and it shouldn't be forced upon them. The potential benefits from even 25% of the workforce doing 2 or 3 home days a week is huge in terms of congestion alone.

    and FPT @Smarmeron

    Those benefits I outlined do not particularly benefit the businesses allowing working from home. For a company there are downsides to allowing homeworking as well as upsides and the two tend to be finely balanced and without that balance being tipped then the decision seems to mostly come down to stay with the status quo. Eventually as allowing homeworking becomes the norm you could remove the incentive as firms who decided not to allow it after that would find it harder to compete on the recruitment front. There does however I feel need to be something to kickstart it.

    The benefits to the country would be huge though

    1) Less congestion on road and rail, reducing carbon for those who believe in AGW and reducing fossil fuel usage

    2) The potential to free up office space for brownfield homes via hot desking

    3) The wages being able to be spread over a wider portion of the country rather than the south east alone thus revitalising local economies up and down the land

    4) Increased leisure time and less stress due to having to rush around on the weekends

    5) Leaving more of workers pay in their pockets rather than having to fork it over in petrol or train fares

    6) Reduce the need for child care as parents would be home more often when children come home from school

    Do you really think all that benefit isn't worth a 1% tax concession? Are you so set on punishing companies for existing that you wouldn't buy that for a single percentage tax cut on companies putting that into place. A tax cut that would only be needed for a small number of years until potential recruits come to expect it and scorn companies that don't offer it?

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Some Tories need to get there message straight. Either UKIP is an existential threat to Labour, or it's "Vote Kip, get Lab". It can't be both.

    The way I see it, in safe Labour seats, UKIP will replace the Conservatives as the anti-Labour alternative, while in Con-Lab marginals, all we have to do is stand still (thanks to Lib-Lab switchers balancing off the Lab-Kip switchers), while the Tory vote falls and they end up in a fight with UKIP for second.

    If anyone can describe a scenario in which the UKIP rise enables James Wharton to hold Stockton South, I would be very surprised.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Energy costs are very near to closing the UK's steel plants at Redcar, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot. About 2000 - 3000 jobs per plant with another 10,000 jobs dependent on them - all in Labour areas. Do we wish to be at the mercy of overseas steel suppliers as well as energy, chemicals etc etc.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    PaulMidBeds Though there are some developed countries, France, Sweden, the US, Australia and the UK to a lesser extent which have higher birth rates than the likes of Spain, Germany, Italy and Japan.

    I think if you drill down into those figures, you will find that the people responsible for that higher birthrate, especially in USA and France, are not of western/northern european ethnic origin.
    Socrates said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:


    Immigration cannot be "controlled" because the indigenous population in the UK is not having enough children to maintain the population.

    This is factually incorrect. The birth rate of British mothers is above the replacement rate.

    Even if your problem was demographics, then you need a horrendous level of immigration to make up the difference. Free childcare for working parents would do far more for improving the age pyramid of our population.
    British Citizens yes, British citizens of western/northern European ethnicity, unlikely. My wife has a British passport, dosen't make her any less African.

    re "horrendous level of immigration" Some would say the present level of immigration is horrendous. All the rate of immigration affects is the speed of the process.

    There is no such thing as free childcare. The infrastructure and wages have to be paid for out of taxes which would rise to pay for it and make people less inclined to have children. Tax breaks and other encouragement for mothers to stay at home with their children rather than put them in state run day orphanages might work though.

    The fact that mothers raising their own children at home is so sneered in the UK at rather than being regarded as on a par with being a doctor or a lawyer shows how the west puts materialism above the next generation.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    chestnut said:

    The 2010 Lib Dems switchers to Lab have already moved and are already counted in current polling, so they aren't potential add ons to current numbers.

    The remaining tactical vote in Tory/Lab marginals supports the Tories, and in Lib Dem/Labour run offs, it backs the Lib Dems.

    People are lining up to block Labour.

    It almost certainly happened in Heywood.


    Incorrect. Look at the data above. There are two sorts of 2010 LD switchers.

    Those who've switched already and large number of those who might tactically vote. Look at the YouGov detail to see. What could impede this move is LAB trying to be more beastly to immigrants than CON.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:

    http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-set-landslide-win-2015-election/story-23072833-detail/story.html

    UKIP 48
    LAB 24
    CON 18
    LD 6

    Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent.
    Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    That was a truly dull GP but in a year of at best modest sporting success for the UK is Lewis Hamilton becoming a fairly good bet for SPOTY?

    Presumably the Ryder Cup team will win the team trophy.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    CarlottaVance said:

    Double First!

    Many congratulations.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    ZenPagan said:

    OldKingCole said:


    When I worked for the NHS "home working" in my area of activity was hamstrung with all sorts of issues around security, especially of possible patient identification, since although I didn't need to identify patients, uncommon drugs could, it was thought, allow identification.

    However, that was 10+ years ago; I'm sure the problem's been solved since. Has it?

    Just because some home working may have issues around it preventing it, or not all people could work from home does not invalidate it as a potentially good policy to have. Indeed not all people who work from home would want to even and it shouldn't be forced upon them. The potential benefits from even 25% of the workforce doing 2 or 3 home days a week is huge in terms of congestion alone.

    and FPT @Smarmeron

    Those benefits I outlined do not particularly benefit the businesses allowing working from home. For a company there are downsides to allowing homeworking as well as upsides and the two tend to be finely balanced and without that balance being tipped then the decision seems to mostly come down to stay with the status quo. Eventually as allowing homeworking becomes the norm you could remove the incentive as firms who decided not to allow it after that would find it harder to compete on the recruitment front. There does however I feel need to be something to kickstart it.

    The benefits to the country would be huge though

    1) Less congestion on road and rail, reducing carbon for those who believe in AGW and reducing fossil fuel usage

    2) The potential to free up office space for brownfield homes via hot desking

    3) The wages being able to be spread over a wider portion of the country rather than the south east alone thus revitalising local economies up and down the land

    4) Increased leisure time and less stress due to having to rush around on the weekends

    5) Leaving more of workers pay in their pockets rather than having to fork it over in petrol or train fares

    6) Reduce the need for child care as parents would be home more often when children come home from school

    Do you really think all that benefit isn't worth a 1% tax concession? Are you so set on punishing companies for existing that you wouldn't buy that for a single percentage tax cut on companies putting that into place. A tax cut that would only be needed for a small number of years until potential recruits come to expect it and scorn companies that don't offer it?

    Not disagreeing with you Mr Pagan. In my last couple of years I had a long commute and the more work I could do from home, the better. For all the reasons you state, except, personally 6, I support you. I also agree that the advantage to the employer is more finely balanced, although personally I didn't seem to get interrupted as much at home as I did in my workplace.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Speedy said:

    There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:

    http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-set-landslide-win-2015-election/story-23072833-detail/story.html

    UKIP 48
    LAB 24
    CON 18
    LD 6

    Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent.
    Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.

    That was not a proper poll with a proper sample weighted to the population. Ignore.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Regarding child care and both parents working, why not have a longer school day from 8.30-4,30 as in some European countries. The NUT will scream but PISA shows our children neeed more education.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MikeSmithson said:

    Speedy said:

    There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:

    http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-set-landslide-win-2015-election/story-23072833-detail/story.html

    UKIP 48
    LAB 24
    CON 18
    LD 6

    Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent.
    Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.

    That was not a proper poll with a proper sample weighted to the population. Ignore.

    That is one of the problem but almost all of the constituency polling so far has been done in 2010 english marginal seats, we haven't got a clue what's going on in safer seats or in scotland.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    We use home-working for some skills, CAD operators, but require all employees to live within 2 hours of the office. Project people have to be in the office for cross-fertilisation of ideas - if not in the office their thoughts are often not regarded.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    The big plus of working from home is that you can spend your entire day on PB without colleagues seeing what is on your screen.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    Make universities legally responsible for the repatriation of their graduates.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    MikeSmithson said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    The big plus of working from home is that you can spend your entire day on PB without colleagues seeing what is on your screen.
    Automatic disqualification for employment.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    edited October 2014
    ZenPagan said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

    Both my sons, in different industries, routinely "meet" with colleagues in different countries and indeed continents on FaceTime, Skype or similar. I don't think they've actually met some of those colleagues other than virtually. The meetings may be one-to-one or groups.

    We have the technology!

    No-one's invented the virtual water-cooler or coffee machine yet. AFAIK, anyway!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Sue Cameron - Vote for UKIP = let in Labour = loss of confidence from Tories.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Spot on, Mike. This is going to be a seat by seat election; a major advantage to the three traditional parties who have the databases to enable them to squeeze the third part vote.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    OldKingCole said:

    ZenPagan said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

    Both my sons, in different industries, routinely "meet" with colleagues in different countries and indeed continents on FaceTime, Skype or similar. I don't think they've actually met some of those colleagues other than virtually. The meetings may be one-to-one or groups.

    We have the technology!

    No-one's yet invented the virtual water-cooler or coffee machine yet. AFAIK, anyway!
    Twitter and PB?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Financier said:

    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    Make universities legally responsible for the repatriation of their graduates.
    The 50 000 students who settle permanently each year do so for a variety of reasons, including post doc work; marriage and employment. Should their university have to deport them?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    MikeSmithson said:

    Incorrect. Look at the data above. There are two sorts of 2010 LD switchers.

    Those who've switched already and large number of those who might tactically vote. Look at the YouGov detail to see. What could impede this move is LAB trying to be more beastly to immigrants than CON.

    I'm not seeing it.

    The number of current Lib Dems who might back Labour = 20%
    The number of current Lib Dems who might back Tory = 20%

    So, an even split in LAB/CON marginals, but with a chunk of Kippers likely to back the Tories (34%)

    In the case of LIB/CON marginals, Labour will back the Libs (36%), while the Kippers will back the Tories (30%)

    In LIB/LAB marginals 45% of Tories to back the Libs. Kippers not especially keen on either.


    This to me, points to:

    1) Tories to do better in Tory/Lab marginals than currently expected
    2) Libs to do better in both Tory/Lib and Lab/Lib marginals.

    It might not be enough to change results, but the tactics are against Labour,
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Rumours of a big Labour reshuffle this week, except...

    ...who can Ed sack without fatally undermining his position?

    Balls? I was wrong for 5 years.

    Burnham? Yes, the NHS was unsafe in our hands.

    Hunt? Gove was right.

    Cooper? She might immediately call for a leadership contest, which she would probably win
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    MikeSmithson said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    The big plus of working from home is that you can spend your entire day on PB without colleagues seeing what is on your screen.
    lol
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Farage - scrap Renewable Obligations stuff. Green Energy makes rich landowners richer. Looks like the Corn Laws.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    OldKingCole said:

    ZenPagan said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

    Both my sons, in different industries, routinely "meet" with colleagues in different countries and indeed continents on FaceTime, Skype or similar. I don't think they've actually met some of those colleagues other than virtually. The meetings may be one-to-one or groups.

    We have the technology!

    No-one's invented the virtual water-cooler or coffee machine yet. AFAIK, anyway!
    Indeed in my current office every one has skype and that tends to get used rather than walk across the office to chat in any case. As well as that nearly every person in the office is blasting music through headphones in any case so talking to them requires first throwing something at them to get their attention.

    As regards the not hereism mentioned this is why I suggested it was set at 2 days a week telecommuting to get the benefit rather than full on telecommuting though of course some may wish to offer as more days
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OldKingCole said:

    ZenPagan said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

    Both my sons, in different industries, routinely "meet" with colleagues in different countries and indeed continents on FaceTime, Skype or similar. I don't think they've actually met some of those colleagues other than virtually. The meetings may be one-to-one or groups.

    We have the technology!

    No-one's yet invented the virtual water-cooler or coffee machine yet. AFAIK, anyway!
    We have rules that no business home-working IT can be used for any other purpose and that all work has to be uploaded onto our servers every hour - including automatic copying of all emails. This is for security and for anti-virus. We use skype with employees and clients but still get IT drop-out problems.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    dr_spyn said:

    Sue Cameron - Vote for UKIP = let in Labour = loss of confidence from Tories.

    It's more complicated now:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/

    "Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."

    Vote UKIP in Rochester=get rid of Cameron.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    I appreciate all that you're saying, but how does having an uncontrollable and unpredictable yearly migration figure from (or indeed in other circumstances too) Europe, make any of these dilemmas any easier? The answer is it doesn't. Stopping uncontrolled immigration from the EU isn't 'the solution', but it is a pre-requisite for any solution to be found.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    On topic. I can see quite a few UKIP and Tory supporters in Brighton voting Labour tactically to keep the Greens out.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    Scott_P said:

    Rumours of a big Labour reshuffle this week, except...

    ...who can Ed sack without fatally undermining his position?

    Balls? I was wrong for 5 years.

    Burnham? Yes, the NHS was unsafe in our hands.

    Hunt? Gove was right.

    Cooper? She might immediately call for a leadership contest, which she would probably win

    Himself.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Cameron or Miliband?

    Which would you shoot first...must have misheard that bit.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    The amusing unpredictability of the voter in polls is here as well: there's always 1-4% of each party's supporters who, when it's expressed as 'your party vs x' actually swap to the opposing party.

    Seriously, how can 4% of Labour supporters go "Who will I vote for? Labour. If only my party or the Lib Dems could win? Easy, the Lib Dems. Ah. Err. "?

    On a wider view, though: FPTP vs AV. One has artificial majorities caused by lower preferences. The other, by ill-informed and blindly cast lower preferences ...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Financier said:

    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    Make universities legally responsible for the repatriation of their graduates.
    The 50 000 students who settle permanently each year do so for a variety of reasons, including post doc work; marriage and employment. Should their university have to deport them?
    In the USA you need a Green card to justify employment/study that cannot be done by a US citizen. There marriage does not guarantee a Green Card or citizenship. Cannot we adopt a similar system for such people.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Odd how BBC managed to lose link to Farage, and end up showing his visage with a quivering lip.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    dr_spyn said:

    Cameron or Miliband?

    Which would you shoot first...must have misheard that bit.

    I would follow the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly strategy.
    Since the Ugly one has no bullets, you shoot the Bad one.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    ZenPagan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    ZenPagan said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    The biggest problem with home working is that you cannot casually discuss things with colleagues face to face. This causes all sorts of delays and misunderstandings.

    While that is to a certain extent true and is one of the downsides I mentioned it is nowhere near as true as it was. I have regularly been in meetings with some of the participants on skype. You can see them and they can see you. There are also many pieces of software out there allowing you to share and amend documents in real time with colleagues remotely. It is nowhere near the barrier it was ten years ago.

    Indeed it is not unusual these days for companies to have teams that span more than one geographical locale. Is it as good as face to face? No its not but its not far off

    Both my sons, in different industries, routinely "meet" with colleagues in different countries and indeed continents on FaceTime, Skype or similar. I don't think they've actually met some of those colleagues other than virtually. The meetings may be one-to-one or groups.

    We have the technology!

    No-one's invented the virtual water-cooler or coffee machine yet. AFAIK, anyway!
    Indeed in my current office every one has skype and that tends to get used rather than walk across the office to chat in any case. As well as that nearly every person in the office is blasting music through headphones in any case so talking to them requires first throwing something at them to get their attention.

    As regards the not hereism mentioned this is why I suggested it was set at 2 days a week telecommuting to get the benefit rather than full on telecommuting though of course some may wish to offer as more days
    We do not allow personal music or on-line chat, so no headphones are allowed. We have conference rooms for skype chats etc.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Great thread. It's fascinating and does, indeed, make traditional electoral calculators almost redundant at the moment.

    I really want to see what's going on with Labour-UKIP switchers in Labour heartlands and marginals. Something needs to explain the overstating of Labour vote share over the last two years, and I'm beginning to think it may be UKIP. That's to say, traditional Labour voters shy of admitting they will vote UKIP. It's not huge, but it may explain the 2-5% overstatement and that could prove highly significant.

    We could, could, end up with an extraordinary result in May. There are a number of ways in which either Labour or Conservatives could win a comfortable majority off a poll share in the 30's.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    And another thing, picking up on something someone posted earlier today. Is a net result of UKIP to detoxify the Conservatives and therefore to make it easier for the 2010 floaters and LibDems to contemplate voting Tory?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Anyone seen this Viking find in Scotland?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-29582866
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,486
    foxinsoxuk said:

    FPT:

    Net migration to Australia ran at 254 737 for 2012-13, and has been over 200 000 every year since 2007; for a population about a third of our own.

    In 2013 there were 990 553 new legal permanent migrations to the USA, so fairly similar to our figures on a per capita basis.

    Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.

    The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.



    Yes indeed Australia and Canada do have high levels of immigration. Guess what. They choose to do that and have a system in place that allows for the people they need to enter the country and the people they don't to be excluded. Simply because they want large numbers of immigrants in no way means their points system doesn't work. It does.

    Only someone utterly lacking in basic logic would try to claim that because a country chooses to have large numbers of migrants, it invalidates the system they use for filtering those migrants. It doesn't.

    In fact as a number of us have pointed out before, you Europhiles are actively supporting one of the most racist and bigoted immigration systems in existence in the world today. It says that if you are a white European,even if you have no skills, a criminal record and nothing to offer the country we will do nothing to stop you entering. If you are an Indian or African, South American or Asian, even if highly educated, trained and offering important skills to the country, we will make you jump through a hundred hoops and make it as difficult as possible for you to come and make our country a better place.

    It is time the Eurosceptics made it clear that we are tired of seeing valuable assets to our country, people who can do great things for us, turned away or at the very least dissuaded from coming here just because we have too many losers who are here just because they happen to be white and European.

    The Australian and Canadian systems work. Why on earth would you want to support the broken system we have now?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Financier said:

    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    Make universities legally responsible for the repatriation of their graduates.
    Universities are as bad as some big businesses when it comes to immigration, shamelessly internalising benefits whilst externalising costs to society.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Scott_P said:

    Rumours of a big Labour reshuffle this week, except...

    ...who can Ed sack without fatally undermining his position?

    Balls? I was wrong for 5 years.

    Burnham? Yes, the NHS was unsafe in our hands.

    Hunt? Gove was right.

    Cooper? She might immediately call for a leadership contest, which she would probably win

    Alexander could step down from foreign secretary to focus on running the election campaign full time. That would open up a space for a big name to be promoted back in (Darling or Johnson)
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Farage Referendum August 2015 for Price of Supply & Confidence.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    Rumours of a big Labour reshuffle this week, except...

    ...who can Ed sack without fatally undermining his position?

    Balls? I was wrong for 5 years.

    Burnham? Yes, the NHS was unsafe in our hands.

    Hunt? Gove was right.

    Cooper? She might immediately call for a leadership contest, which she would probably win

    Hunt might be shaping up as Labour's answer to Oliver Letwin but Gove has already been demoted by Cameron, so shifting Hunt will not be seen as an admission of defeat.

    The biggest headache might be Darling, if he was on a promise for not quite losing Scotland.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    Looking at those internals, Labour must be thanking their lucky stars that the AV referendum went down in flames.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:


    @LuckyGuy

    The experience of these countries is that keeping out migrants is not as simple as it sounds.

    So if UKIP were to cut inward migration to say 50 000, which 50 000 would they be?

    For example we admit about 250 000 overseas students per year, of whom 20% are still in country eight years later. Should we close our universities to non UK citizens?

    About 10% of our armed forces are overseas citizens. Should we deny these Fijians and Nepalese citizenship?

    Should we refuse all asylum seekers, even Syrian Christian women whose husbands have been butchered and they sold as sex slaves?

    Should we stop recruiting Philipino, Portuguese and Spanish Nurses, and close wards instead? Should we stop recruiting Doctors from India to man our Casualty departments?

    Should we ban spouses of British citizens from residing here?

    It is easy to bounce numbers about, but behind all these numbers there is a person and a consequence.

    I am largely happy with the coalitions immigration policy, though would ban students on visas from working during their studies more than 12 hours per week, or from bringing in dependents, restore the rules on primary purpose for overseas spouses, and have harsh rules for any asylum seeker who entered the country illegally or who cannot produce papers.

    I appreciate all that you're saying, but how does having an uncontrollable and unpredictable yearly migration figure from (or indeed in other circumstances too) Europe, make any of these dilemmas any easier? The answer is it doesn't. Stopping uncontrolled immigration from the EU isn't 'the solution', but it is a pre-requisite for any solution to be found.
    My reading shows that international increases in immigration have been a worldwide phenomenon that is difficult to reduce. Personally, I am much happier for this migration to come from EU countries with common values to us (and note more than 50% of EU migration is from the EU15 rather than more recent accession countries).

    I think that the Coalitions efforts have been appropriate, and that a few further steps are possible, in addition to the above, I would reduce the access to the welfare state for all migrants. This would perhaps require a root and branch reform for UK citizens to make benefits contribution dependent.

    I have also no objections to health screening of immigrants too, but HIV should not be singled out. There are many other worse and more expensive diseases.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    audreyanne said:

    And another thing, picking up on something someone posted earlier today. Is a net result of UKIP to detoxify the Conservatives and therefore to make it easier for the 2010 floaters and LibDems to contemplate voting Tory?

    I think that was me, about UKIP detoxifying Tories.
    It does make sense that, since the coalition, natural Tories might see LibDems in a different light i.e Tories can't win here, I'd rather have a LibDem (potential coalition partner) than a Labour MP.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    david_herdson said:

    Of course, first you have to work out who has a realistic chance of winning ...

    Quite – I’ve always been sceptical of the stated level of ‘tactical voting’ – it suggests a level of political savviness that appears almost absent in all but the most political of activists.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    FPT:

    Net migration to Australia ran at 254 737 for 2012-13, and has been over 200 000 every year since 2007; for a population about a third of our own.

    In 2013 there were 990 553 new legal permanent migrations to the USA, so fairly similar to our figures on a per capita basis.

    Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.

    The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.

    Yes indeed Australia and Canada do have high levels of immigration. Guess what. They choose to do that and have a system in place that allows for the people they need to enter the country and the people they don't to be excluded. Simply because they want large numbers of immigrants in no way means their points system doesn't work. It does.

    Only someone utterly lacking in basic logic would try to claim that because a country chooses to have large numbers of migrants, it invalidates the system they use for filtering those migrants. It doesn't.

    In fact as a number of us have pointed out before, you Europhiles are actively supporting one of the most racist and bigoted immigration systems in existence in the world today. It says that if you are a white European,even if you have no skills, a criminal record and nothing to offer the country we will do nothing to stop you entering. If you are an Indian or African, South American or Asian, even if highly educated, trained and offering important skills to the country, we will make you jump through a hundred hoops and make it as difficult as possible for you to come and make our country a better place.

    It is time the Eurosceptics made it clear that we are tired of seeing valuable assets to our country, people who can do great things for us, turned away or at the very least dissuaded from coming here just because we have too many losers who are here just because they happen to be white and European.

    The Australian and Canadian systems work. Why on earth would you want to support the broken system we have now?

    They are no more happy with their immigration system than we are. A points based system is deeply flawed, society cannot be valued by such a crude financial analysis.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Artist said:

    Alexander could step down from foreign secretary to focus on running the election campaign full time. That would open up a space for a big name to be promoted back in (Darling or Johnson)

    Wee Dougie has arguably done less damage (to Labour) as Shadow FS than as election coordinator
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Hunt might be shaping up as Labour's answer to Oliver Letwin but Gove has already been demoted by Cameron, so shifting Hunt will not be seen as an admission of defeat.

    The biggest headache might be Darling, if he was on a promise for not quite losing Scotland.

    Hunt was specifically name checked by Cameron. If that earns him a sacking it's another Tories were right moment.

    Maybe Darling should take over from Alexander as campaign manager...
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Scott_P said:

    Rumours of a big Labour reshuffle this week, except...

    ...who can Ed sack without fatally undermining his position?

    Balls? I was wrong for 5 years.

    Burnham? Yes, the NHS was unsafe in our hands.

    Hunt? Gove was right.

    Cooper? She might immediately call for a leadership contest, which she would probably win

    Hunt might be shaping up as Labour's answer to Oliver Letwin but Gove has already been demoted by Cameron, so shifting Hunt will not be seen as an admission of defeat.

    The biggest headache might be Darling, if he was on a promise for not quite losing Scotland.
    Darling would be the obvious choice as he has the gravitas, however I can't see the EV4EL thing working well when you have a PM who is Scottish.

    It would mean Labour losing even more of the English vote, including what is left of their core.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Bah, F1 tip was miles wrong. In my defence, Toro Rosso appear to have completely screwed up their set-up (entirely done for qualifying rather than the race), but still.

    Anyway, will start the post-race writing now.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    SimonStClare said:

    david_herdson said:

    Of course, first you have to work out who has a realistic chance of winning ...

    Quite – I’ve always been sceptical of the stated level of ‘tactical voting’ – it suggests a level of political savviness that appears almost absent in all but the most political of activists.
    And then you have to decide what you want. If Newark is anything to go by, half the ex-Labour tactical votes went UKIP to stop the Tories and half went Tory to stop UKIP; the sole net effect being to greatly increase the vote of the right-of-centre at the expense of the left.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    What on earth would be the point of a big shake up in the shadow cabinet now? It creates more enemies in the party, it gives the new appointments insufficient time to learn the briefs and it invites most of the media to point out the problem is at the top, not lower down.

    A weak and incompetent leader trying to look decisive and in control. That is bound to end well.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FalseFlag said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    FPT:

    Net migration to Australia ran at 254 737 for 2012-13, and has been over 200 000 every year since 2007; for a population about a third of our own.



    Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.

    The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.

    Yes indeed Australia and Canada do have high levels of immigration. Guess what. They choose to do that and have a system in place that allows for the people they need to enter the country and the people they don't to be excluded. Simply because they want large numbers of immigrants in no way means their points system doesn't work. It does.

    Only someone utterly lacking in basic logic would try to claim that because a country chooses to have large numbers of migrants, it invalidates the system they use for filtering those migrants. It doesn't.

    In fact as a number of us have pointed out before, you Europhiles are actively supporting one of the most racist and bigoted immigration systems in existence in the world today. It says that if you are a white European,even if you have no skills, a criminal record and nothing to offer the country we will do nothing to stop you entering. If you are an Indian or African, South American or Asian, even if highly educated, trained and offering important skills to the country, we will make you jump through a hundred hoops and make it as difficult as possible for you to come and make our country a better place.

    It is time the Eurosceptics made it clear that we are tired of seeing valuable assets to our country, people who can do great things for us, turned away or at the very least dissuaded from coming here just because we have too many losers who are here just because they happen to be white and European.

    The Australian and Canadian systems work. Why on earth would you want to support the broken system we have now?
    They are no more happy with their immigration system than we are. A points based system is deeply flawed, society cannot be valued by such a crude financial analysis.

    Back to my question: which categories would UKIP exclude. Students? Spouses? Ex UK military? Shortage areas such as Nurses and Doctors?

    USA, Australia and Canada find lots of people who meet their points criteria and lots of immigration lawyers who find ways to get visas. I expect we would have the same.

    Past waves of migrants from Europe have integrated well and added to British life, including the families of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Michael Portillo, Michael Howard and even our very own NP. Largely this is because of common European heritage and values.


  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    Andy_Cooke said:

    Looking at those internals, Labour must be thanking their lucky stars that the AV referendum went down in flames.

    Thanks to the Tories!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. L, is Miliband fiddling with the Shadow Cabinet?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Andy_Cooke said:

    Looking at those internals, Labour must be thanking their lucky stars that the AV referendum went down in flames.

    Thanks to the Tories!
    For the n-th time... you don't support something just because it gives you an advantage at the ballot box ;-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. L, is Miliband fiddling with the Shadow Cabinet?

    ...while Rome burns...
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    logical_song said:

    audreyanne said:

    And another thing, picking up on something someone posted earlier today. Is a net result of UKIP to detoxify the Conservatives and therefore to make it easier for the 2010 floaters and LibDems to contemplate voting Tory?

    I think that was me, about UKIP detoxifying Tories.
    It does make sense that, since the coalition, natural Tories might see LibDems in a different light i.e Tories can't win here, I'd rather have a LibDem (potential coalition partner) than a Labour MP.
    Then kudos to you logical_song. It's a very interesting idea.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,486
    foxinsoxuk said:



    My reading shows that international increases in immigration have been a worldwide phenomenon that is difficult to reduce. Personally, I am much happier for this migration to come from EU countries with common values to us (and note more than 50% of EU migration is from the EU15 rather than more recent accession countries).

    I think that the Coalitions efforts have been appropriate, and that a few further steps are possible, in addition to the above, I would reduce the access to the welfare state for all migrants. This would perhaps require a root and branch reform for UK citizens to make benefits contribution dependent.

    I have also no objections to health screening of immigrants too, but HIV should not be singled out. There are many other worse and more expensive diseases.

    The idea that European countries have common values to us as opposed to many other countries around the world is one of the most ludicrous, bordering on racist, claims I have seen made on this subject.

    I know many more Indians living in India who have far closer cultural affinities to Britain than do many Poles, Germans or French living in England.

    Like I said, the current immigration system is inherently racist and you have just given a very good example of the subliminal bigotry it exemplifies.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    Is this a better way to predict election results?
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429903.400-gamers-polled-on-xbox-can-predict-us-election-results.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VDqNAvldUac
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    edited October 2014
    UKIP first past the post across the four Westminster by-elections in 2014, thus far!

    Wythenshawe, Newark, Heywood and Clacton aggregate votes:

    UKIP 46,458 (36.7%)
    Labour 35,693 (28.2%)
    Tories 33,115 (26.2%)
    LibDems 4,120 (3.3%)
    Green 3,363 (2.7%)
    BNP 708 (0.6%)
    others 3,021 (2.4%)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    logical_song said:

    Is this a better way to predict election results?
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429903.400-gamers-polled-on-xbox-can-predict-us-election-results.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VDqNAvldUac

    That's just a poll, with a very, large group of voters.

    Tesco could do the same by quizzing their club card holders.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Speedy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Sue Cameron - Vote for UKIP = let in Labour = loss of confidence from Tories.

    It's more complicated now:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/

    "Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."

    Vote UKIP in Rochester=get rid of Cameron.
    Now that's an incentive!

    http://markreckless.com/find-us/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    F1: post-race analysis here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-post-race-analysis.html

    Another red race, alas, but at least the qualifying bet reduces the loss.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,667
    chestnut said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Incorrect. Look at the data above. There are two sorts of 2010 LD switchers.

    Those who've switched already and large number of those who might tactically vote. Look at the YouGov detail to see. What could impede this move is LAB trying to be more beastly to immigrants than CON.

    I'm not seeing it.

    The number of current Lib Dems who might back Labour = 20%
    The number of current Lib Dems who might back Tory = 20%

    So, an even split in LAB/CON marginals, but with a chunk of Kippers likely to back the Tories (34%)

    In the case of LIB/CON marginals, Labour will back the Libs (36%), while the Kippers will back the Tories (30%)

    In LIB/LAB marginals 45% of Tories to back the Libs. Kippers not especially keen on either.


    This to me, points to:

    1) Tories to do better in Tory/Lab marginals than currently expected
    2) Libs to do better in both Tory/Lib and Lab/Lib marginals.

    It might not be enough to change results, but the tactics are against Labour,
    Hmmm. Here we have the Shadow Eq in post with a Majority of 192, and a strong Iib Dem with a recentIy expanded party.

    DecIared by Goodwin et ai to be a top 15 UKIP target.

    How to vote to get one fewer GIoria in the Commons?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,667
    We aIso in the area have Dennis the Menace.

    How to send him back to his miIIon pound fIat in CheIsea for good?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Dave, if the Conservatives axe Cameron they'll get slaughtered. He's a positive for the party.

    Worth recalling several Cabinet members have a vested interest in trying to get rid of him.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:



    My reading shows that international increases in immigration have been a worldwide phenomenon that is difficult to reduce. Personally, I am much happier for this migration to come from EU countries with common values to us (and note more than 50% of EU migration is from the EU15 rather than more recent accession countries).

    I think that the Coalitions efforts have been appropriate, and that a few further steps are possible, in addition to the above, I would reduce the access to the welfare state for all migrants. This would perhaps require a root and branch reform for UK citizens to make benefits contribution dependent.

    I have also no objections to health screening of immigrants too, but HIV should not be singled out. There are many other worse and more expensive diseases.

    The idea that European countries have common values to us as opposed to many other countries around the world is one of the most ludicrous, bordering on racist, claims I have seen made on this subject.

    I know many more Indians living in India who have far closer cultural affinities to Britain than do many Poles, Germans or French living in England.

    Like I said, the current immigration system is inherently racist and you have just given a very good example of the subliminal bigotry it exemplifies.
    It is not racist. I too share many common values with my Indian colleagues. Educated professional Indians tend to feel at home in England. I know, after all I do live in Leicester. I also find that Philipino Nurses and Malaysian Doctors integrate well.

    But it is not enough to speak English, have a higher degree and work for a living to integrate into British culture. Most of the 9/11 bombers would have met the points system.

    EU migrants will just be other Brits with un-spellable surnames within a generation or two. Just look at how well integrated the postwar East European refugees are now. They are not the migrants who set up ethnic ghettos and refuse to intermarry.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. L, is Miliband fiddling with the Shadow Cabinet?

    Don't know, I was just commenting on what was said down thread. I think he would be better advised not to.

    Very dull race I thought. Quite incredible that a driver should have to take a prolonged stop and tyre change on the first lap and still come second. Shows how uncompetitive it is at the moment. As bad as Red Bull were over the last few years.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,486
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:



    My reading shows that international increases in immigration have been a worldwide phenomenon that is difficult to reduce. Personally, I am much happier for this migration to come from EU countries with common values to us (and note more than 50% of EU migration is from the EU15 rather than more recent accession countries).

    I think that the Coalitions efforts have been appropriate, and that a few further steps are possible, in addition to the above, I would reduce the access to the welfare state for all migrants. This would perhaps require a root and branch reform for UK citizens to make benefits contribution dependent.

    I have also no objections to health screening of immigrants too, but HIV should not be singled out. There are many other worse and more expensive diseases.

    The idea that European countries have common values to us as opposed to many other countries around the world is one of the most ludicrous, bordering on racist, claims I have seen made on this subject.

    I know many more Indians living in India who have far closer cultural affinities to Britain than do many Poles, Germans or French living in England.

    Like I said, the current immigration system is inherently racist and you have just given a very good example of the subliminal bigotry it exemplifies.
    It is not racist. I too share many common values with my Indian colleagues. Educated professional Indians tend to feel at home in England. I know, after all I do live in Leicester. I also find that Philipino Nurses and Malaysian Doctors integrate well.

    But it is not enough to speak English, have a higher degree and work for a living to integrate into British culture. Most of the 9/11 bombers would have met the points system.

    EU migrants will just be other Brits with un-spellable surnames within a generation or two. Just look at how well integrated the postwar East European refugees are now. They are not the migrants who set up ethnic ghettos and refuse to intermarry.

    The 9/11 reference is frankly ludicrous. No one has claimed that a points system would stop terrorists coming into the country. That is a complete straw man argument. The basic fact of the matter is that to have an effective immigration policy which serves both the country and the migrants fairly and effectively you cannot have a gaping hole in it caused by EU free movement rules.

    The current system is inherently racist for the very reasons I have explained and it is shameful that you are defending it for whatever strange Eurofanatical reasons you might have.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. L, slightly unfair as the title race is very close.

    That said, the race was on the boring side. Too hard to overtake and bulletproof tyres do not make for excitement.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    If the Tories win Rochester, is Farage not finished?

    No more defectors. Carswell a rival power base, with real democratic authority...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Actually, there is at least one ShadCab member Ed could sack with impunity.

    Caroline Flint

    Then she could appear on TV the next day complaining about window dressing
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, if the Conservatives axe Cameron they'll get slaughtered. He's a positive for the party.

    Worth recalling several Cabinet members have a vested interest in trying to get rid of him.

    Not that clear to me.

    "Do you have a favourable/unfavourable view of:

    David Cameron: +25% / -48%
    Conservative Party: +25% / -48%"

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Scott_P said:

    If the Tories win Rochester, is Farage not finished?

    No more defectors. Carswell a rival power base, with real democratic authority...

    No. But wish-away. :-)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    On topic, it's interesting that UKIP break, if they do at all, heavily for the Conservatives, while the Lib Dems break evenly for the Conservatives and Labour.

    We're finally seeing the fall of the left in this country. What's particularly great is that the more they ignore the people on matters like immigration and multiculturalism, the more this will happen. Labour is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and they won't be able to import immigrants fast enough to make up for the loss of their WWC base. Though God knows they'll try.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Scott_P said:

    If the Tories win Rochester, is Farage not finished?

    No more defectors. Carswell a rival power base, with real democratic authority...

    What odds will you offer me that, if UKIP lost Rochester, they'll still increase their MPs in 2015?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited October 2014
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    The 9/11 reference is frankly ludicrous. No one has claimed that a points system would stop terrorists coming into the country. That is a complete straw man argument. The basic fact of the matter is that to have an effective immigration policy which serves both the country and the migrants fairly and effectively you cannot have a gaping hole in it caused by EU free movement rules.

    The current system is inherently racist for the very reasons I have explained and it is shameful that you are defending it for whatever strange Eurofanatical reasons you might have.

    I think discriminating on the grounds of nationality alone is illogical and unfair, but it's not racist. And foxinsoxuk is right about integration. Just look at the following map of how non-white immigrant groups cluster themselves to particular areas while white immigrant groups are evenly spread:

    http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ethnic_density1.jpg
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025