politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation poll for the Mirror showing LAB 4% ahead could ta
Comments
-
Most of the pollsters don't include UKIP in their prompts. I'm expecting that to change before April 2015. UKIP got 22% NEV at the 2013 local elections, 18% NEV in 2014.JohnLilburne said:
On current figures (averaging around 16%) that looks unlikely. It involves gaining voters due to the glare of election campaign publicity (and we saw last time that can evaporate as quickly as it happens) and not losing people who either (a) currently give "protest VI" in polls but intend to vote for a mainstream party at the GE and (b) get cold feet during the election campaign.anotherDave said:Mr O'Flynn's interview in the Spectator suggests that UKIP think 20% is a realistic target.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
Throughout the month before the 2014 EU Parliament elections UKIP got constant negative coverage from the national media. They still won the election.
The decline of Con/Lab support is a long term trend.
0 -
By Sally?rottenborough said:Our very own Nick Palmer is 500/1 to be next Labour leader on Ladbrokes. He shares this price point with Sally Bercow. I'm tempted...
0 -
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.0 -
Must be code for get rid of a political party leader with a terminal disease. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?Financier said:See in the Guardian that Polly Toynbee is commenting on Assisted Dying and not the political story of the moment. Has she been demoted, not trusted, is she heartbroken or just enjoying the Tuscan sun?
0 -
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con <60%JohnLilburne said:
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.TGOHF said:MarqueeMark said:
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?Sean_F said:When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
0 -
TGOHF - I'd vote Labour if that was what was on offer. Snowballs / Hell though!TGOHF said:MarqueeMark said:
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?Sean_F said:When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.0 -
See @Sean_Fs post. In that scenario no one wins.BenM said:
Most of us call that "winning", last time it enabled the Tories to form a government that looks like it will last the full 5 years, with help from the LDs of course. (And if they lose a substantial amount of votes and/or seats I will happily say they "lost" just as Gordon did last time).JohnLilburne said:
An interesting assertion. Just where do you think that 9% is going to go at the election?BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
Take 9 off UKIP, distribute a couple to Labour, the balance to Tories and you get back to the range other pollsters are showing. It's a brave move to predict an election 5 months away on the basis of 1 poll, which is a bit of an outlier, with some votes redistributed at your whim. But hey ho.
0 -
Does everyone in France have to pay £26? If so, then that is okay according to the EU laws. If not, then it's the bloody French ignoring the rules again!!TGOHF said:
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+ConJohnLilburne said:
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.TGOHF said:MarqueeMark said:
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?Sean_F said:When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
0 -
Quite - and that was 20 seconds not 4 years - it's hardly rocket salad innit ?Patrick said:
TGOHF - I'd vote Labour if that was what was on offer. Snowballs / Hell though!TGOHF said:MarqueeMark said:
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?Sean_F said:When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.0 -
Re: EdM
Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=+Justine+Miliband&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
0 -
Looking closely at the bigger picture:BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Immigration = big win for the rich/big business
massive lose for minimum wage/working class
Net effect : Negligible
Says it all that you think citing immigrants as net tax contributors, while "natives" are massive claimants is a point that helps your argument... it's the problem!
The parties saying they will be tough on immigrants benefits while allowing mass immigration of economic migrants are 10 years behind the 8 ball.. completely missing the point
0 -
I've realised the numbers I reported before were incorrect because the same research unit did the study twice - once in 2013 and once in 2014 - with the same title.
The correct number is that immigration has been a £114bn loss to the UK Treasury over the 16 years. And that's in 2011 prices. In current prices it's £120bn.
(I also note that the £4.4bn number quoted for 2001-2011 EU immigration was also in 2011 prices. Are journalists that report on the public sector so economically illiterate that they can't inflate time series to put them into current prices?)0 -
I think I could have reclaimed it through my E45 or whatever (sprog had chickenpox wasn't even me) - but frankly wasn't worth the hassle and the boy did a good job of diagnosing etc - no queue and no hassle getting appointment - was worth it.RobD said:
Does everyone in France have to pay £26? If so, then that is okay according to the EU laws. If not, then it's the bloody French ignoring the rules again!!TGOHF said:
Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+ConJohnLilburne said:
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.TGOHF said:MarqueeMark said:
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?Sean_F said:When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
0 -
There's definitely a cabal objective to replace Farage. He's got political savvy, and knows when to buy and when to sell. He seized control of the Party from Natrass, who's the prime backer of Nikki Sinclaire's new party. Andreassen was the EU's former accountant, and could have been playing a double game. We'll never know.TGOHF said:
My point exactly - it shows a pattern that as women rise they get put down - by Nigel. MA certainly claimed that was the case when she went.Tapestry said:
That shows a lack of knowledge. Nikki Sinclaire has left UKIP and has set up another Party. Andreasen has been sidelined. Atkinson or Evans, sure. I am sure the controlling cabal of British politics will be very keen to get rid of Farage as soon as they can.TGOHF said:
Janice Atkinson ?Socrates said:
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.TGOHF said:
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.Freggles said:Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Marta Andreasen ?
Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
0 -
I'm surprised the consequences of HMG passing powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU hasn't had more media attention.Socrates said:
"Concentrated clusters of support". UKIP are increasingly sewing up the eurosceptic vote, the anti-mass immigration vote and the anti-London vote. They need to win back the libertarian vote with a high profile campaign on civil liberties, vowing to bring back habeas corpus, a right to privacy, no government searches without individual warrants, the right to free speech etc. It could also win them friends in the media and the chattering classes.anotherDave said:
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9361742/ukips-patrick-oflynn-on-the-genius-nigel-farage-and-why-douglas-carswells-votes-wont-set-party-policy/0 -
No. As we've all been living beyond our means total non-British born have been too - many of them because they've moved from productive years to retirement where they quite rightly benefit from their earlier (and not measured in the study) contribution.BenM said:
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Recent EU immigration - of young, well educated, workers have been net contributors (probably very much like their UK peers, except someone else paid for their education - so almost certainly more "net positive" than their UK peers) as you would expect. If they retire here they will be a drain - and why not, after they have contributed?0 -
That bit is the niff naff and trivia.Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.0 -
But you were accessing French health services in exactly the same way as a Frenchman. If they come to the UK to live they have to be able to access healthcare in exactly the same way as a Brit.TGOHF said:Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare. Then to get access to the NHS you would at least have to be a taxpayer or in receipt of benefits. That's how it seems to work in Belgium, for example - if you retired early and moved to Belgium you would not be covered by the Belgian healthcare system and would have to arrange your own insurance. (Once you get your UK State Pension, however, you would be covered as Belgians who get benefits are covered, therefore so are any EU citizens who get Social Security benefits).
0 -
Xlibris1 @Xlibris1 · 24m24 minutes ago
YouGov: What shld UK do with European Arrest Warrant
Opt-In Cons 63 Lab 63 LibDems 68 Ukip 42
Opt-Out Cons 20 Lab 13 LibDems 18 Ukip 34
As John Rentoul notes, even UKIP voters back opting into the European Arrest Warrant.0 -
Ed was perfectly entitled to go for the job. The problem lies not in his own over-inflated idea of his abilities but in the Labour movement's capacity to assess them or prioritise them appropriately.TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: EdM
Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=+Justine+Miliband&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
It might be appropriate to criticise him had he destroyed his brother's career and lost as well but he didn't.0 -
As I said below - I'm sure some clever clogs could come up with a system to ensure free at point of care for citizens/taxpayers and direct family. Others cared for but must pony up a credit card.JohnLilburne said:
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare.TGOHF said:Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
0 -
If the a party most vulnerable to the current UKIP surge is Con ,then it follows that if closer to the GE. the UKIP share declines then the main beneficiary will be the CONS.
Bad news for Labour whose upward potential is less easy to spot..0 -
You're using the need to stand in parliament as a requirement for the start of dating for the Tories, yet you then start UKIP's period from 15 years before they had a parliamentary party? It's especially hypocritical when you consider that it was down to the Tories that it took so long for women to be elected to parliament.david_herdson said:
That's rather unfair considering that women couldn't even be elected to parliament until 1918. On that basis, it took 61 years.Socrates said:
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.TGOHF said:
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.Freggles said:Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
If you reckon on it taking at least 15 years for an MP to ascend to the leadership under the requirements assumed necessary until recently, then it comes down to something closer to 45.
UKIP, as the Anti-Federalist League, was founded in 1991. They're more than halfway through their first 45 years and have had an all-male line-up so far.0 -
How much have you bet on UKIP under 5 seats?audreyanne said:
Better than ever, but we could do with a few more polls like this Survation one this side of Christmas. We have to keep EdM in place until February.Swiss_Bob said:How's a Con majority Govt looking now compared to a few days ago?
UKIP will fade away when politics gets serious next year.0 -
Tory+DUP about 304 seats.Socrates said:
Tory-DUP with Lib Dems and UKIP providing confidence and supply.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?Sean_F said:
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.
UKIP with only 5 seats can be ignored.
SNP and LibDem might have to be involved somehow.
How about Con+Lab grand coalition?0 -
I may be entitled to do a lot of things but I choose not to do some when I know the consequences will be very bad for a close relative and I am not 90%+ sure that I would be a better choice. It is all a question of judgement.david_herdson said:
Ed was perfectly entitled to go for the job. The problem lies not in his own over-inflated idea of his abilities but in the Labour movement's capacity to assess them or prioritise them appropriately.TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: EdM
Hard to have sympahy for a man who destroys the career of his older brother just because he has an over-inflated idea of his own abilities. Biblical. What role did Mrs Justine Miliband play?
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=+Justine+Miliband&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
It might be appropriate to criticise him had he destroyed his brother's career and lost as well but he didn't.
We need in our Leaders people who have good judgement.0 -
You have to laugh at how our media gets played by a pro-immigration study conducted by immigrants. Even under their optimistic assumptions:CopperSulphate said:
That bit is the niff naff and trivia.Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
EEA migrants: £4bn gain
non-EEA migrants: £118bn loss
Which is the significant number to report?0 -
Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf0 -
The out of touch kippers last night told me it was a vote loser for Dave and the Tories when I pointed out that pollingantifrank said:Xlibris1 @Xlibris1 · 24m24 minutes ago
YouGov: What shld UK do with European Arrest Warrant
Opt-In Cons 63 Lab 63 LibDems 68 Ukip 42
Opt-Out Cons 20 Lab 13 LibDems 18 Ukip 34
As John Rentoul notes, even UKIP voters back opting into the European Arrest Warrant.0 -
You said "citizens" though, that's very different from "taxpayers". And you are going to have to find a way of including benefit claimants, and excluding foreigner from getting benefits. That's not impossible - as far as I can tell, most EU countries have systems that are not as open to people turning up and freeloading - but no-one really wants to talk about making the qualification method suitable for the world we find ourselves in.TGOHF said:
As I said below - I'm sure some clever clogs could come up with a system to ensure free at point of care for citizens/taxpayers and direct family. Others cared for but must pony up a credit card.JohnLilburne said:
One way to do it would be to explicitly state that part of tax and/or NI was to pay for health services, and add a notional amount onto benefits to pay for healthcare.TGOHF said:Meh - get aroundable - I used a GP in France and had to pony up £26. My fundamental human rights were not broken. This paucity of thought running scared from EU law is what got Lab+Con
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
0 -
Actually the effects of WW1 and WW2 has been to suppress the growth of the 65+ in the population, we are now entering a period where the effects of those events are fading out.CarlottaVance said:
No. As we've all been living beyond our means total non-British born have been too - many of them because they've moved from productive years to retirement where they quite rightly benefit from their earlier (and not measured in the study) contribution.BenM said:
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Recent EU immigration - of young, well educated, workers have been net contributors (probably very much like their UK peers, except someone else paid for their education - so almost certainly more "net positive" than their UK peers) as you would expect. If they retire here they will be a drain - and why not, after they have contributed?
0 -
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf0 -
He is off once again....
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Those running the Conservative party have lost so many members, they have to get each Cabinet minister down to #rochester 5 times
0 -
Is it true that the Wings over Zomerzet poll asked a mighty total of 10 (TEN) people for their opinion ?
0 -
It is.TheScreamingEagles said:
The out of touch kippers last night told me it was a vote loser for Dave and the Tories when I pointed out that pollingantifrank said:Xlibris1 @Xlibris1 · 24m24 minutes ago
YouGov: What shld UK do with European Arrest Warrant
Opt-In Cons 63 Lab 63 LibDems 68 Ukip 42
Opt-Out Cons 20 Lab 13 LibDems 18 Ukip 34
As John Rentoul notes, even UKIP voters back opting into the European Arrest Warrant.
Con/Lab/LD all back opting in, UKIP alone back staying out. So the Conservatives are more likely to lose support than win it.
0 -
Another poor showing for the Tories there.TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
No sign of any improvement in their share. Electorate not buying the snake oil it seems.0 -
We've done a very bad job of highlighting the negative aspects of this situation. This case should have got a lot more attention:TheScreamingEagles said:
The out of touch kippers last night told me it was a vote loser for Dave and the Tories when I pointed out that pollingantifrank said:Xlibris1 @Xlibris1 · 24m24 minutes ago
YouGov: What shld UK do with European Arrest Warrant
Opt-In Cons 63 Lab 63 LibDems 68 Ukip 42
Opt-Out Cons 20 Lab 13 LibDems 18 Ukip 34
As John Rentoul notes, even UKIP voters back opting into the European Arrest Warrant.
http://www.fairtrials.org/press/after-a-four-year-ordeal-andrew-symeou-is-cleared-by-greek-courts/
The EAW is a huge affront to individual liberty. Whether popular or not, UKIP are right to campaign against it for moral reasons. I don't think even the most ardent supporter of the EU can justify what has happened to Mr Symeou.
Every MP voting for this measure knows full well they will be creating more cases like this, where innocent people have their lives wrecked because basic liberal checks on justice have been swept away in the name of European integration.0 -
Ok, so you won't answer my simple, specific questions. Why not?BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.0 -
Populus is this PB Tory's gold standardMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf 0 -
@Kevin_Maguire: Miliband's Parachute Regiment: his staff want to be dropped into safe seats. My @NewStatesman column http://t.co/SOh6rZIB1K0
-
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.0 -
Seems all the 2.66 for Ed Miliband has gone0
-
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/07/fall-in-real-wages-across-uk
What’s more worrying however is how the mix of occupations – particularly the decline in managerial roles and the rise of low-skilled occupations – is dragging down wage growth. It’s not yet clear whether this is a temporary blip or the start of a new shift in patterns of UK employment
So, if you sack a load of middle management people in the NHS and replace them with extra midwives and nurses is it a good or bad thing that average wages decline?0 -
Except it did. Page 26, Table 6, first line:BenM said:
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?0 -
Yup. That's almost exactly where I'm at.Sean_F said:
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, could you clarify: is 2.66 for him to stay or go?0
-
Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland · 16h 16 hours agoRobD said:
Which 'poll' is this?TGOHF said:Is it true that the Wings over Zomerzet poll asked a mighty total of 10 (TEN) people for their opinion ?
Uniquely among the 10 people we polled on, there's a large gender gap between men and women on Jim Murphy. (Women like him much less.)
0 -
Just had a look at those Survation tables. Bloody hell.isam said:
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?0 -
Based on the latest average polling figures, Prof. Stephen Fisher's weekly projection of 2015 GE seats (with last week's comparatives) shows the following:
Con ............ 300 (- 2 seats)
Lab ............. 291 (unchanged)
LibDem ........ 28 (+ 2 seats)
Others ......... 31 (unchanged)
Total .......... 650 seats0 -
I stuck £50 on him this morning at 2.66 to be next PM.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, could you clarify: is 2.66 for him to stay or go?
0 -
It'd be Con Minority on those figures IMHO. I wrote a thread on this over a month ago, tipping it at 10/1, which I'm sure you remember.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?Sean_F said:
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.
Some sort of temporary confidence & supply deal with the Lib Dems for a pet project or two (like local authority PR and a new crack at Lords reform, plus EU referendum vote support, might be possible) so with an effective majority of 6, a government might last for 18 months-2 years.0 -
Laying Miliband at 2.66 to be next PM is either someone "knowing" or someone panicing given Labour are still favourites in the Most Seats market.0
-
Mr. Pulpstar, ah.
Hmm. Whilst a realistic (alas) possibility, that's a bit shorter than I'd want, but there we are.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), 10 people does not make a poll.0 -
The Speccy reported that Barbara Windsor gave Mr Cameron an earful at that meeting.Scott_P said:@Kevin_Maguire: Miliband's Parachute Regiment: his staff want to be dropped into safe seats. My @NewStatesman column http://t.co/SOh6rZIB1K
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/carry-on-prime-minister-david-cameron-meets-veterans-starlets/0 -
The BenM line:
"EEA immigration is great! It makes up for 4% of the loss from non-EEA immigration! Therefore more immigration is needed!"0 -
LAB 332 CON 269 LD 22 others 27 EICIPM
todays Populus0 -
Shorter than you'd want o_O ?!#Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, ah.
Hmm. Whilst a realistic (alas) possibility, that's a bit shorter than I'd want, but there we are.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), 10 people does not make a poll.
You should be piling on Tories most seats in that case then. (As to whether Labour or Con most seats is value right now, well that is a tricky question - probably Tories but I'd buy Labour at evens.)0 -
Alas, Mr. Pulpstar, I try to limit my betting as much as possible.
I think a second election could occur.0 -
Mind the gap.
Betfair most seats at GE narrowing nicely0 -
-
In 2015 ?Morris_Dancer said:Alas, Mr. Pulpstar, I try to limit my betting as much as possible.
I think a second election could occur.
Find top price and I'll beat it for you.0 -
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.0 -
This forecast consistently has NOM with Lab most seats.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
I think that is the most likely result0 -
Read your latest blogpost this morning on this. Very good. Those (reversed) seat figures would require Labour to win around 50 seats from the Tories (+40 tory, +8 lib dem and -10 SNP = + 38 seats net) and I just can't see them doing that.antifrank said:
That is in the sort of range I can imagine. I'd reverse the Conservatives and Labour scores.Sean_F said:
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
It'd require the whole Tory 40:40 defence strategy to fail 100%. I will write another blog post on this over the next week or so.
About 30 Tory gains is the best Labour can hope for IMHO. And I expect closer to 20.0 -
Is that three Scottish Tory seats? *lies down*bigjohnowls said:This forecast consistently has NOM with Lab most seats.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
I think that is the most likely result0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, ha, I don't bet (as you know) with other people, just Ladbrokes and Betfair.0
-
Great news for my oil price bet, the pound has slipped to 1.5819 !0
-
If you exclude Survatron, then maybe. If you use the BBC poll of polls then definitely.isam said:
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?
Tricky 'cos there's lots of polls and some are rogue.0 -
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.JohnLilburne said:
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
0 -
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?Socrates said:
Except it did. Page 26, Table 6, first line:BenM said:
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
0 -
We should get the Gold Standard on Monday.RobD said:
Populus is this PB Tory's gold standardMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf0 -
-
Populus seem very reluctant to believe that people are changing sides. They still have the SNP in the mid 30s and UKIP averaging 11 in the SE.
C2DE :
Populus: Labour 42 UKIP 16
Yougov: Labour 37 UKIP 210 -
Don't back 2 GEs 2015, it is a poor value bet at 10-1 (Top price I think). Hence my offer.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, ha, I don't bet (as you know) with other people, just Ladbrokes and Betfair.
0 -
1.92 Firewall for Labour ?Scrapheap_as_was said:Mind the gap.
Betfair most seats at GE narrowing nicely
0 -
You're wasting your time. He knows that immigration is a positive economic benefit and no data is going to change that basic fact.Socrates said:
Except it did. Page 26, Table 6, first line:BenM said:
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?0 -
WTF is going on over on the wiki page for opinion polls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?0 -
YES or NO lets not beat around the bushlogical_song said:
If you exclude Survatron, then maybe. If you use the BBC poll of polls then definitely.isam said:
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?
Tricky 'cos there's lots of polls and some are rogue.0 -
It is their comedy weighting. In fact even though UKIP went up +1 to 14 with Populus it looks like a bang average poll to them for me as they have slipped below 300 in the unweights.chestnut said:Populus seem very reluctant to believe that people are changing sides. They still have the SNP in the mid 30s and UKIP averaging 11 in the SE.
C2DE :
Populus: Labour 42 UKIP 16
Yougov: Labour 37 UKIP 210 -
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.BenM said:3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.0 -
BenM - so is it fair that a Polish home owner can travel to London, get housing benefit and all the rest... but a Aberfan home owner won't get any help to move. Does this explain to you why the British haven't moved from down turned areas but the Poles can?0
-
Under those conditions YES, otherwise NO. Can't you read?isam said:
YES or NO lets not beat around the bushlogical_song said:
If you exclude Survatron, then maybe. If you use the BBC poll of polls then definitely.isam said:
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?
Tricky 'cos there's lots of polls and some are rogue.0 -
Nicola Sturgeon's top priority - get more pandas!RobD said:
Is that three Scottish Tory seats? *lies down*bigjohnowls said:This forecast consistently has NOM with Lab most seats.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
I think that is the most likely result
0 -
Survation seems to include an EU referendum question, but they don't separate out the numbers.
table 4, using weighted numbers
in: 547, out: 780, undecided: 200, total: 1537
in: 35%
Out: 50%
0 -
You said maybe!logical_song said:
Under those conditions YES, otherwise NO. Can't you read?isam said:
YES or NO lets not beat around the bushlogical_song said:
If you exclude Survatron, then maybe. If you use the BBC poll of polls then definitely.isam said:
I offer to take EVEN money that UKIP tie or lead the Tories in a GE opinion poll before May 7thMarqueeMark said:
Hmmm.... UKIP 19% behind the Tories - or 3%? That is a massive polling gap....TheScreamingEagles said:Populus
Lab 35 (nc) Con 33 (-1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_07_11-2014_BPC.pdf
Any takers?
Tricky 'cos there's lots of polls and some are rogue.
So if I take out my most likely chance of winning you want the bet?0 -
The self-employed WTC scam. I believe that under UC you will be deemed to be working at at least minimum wage, so if you "earn" £20 a week you will be deemed to only be working 3 hours per week and therefore not qualified for in-work benefits. There's no reason why it can't be brought in earlier. It seems a bit harsh, however, for someone who is genuinely self-employed, going through a bad patch, working day and night to get in new business but not actually getting any chargeable work.Indigo said:
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.JohnLilburne said:
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.
0 -
Sorry, typo: 40 seats needed for Labour for that from the Tories. Not 50.Casino_Royale said:
Read your latest blogpost this morning on this. Very good. Those (reversed) seat figures would require Labour to win around 50 seats from the Tories (+40 tory, +8 lib dem and -10 SNP = + 38 seats net) and I just can't see them doing that.antifrank said:
That is in the sort of range I can imagine. I'd reverse the Conservatives and Labour scores.Sean_F said:
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.BenM said:Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
It'd require the whole Tory 40:40 defence strategy to fail 100%. I will write another blog post on this over the next week or so.
About 30 Tory gains is the best Labour can hope for IMHO. And I expect closer to 20.0 -
Gorge Osborne pushing the £1.7 Bn to the TOP of the agenda got Ed off of top story this morning on the news.TheScreamingEagles said:
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.BenM said:3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
A superb calculation by George to take the heat off.0 -
Yes. Check the requirements to enter say German as an non-EU National: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_GermanyTheKingofLangley said:
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
"As Germany does not allow immigration without cause, it is necessary to be either enrolled with a school or university, have a specific job offer that fits the requirements of one of the work permit categories or intend to reunify with close family (spouse or minors) already within Germany (family reunification visa)."
0 -
Ahem. Stella.Financier said:
Normally Labour does not do pretty girls (look what happened to Blair's babes) but prefers the Bessie Braddocks or Abbots. Look how Caroline Flint was treated and her resentment but did not receive the support of the 'sisters'.Freggles said:Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
https://www.google.com/search?q=stella+creasy&client=firefox-a&hs=OF3&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_Z1cVNn9CoyraZ3PgagL&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=9300 -
the reason just two grumpy MPs apparently actively agitating for the leadership has received so much coverage is that for months journalists have been talking off the record to Labourites who are privately increasingly unhappy – and increasing numbers of them feel this way. Those two MPs, still anonymous, are just the tip of a very big iceberg of misery. Reports of unrest, though, may uncork the tensions in the party and lead to more MPs taking a calculated risk to speak out. Or, they may have the opposite effect and cause the party to band tighter together against what it sees as a hostile press out to get it. We just don’t know yet.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/why-labour-unrest-is-getting-so-much-attention/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter0 -
Sounds good to me, not least because I fancy retiring to Europe myself!TheKingofLangley said:
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?Socrates said:
Except it did. Page 26, Table 6, first line:BenM said:
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?0 -
Looking at the data tables that Survation poll is quite old for them. It was conducted last Friday and Saturday.
Normally they have a quicker turnaround than that.0 -
Oh bless you you little tribalist TSE!TheScreamingEagles said:
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.BenM said:3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
If Labour are in the lead at the start of April, they'll win regardless of the campaign. People's minds will be made up. Tories need to be in the clear before then.
They may well be though. That's the Tory opprtunity.0 -
Firstly, it depends on whether you only look at the impact on the Treasury, or also look at the effect on house prices, the NHS, school places, infrastructure congestion, community disruption etc.TheKingofLangley said:
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?Socrates said:
Except it did. Page 26, Table 6, first line:BenM said:
Except it didn't did it Socrates?Socrates said:
Except even in the study you lauded, it showed that overall immigration = huge budgetary loss.BenM said:
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:JonnyJimmy said:@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
That's just what you wanted it to say.
Unfortunately the report directly contraicted your anti-immigration position.
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
The £4.4bn from EEA migration (the figure splashed everywhere) is overwhelmed by the £118.0bn loss from non-EEA migration.
You can read, can't you?
Secondly, it depends what you mean by "need". It is probable that much of the EU contribution comes from the highly skilled, and that the lowly skilled are a net drain. Thus if we cut out the lowly skilled, we'd get a much bigger net gain.0 -
Last time, half the voters hadn't made up their minds until after the campaign began.BenM said:
Oh bless you you little tribalist TSE!TheScreamingEagles said:
3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.BenM said:3 polls in 24 hours, all with Labour in the lead.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
So less chance of Ed being removed.
The Tories will be rejoicing, rejoicing, REJOICING at that news.
Remember the conference season was a microcosm of the election campaign.
You can't hide Ed for a six week long campaign.
If Labour are in the lead at the start of April, they'll win regardless of the campaign. People's minds will be made up. Tories need to be in the clear before then.
They may well be though. That's the Tory opprtunity.0 -
Simplest thing is to make child benefit payable only to children resident with the claimant, housing benefit dependent on a history of NI contributions, and to restrict tax credits to the amount of income tax and NI paid by the recipient.Indigo said:
We could also stop people coming to the country, selling a couple of Big Issues, getting an NI number and being eligible for £550/wk of in-work benefits. That would reduce the benefit bill, and stop a load of angry pensioners that have paid NI Contributions all their life for less money peeling off to UKIP.JohnLilburne said:
One quick (but small) win would be to exclude child benefit from being paid in respect of children not resident in the UK, I am happy to do that for all UK citizens with immediate effect.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
