politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov polling shows the very difficult challenge ahead for

another_richard said:

JosiasJessop said:

In other news, that nice Danny Alexander was in my neck of the woods today, with an interesting announcement on housebuilding.

The Northstowe development comprises 10,000+ homes that are planned to be built on the site of the old Oakington airfield, to the north of Cambridge. First mooted in 2006 as an eco-town, there has been no meaningful development in the intervening years.

Today, Danny Alexander announced that the government will be building the development as a trial scheme. They will pay the builders to build the houses, which will then be sold on to the public. The government (hope) to regain its investment from those sales.

I cannot make up my mind whether this is genius or stupidity. It certainly promises to unblock the stalled development, but will the builders just take the government for a ride?

More importantly, will removing housebuilders from the planning of developments make for better communities, or will it just lead to faddy council-designed wastelands?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Northstowe-pilot-government-plans-fasttrack-new/story-25025985-detail/story.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c488029a-7a0b-11e4-8958-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3KmKVlN42

PFI seemed like a good idea at one time as well.

That sounds like it will be ripe for abuse.

To be fair (and going very off-topic), DBFO / PFI can be a good idea IMHO. DBFO (Design/Build/Finance/Operate) works well in limited projects, such as roads, which is where it was mainly used in the 1980s.

Roads are limited-scope projects, and the quality of the maintenance (essentially the 'operate' bit) can easily be checked by the Highways Agency or local authority.

In the case of schools and hospitals, the 'operate' bit can be orders of magnitude more complex, and is where many nastinesses can occur.

But yes, this housing scheme may be ripe for abuse, which is why a trial scheme is probably a good idea. Northstowe's been stalled for too long ...

HYUFD said:

Interesting stats on how the polls and party support have changed post 2010, broken down by demographic
http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/

Thats a great link. Seen a few people tweet it now.

Andy_Cooke said:

HurstLlama said:

And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.

Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.

Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.

It's endemic in so many people who strongly support a party. In order to justify themselves and dehumanise whoever they choose as an opponent, they declaim the motives of their opponent, which they can perceptively see as being stupid and/or malevolent (so as to enhance themselves relative to them).

"All Tories want to..."
"Lefties always detest..."
"UKippers are driven by..."
"Lib Dems just can't resist..."

...you know the rest.

The thing is - the only people they're really talking to are themselves. It doesn't appeal to those who they're traducing, the uninterested turn away in embarrassment, the neutral-but-interested feel disgust.

It's simply political masturbation. Feels good to those doing it, makes everyone seeing it feel uncomfortable.

It can be irritating when you try to have a sensible debate and partisans turn up frantically fapping away.

Quality post.

HYUFD said:

Interesting stats on how the polls and party support have changed post 2010, broken down by demographic
http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/

Thats a great link. Seen a few people tweet it now.

I actually think there is a really good series of thread to be had after looking at the data broken like that. Some pollsters are "seeing" quite different trends than others in both the overall share of votes and also in the different demographics.

The link confirms the main Tory losses have been amongst C1/C2s to UKIP with less of a drop amongst ABs and DEs

Labour support is actually down with ABs with Green support doubling and with C2s with a big rise in UKIP support, Labour support is only up significantly with DEs and slightly up with C1s

Green Party: 'We could win 20 seats next May'
By The Sun @TheSunNewspaper
LEADER Natalie Bennett made the claim as figures show party have doubled membership to 27,618 this year

Pigs might fly ..... supersonically!

Will we see a Tory lead with Sun/YouGov tonight?

Probably .............. not!

@iainmartin1: SNP stops one step short of book burning. Pamphlet burning instead. http://t.co/pt18T227l4

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Osborne's huge lead over Labour
on economy slips as pessimism returns http://t.co/9NAm4jOiqn

@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour have a one-point lead: CON 32%, LAB 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 7%

SquareRoot said:

AndyJS said:

If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.

All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/claridges-breastfeeding-babies

It must be OK.. Madonna got her tits out for Page 3 today, but some women do it in the hope that someone will complain... it advances the feminist agenda..

It's a woman feeding a baby. That's all.

I really don't get the problem?

Pong said:

SquareRoot said:

AndyJS said:

If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.

All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/claridges-breastfeeding-babies

It must be OK.. Madonna got her tits out for Page 3 today, but some women do it in the hope that someone will complain... it advances the feminist agenda..

It's a woman feeding a baby. That's all.

I really don't get the problem?

Its not a problem, its only a problem when women flaunt it in public as they so often do. No hint of being discreet.

NEW THREAD

rcs1000 said:

My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state... I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them...

You're not alone.

There are more liberatarians out there than the major parties realise. The degree varies, of course. I think the state does have a valid role in things like law & order, defence, diplomacy/foreign policy, key infrastructure and a safety net approach for health & welfare. That probably makes me a lefty compared to the more fervent liberatarians who are close to anarchists! But it's very much to libertarian end of the spectrum compared to mainstream party politics in the UK.

No party adequately services voters like us, so we end up reluctantly voting for whichever one perceives as least worst (if you prioritise the economics, probably Tory; if you prioritise the social side, probably LD or Blarite Labour; if you think the lack of liberty is down to EU oversight, probably UKIP).

A party that could pull together all these disparate voters in a truly liberal (economically & socially) coalition could probably do quite well. It would have appeal to a host of people across traditional demographic boundaries. But of course, it's one thing to think that in theory and quite another to make it practical.

Instead of dreaming, I decided to figure out how protect myself & those close to me from government rather than worry about how much harm it was doing to everyone else. Adequate wealth is by far the best defence. Financial freedom gives you the tools & privileges to maintain your social freedoms and keep the state at arms length, and of course financial freedom also creates the possibility to further enhance it through a wider range of investment options and life opportunities for you & your family. It's a virtuous circle. That's why I prioritise the Tories as my personal least-worst option.

On the topic of near-absolute power being given to our governments, paradoxically I wonder if that's the one saving grace of our system, from a libertarian perspective. They can do just about anything. But the next parliament can also do that. So in practice, as long as there is more than one strong party, the political games should mean they can keep cancelling each other out. Small majorities either way (or two party coalitions) should keep things nicely paralysed due to infighting and let individuals slide through the middle without too much extra interference. There's a cost to continually adapting to the change of course, but it rather stops them doing anything too crazy & extreme given that the electoral centre of gravity holds politicians in low enough esteem to not let them get away with too much.