politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two pollsters, three polls, and UKIP shares between 16% and

TGOHF said:

Suggests women are more concerned about waking up with Ed Miliband ?

Or that other poll which indicated men didn't like the thought of Boris's hands on the nuclear button, while women were Ok with that 'cos at least they would then know where his hands were ;-)

On leader's debates:

Should be included (net):
Cameron:+85
Miliband:+ 84
Clegg:+68
Farage:+45
Bennett:+18
Galloway: -32
Salmond/Sturgeon: Not asked (???)

12-month YouGov moving average chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)

Gadfly said:

12-month YouGov moving average chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)

Looking at your charts I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP were polling near Labour by the GE.

The Greens are coming (to split the left's vote), Greens eye twelve seats: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/18/green-party-general-election-12-seats-england

Bristol W amongst others are listed.

NB Betfair have put up a Greens UK seat totals market, I did ask for some of the constituencies such as Bristol W but no luck yet. I'll send them a link to the Guardian article.

Swiss_Bob said:

Gadfly said:

12-month YouGov moving average chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c4xa21uzo0nu76/12-month YouGov 19 October 2014.jpg#

YouGov moving average chart since 2010 General Election...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4h5m6aai92thmk9/YouGov since 2010 GE 19 October 2014.jpg#

I noticed on Friday that there have been 1066 YouGov's since the 2010 election. There's something memorable about that number, but I can't recall what it is ;-)

The Greens are coming (to split the left's vote), Greens eye twelve seats: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/18/green-party-general-election-12-seats-england

I asked YouGov for the Green Party data, with the aim of including it within my charts. Unfortunately, up to press this has not been forthcoming :-(

Dr Fox,

I'd agree. And his programme isn't a great advert for Labour. I'm surprised they haven't tried to get it banned.

dave says next election is most important in a generation.

Didn't he say that about the last one ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11171923/PM-warns-Britains-future-is-at-stake-in-most-important-election-in-a-generation.html

Off-topic:

Once Master Dancer awakes he may find some resonance with this version of the classic...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1ePVGmP3ek

I’m sure Electoral Calculus has blown a gasket; I’ve just put the ComRes (prompted) results into it and it gives UKIP three seats, two of them in Scotland.

No, I don’t think so eithjer!

NickPalmer said:

Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

You've successfully raised a generation who only give a monkeys about Liberty if it impinges them personally. Well done!

Frank Field on ed milibands immigration policies, and on Ukip


"“The programme we now have [on immigration] might have been adequate in 1997. But the whole nature of England has changed, with wages and living standards forced down. It is pissing while Roman burns...

...Apart from welfare reforms Ukip have adopted my policies. They want the restrictions that I want. They want justice over who gets social housing. These should all be Labour policies. I know we are supposed to present them as extreme wickedness but they don’t appear like that to lots of Labour voters who thought this was mainstream Labour policy."

Not defecting though

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/14/miliband-immigration-threat-labour-ex-minister-frank-field?CMP=twt_gu

foxinsoxuk said:

Pong said:

UKIP should embrace the emasculated bloke demographic - they should try and convince Jeremy Clarkson to stand against Ed in Doncaster North.

He'd do Labour a favour if he won.

While Jezza is very entertaining in his current job, I have not heard him express party political views or UKIP. I think he is a Tory, and probably a Cameronite.

Socially, at least, the answer is yes: Jeremy Clarkson is part of the Chipping Norton set.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015563/Elisabeth-Murdoch-threw-party-Camerons-cronies-hours-beofre-Milly-Dowler-scandal.html

OldKingCole said:

audreyanne said:

Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.

YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.

If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?

Bears out impression though doesn’t it, that a significant part of the UKIP vote was previously NOTA who weren’t preparted to vote LD. Or whatever. Whether they will ALL be prepared to turn out in May is the big question

I think that most of the analysis of the results of the Scottish referendum indicated that the success of the Yes campaign in getting previous non voters (a) on the register and (b) to the polling station was modest. What seems to have happened is that of those who had previously voted turned out giving the exceptional turnout.

Yes was convinced they would win because they really believed that these people would vote. ICM's discount of 50%, which for so long made them the gold standard, was vindicated under even the most extreme pressure of the most exceptional turnout.

All of which is a long way of saying that a more accurate way of assessing UKIP's likely support is to take that element of their support that did not vote at the last election and half it.

What an interesting discussion - George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show in January 2010:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489984.stm

Some highlights:

"at the moment we borrow money from the Chinese in order to buy the things that the Chinese make for us."

Four years of Osborne as Chancellor and the UK has a government deficit over £100bn and a balance of payments defict over £90bn. The icing on the overconsumption cake is that the UK is now selling government bonds in renminbi.

"In the 19th century we built the railways; in the 20th century we built the motorways. In the 21st century, let's build the super-fast Broadband network."

A good idea. But my broadband isn't any faster than it was in 2010 and the government has decided to throw tens of billions at '19th century' Expense Account Rail.

"we risk a Greek style budget crisis"

How can Osborne be talking about financial problems in Greece ? Haven't the PB Tories told us that the EuroZone problems didn't start until after Osborne had delivered his 2010 budget ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798607/bma-nhs-wales-faces-meltdown-waiting-times-record-levels-death-rates-higher-rest-uk.html

Will Burnham be asked about this???

another_richard said:

"... the UK is now selling government bonds in renminbi."

Isn't that a bad idea?

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

I found them quite interesting actually. Like you, I was also surprised on the answer on banning smoking in public open spaces. However, interesting that an even bigger number (60%) support a ban on using e-cigarettes in indoor public places, like restaurants and workplaces. Much harder to make the passive smoking/health argument with that one.

On smoking, it's interesting that on the long list of options under the "Which, if any, of the following did you find useful in giving up smoking tobacco?" question, 69% picked NOTA.

I've never smoked, but it seems the vast majority of ex-smokers must have found it very hard to give up. Perhaps they're against e-cigarettes, because it's too much of an unhelpful reminder of what they used to be able to do.

In my part of the world, there's a lot of communal and rental housing and smoking indoors is prohibited in most of these. You therefore see groups of smokers outside properties puffing away - the other no-go zone for smokers is of course the Underground for obvious reasons. The smokers therefore use the walk to the station to have a ciggy and the rest of us walking up the road to the station have to enjoy it too.

The concept of people being able to smoke indoors just doesn't exist any more.

anotherDave said:

In January 2013 YouGov experimented with prompting for UKIP in their EU Parliament poll.

They found a 4 point increase in UKIP's VI.

"Using our usual two-stage prompting, UKIP are doing seven points better in the EP election than in the Westminster election. Using a single list, UKIP are doing eleven points better. This suggests prompting for UKIP in a question on European voting intention would give them a boost of about four points"

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/

(YouGov included UKIP in their prompting for the EU Parliament campaign in 2014.)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/european-elections-ukip-closes-first-place/

To prompt or not to prompt has real consequences given that polling is used in the mix of metrics that inform the decisions of OFCOM, the BBC and other broadcasters when determining fair ratios of coverage.

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Fairly dull YG questions this week, but surprised to see majority support for a ban on smoking in public open places like parks.

I found them quite interesting actually. Like you, I was also surprised on the answer on banning smoking in public open spaces. However, interesting that an even bigger number (60%) support a ban on using e-cigarettes in indoor public places, like restaurants and workplaces. Much harder to make the passive smoking/health argument with that one.

On smoking, it's interesting that on the long list of options under the "Which, if any, of the following did you find useful in giving up smoking tobacco?" question, 69% picked NOTA.

I've never smoked, but it seems the vast majority of ex-smokers must have found it very hard to give up. Perhaps they're against e-cigarettes, because it's too much of an unhelpful reminder of what they used to be able to do.

In my part of the world, there's a lot of communal and rental housing and smoking indoors is prohibited in most of these. You therefore see groups of smokers outside properties puffing away - the other no-go zone for smokers is of course the Underground for obvious reasons. The smokers therefore use the walk to the station to have a ciggy and the rest of us walking up the road to the station have to enjoy it too.

The concept of people being able to smoke indoors just doesn't exist any more.

Where do you live?

Lots of rental properties in my area are non-smoking too. I guess it's only really do-able indoors 'at will' if you own your own home.

Smoking seems to have become an antisocial activity to do at all, in a way it wasn't even as recently as 10 years ago. Going back a little further (25 years or so) it was pretty much universal: offices, trains, planes, buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs... you couldn't really avoid it. I used to really resent smokers as selfish, for making me have to inhale it.

I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

I don't particularly like entering large shopping centres, or office buildings now, as you often have to waft through a cloud of fuggy tobacco outside the main entrance.

Blueberry said:

anotherDave said:

In January 2013 YouGov experimented with prompting for UKIP in their EU Parliament poll.

They found a 4 point increase in UKIP's VI.

"Using our usual two-stage prompting, UKIP are doing seven points better in the EP election than in the Westminster election. Using a single list, UKIP are doing eleven points better. This suggests prompting for UKIP in a question on European voting intention would give them a boost of about four points"

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/

(YouGov included UKIP in their prompting for the EU Parliament campaign in 2014.)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/european-elections-ukip-closes-first-place/

To prompt or not to prompt has real consequences given that polling is used in the mix of metrics that inform the decisions of OFCOM, the BBC and other broadcasters when determining fair ratios of coverage.

Nick Sparrow (ex ICM) said of prompting:

"The established conventions for question design in market research would be to ask for a spontaneous response, i.e without mentioning any possible choices, or prompt with all the main alternatives.

By this yardstick it becomes difficult to justify continuing to omit mention of UKIP at least, and arguably other smaller parties as well, as they appear to add up to a choice for almost one in five of those who would vote in a new election."

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/07/take-polls-with-large-pinch-of-salt-do-not-consume-in-excess/

Alanbrooke said:

I think you're just confused AR.

Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

I hope that clears matters up.

Like this guy...

@AdamBienkov: Labour's privatisation of the NHS was good but the government's privatisation of the NHS is bad, Andy Burnham tells #marr

surbiton said:

stodge said:

Alanbrooke said:

I think you're just confused AR.

Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

I hope that clears matters up.

Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.

Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years. Of course, it is all the Eurozones fault !

The biggest world-wide economic crisis since the 30's was all Labour's fault including the collapse of Lehmann, huge support for banks everywhere etc. etc.

Labour borrowed less than 40% of GDP right until the beginning of 2007. Less than Germany.

Today, our borrowings is approaching 90% of GDP.

The first budget next year will tell you nothing about how the deficit will be managed.

However the budget after the GE , will tell you everything.

If the present government continues in office 25% VAT, will be your appetiser.

Scott_P said:

Alanbrooke said:

I think you're just confused AR.

Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.

I hope that clears matters up.

Like this guy...

@AdamBienkov: Labour's privatisation of the NHS was good but the government's privatisation of the NHS is bad, Andy Burnham tells #marr

Apart from his not being Ed Miliband, it has never been entirely clear quite what is the appeal of Andy Burnham.

I'm intrigued to see the hostility to e-cigs, which I first encountered over the summer from my mother. I'm not a smoker, but I find this baffling. It suggests to me that the objection to smoking goes well beyond a public health concern and into aesthetics.

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Where do you live?

Lots of rental properties in my area are non-smoking too. I guess it's only really do-able indoors 'at will' if you own your own home.

Smoking seems to have become an antisocial activity to do at all, in a way it wasn't even as recently as 10 years ago. Going back a little further (25 years or so) it was pretty much universal: offices, trains, planes, buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs... you couldn't really avoid it. I used to really resent smokers as selfish, for making me have to inhale it.

I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.

I don't particularly like entering large shopping centres, or office buildings now, as you often have to waft through a cloud of fuggy tobacco outside the main entrance.

Home for me and Mrs Stodge is East Ham in the London Borough of Newham. There is a high proportion of rental accommodation while much of the rest is Tamil families where again smoking seems to be the activity of young men outside the family home.

When Mrs Stodge and I ate out in Cork after Ireland introduced a smoking ban (and before the UK) it was quite literally "a breath of fresh air". I think the smoking ban revolutionised dining in London and elsewhere and made eating out a real experience. I appreciate what it's done to "the traditional boozer" but it's made pubs much more pleasant places in my view.

The "smoking room" is now the pavement for many and as you say not easy for the rest of us to avoid. I also agree that smoking in parks is much less an issue.

Thanks Stodge. I agree with you on the revolution in dining; it's much more pleasant now.

Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

stodge said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?

Surbiton The US did let Lehmans go bust, Labour bailed out all UK banks that needed a bailout

stodge said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

stodge said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!

As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.

I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?

As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.

It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.

Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?

No, do I touch a note of regret - "You've never smoked, I wish I'd never smoked" ?

You haven't got time to listen to me tell you all the things I wish I'd never done...

Yorkcity said:

AlanBrooke

Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

This might illuminate us .

Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.

The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.

Alanbrooke said:

Yorkcity said:

AlanBrooke

Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

This might illuminate us .

Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.

Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Alanbrooke said:

Yorkcity said:

AlanBrooke

Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

This might illuminate us .

Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.

Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.

No I'd accept that he had his share of the blame, Black Wednesday was forced on him; but once he was free of the shackles, Ken Clarke did a reasonable job of restoring sanity to public finances and getting the country back onto the growth path.

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Alanbrooke said:

Yorkcity said:

AlanBrooke

Which was the last UK government you rated on the economy ?

This might illuminate us .

Major - he inherited total shit and faced up to it.

Shit he had in large part caused himself during his time as Chancellor, not least by forcing us into the ERM. Perhaps not the best example to use.

No I'd accept that he had his share of the blame, Black Wednesday was forced on him; but once he was free of the shackles, Ken Clarke did a reasonable job of restoring sanity to public finances and getting the country back onto the growth path.

I think my point is that Black Wednesday was not forced upon him. It was an inevitable result of the decision he made to persuade the previous administration to take us into the ERM. Clarke did indeed do well but it is worth considering if any of the restoration would have been necessary had not people like Clarke and Major been so desperately keen for us to be part of the ill considered European project.

antifrank said:

The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.

That just sums it up doesn't it. At least we aren't part of the insane death spiral of the eurozone, so let's be grateful. But antifrank, you have to ask why is it that if the current government's record is pretty good, the prognosis for the next 5 years isn't good? Doesn't suggest the coalition has really fixed things does it?

Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

FrankBooth said:

antifrank said:

The current government's economic record is pretty good. When you look at how its most obvious comparators have done in the same period, it's near or at the top of the class.

The prognosis for the next five years under either main party looks less good. Perhaps each is hoping to blame the betrayal of their current unaffordable promises on a hapless coalition partner.

That just sums it up doesn't it. At least we aren't part of the insane death spiral of the eurozone, so let's be grateful. But antifrank, you have to ask why is it that if the current government's record is pretty good, the prognosis for the next 5 years isn't good? Doesn't suggest the coalition has really fixed things does it?

It suggests, as DavidL says, that it's a longterm project and politicians don't have the patience or nerve to explain that. So they opt for silly promises that they have no intention of keeping, or where they have other less pleasant things up their sleeve for later.

A summary of the last month.

Chart: YouGov for last month

Bounce up for Conservatives after conference, then revert.

Bounce up for UKIP for by-election then revert.

Labour drop after Miliband Speech, and stay down.

LibDems steady on around 7.

t their strategy will be. Obviously some of this will depend upon the Rochester result. However, they are planning, according to my sources, a significant campaign of advertisements in the local press next month, at least here in the East of England. They are also adopting a strategy to maximise their presence even in seats where they have no serious prospects or where they think there will be major press attention during the GE Campaign. They are currently concentrating on main roads in these areas, trying to get as many poster sites as possible to give them an impact well beyond their actual support levels.

I think the Lib Dems with Connect and the Tories with Blue Chip and Merlin will probably pick this up. I'm not sure Labour will as they rarely analyze data using it just to confirm their pre-conceived ideas of what is happening. I therefore expect Labour to suffer disproportionally from these UKIP tactics, which could have a significant effect in some areas.

So, counter-intuitively UKIPs tactics could help the Tories, and even more oddly the Lib Dems in certain seats!

Sorry to repeat this, but it somehow got cut into two chunks!

It's important to be objective about UKIPs prospects if we are going to bet right. The key assessment we have to make is to examine what their strategy will be. Obviously some of this will depend upon the Rochester result. However, they are planning, according to my sources, a significant campaign of advertisements in the local press next month, at least here in the East of England. They are also adopting a strategy to maximise their presence even in seats where they have no serious prospects or where they think there will be major press attention during the GE Campaign. They are currently concentrating on main roads in these areas, trying to get as many poster sites as possible to give them an impact well beyond their actual support levels.

I think the Lib Dems with Connect and the Tories with Blue Chip and Merlin will probably pick this up. I'm not sure Labour will as they rarely analyze data using it just to confirm their pre-conceived ideas of what is happening. I therefore expect Labour to suffer disproportionally from these UKIP tactics, which could have a significant effect in some areas.

So, counter-intuitively UKIPs tactics could help the Tories, and even more oddly the Lib Dems in certain seats!

DavidL said:

The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.

Richard_Tyndall said:

antifrank said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?

He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.

When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.

However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.

The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.

And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?

In that case the EU referendum would be based on in/out on current terms. Unless PM Miliband does not allow a referendum.

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.

True. But many people in this country don't seem to understand and just think a Mansion Tax, or The 1%, or something will pay for everything. Then there wouldn't be any need for cutbacks.

Getting the message across to moderate consumption is not easy.

MarkHopkins said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

The incoherence of Labour's position(s) on the economy is just embarrassing.

First it was too far, too fast supposedly wreaking the economy with excessive cuts which were going to lead to mass unemployment. Then we found ourselves with the fastest growing economy in the EU generating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

Now it seems to be "why haven't you fixed this for us already?" no doubt so they can do the same again boosting wildly excessive borrowing to "invest" and create more "growth" that can drown in a sea of debt.

The fact is that the damage done to the UK economy in the years 2002-2010 was profound and will take at least a generation to put right, longer if we are daft enough to put Labour in charge in that period. We need to massively increase our output, we need to moderate our consumption, we need to eliminate the government and trade deficits and we need to start paying back the trillion we will have added to the national debt whilst this is happening. Actually it is more likely to take 2 generations, isn't it?

I agree. The fact that there are few people getting pay rises (and many of us including me serial pay cuts in real terms) is all part of a nessecary economic healing process. We were collectively living beyond our means, and are still some way off doing so.

UKIP's and Labours economic policies are even more in denial than the coalition parties. We should not be running a deficit at this phase in the economic cycle.

True. But many people in this country don't seem to understand and just think a Mansion Tax, or The 1%, or something will pay for everything. Then there wouldn't be any need for cutbacks.

Getting the message across to moderate consumption is not easy.

To reply to myself, I would add that consumption per se is not the problem, if only we were making the items we consumed in our own country.

@MarkHopkins
Moderating consumption is a lot easier when you have an excess of money to spend.
Unfortunately most of the moderating has been done by those with the least.