politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos Mori Issues Index for May
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos Mori Issues Index for May
The Ipsos-Mori issues index for May is out now, the fieldwork finished nearly a fortnight ago, on the 19th of May.
Comments
-
It's the economy, stupid.0
-
If the question is unprompted presumably there must be some level of interpretation. Did 49% of those polls really all say "the economy", or did they use a variance of that which was taken to mean "the economy"?0
-
And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.0 -
Presumably the same applies to all other EU member states, including those whose economies have performed much better than ours since the mid-70s.JandJ said:And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
0 -
Oh no! The big European bogeyman is here to get us! Who will save us from his evil menaces and sneering smile? Help! Help!JandJ said:And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
Whilst Europe does effect our economy, our own internal decisions and the wider world economy have a much greater effect. If we were in the Euro, I would have much more time for your argument.0 -
Look at the long term.
1) Concerns about the economy shot up in 2008, and while it has come off its peak, it remains by far the biggest concern. The story in relation to unemployment is similar.
2) Concerns about race relations and immigration are rising, but are still not at the levels often reached in 2002-8.
3) Concerns about the NHS have faded sharply in salience since the year 2000.
4) Concerns about law and order have been in longterm decline since 2007.
All this is a longwinded way of saying what JosiasJessop said as the opening post of the thread.0 -
JJ:JandJ said:And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
Our power is amongst the cheapest in the world: it is cheaper than any country in continental Europe, it is cheaper than in New Zealand or Australia (the latter of which is certainly no believer in global warming), it is cheaper than Japan, it is even cheaper than some parts of the US. In fact other than the US and Canada (which benefit, as you might expect, from both incredibly cheap domestic coal, and the shale gas boom of the last five years) you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world that has unsubsidised electricity that is cheaper than ours.
The price of electricity - for the UK - is set by the cost of imported gas, because that is the marginal producer of power. And the price of imported gas (mostly LNG) is not in our control. As an aside, there isn't such a thing as 'cheap coal' anymore. The rise of China and India has meant the two countries are sucking up an increasing portion of the seaborne coal market. The benchmark price for seaborne coal is 'Newcastle Coal', and over the past decade it has risen from $20 a tonne to almost $100 a tonne.
Only around 5% of the electricity we use comes from wind, and a much smaller proportion comes from solar (I don't know the exact number, but I'd guess less than 1%). And the price that the generating companies pay for this wind is not at that much of a premium to baseload electricity pricing (from memory, it averages about 70 pounds per megawatt hour, against a current baseload price of 54 pounds). So, yes, the focus on renewables has raised our electricity prices, but by no more than 2.5% or so (in fact, the true number is almost certainly smaller, as generation costs are only half the cost of the kilowatt that reaches your home).0 -
Where's the like button when I need it?rcs1000 said:
JJ:JandJ said:And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
Our power is amongst the cheapest in the world: it is cheaper than any country in continental Europe, it is cheaper than in New Zealand or Australia (the latter of which is certainly no believer in global warming), it is cheaper than Japan, it is even cheaper than some parts of the US. In fact other than the US and Canada (which benefit, as you might expect, from both incredibly cheap domestic coal, and the shale gas boom of the last five years) you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world that has unsubsidised electricity that is cheaper than ours.
The price of electricity - for the UK - is set by the cost of imported gas, because that is the marginal producer of power. And the price of imported gas (mostly LNG) is not in our control. As an aside, there isn't such a thing as 'cheap coal' anymore. The rise of China and India has meant the two countries are sucking up an increasing portion of the seaborne coal market. The benchmark price for seaborne coal is 'Newcastle Coal', and over the past decade it has risen from $20 a tonne to almost $100 a tonne.
Only around 5% of the electricity we use comes from wind, and a much smaller proportion comes from solar (I don't know the exact number, but I'd guess less than 1%). And the price that the generating companies pay for this wind is not at that much of a premium to baseload electricity pricing (from memory, it averages about 70 pounds per megawatt hour, against a current baseload price of 54 pounds). So, yes, the focus on renewables has raised our electricity prices, but by no more than 2.5% or so (in fact, the true number is almost certainly smaller, as generation costs are only half the cost of the kilowatt that reaches your home).
One point though: whilst coal has increased over the last decade, how has oil increased in comparison (I find it rather surprising that we still have some oil-fired power stations here in the UK, even if some are dual-fuel. I would have thought there were much better uses for oil, even heavy oil).0 -
It's very faddish isn't it? Whatever is the crisis du jour goes to the top. The economy went from nowhere to top after the banking crisis. Another bird flu scare and it'll be the NHS.....I don't see these things telling us anything other than what's in today's news0
-
@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.0 -
Fallen sharply, or stayed the same. Depends on what date you pick.DavidL said:@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.
0 -
Fallen sharply since 2008. Pretty static over the last 3 years or so I would agree. Probably down in real terms over 12 years: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/all/ although up in nominal terms.RobD said:
Fallen sharply, or stayed the same. Depends on what date you pick.DavidL said:@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.
0 -
Not sure it is that practical to switch large portion of our energy sources between different fuel types given lead time for necessary investments etc. Suspect it can only impact decisions on whether to mothball/reopen individual plans.DavidL said:@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.0 -
The price of coal (and oil) spiked in 2008, ignoring this, it has been roughly flat for five years. But it is still up 300% in the last ten years. (and, yes, cheap gas in the us had allowed it to export appalachian coal to Europe. But with us gas prices now having doubled from their lows of last year I wouldn't be surprised if coal prices rose once more.)0
-
I think we have more flexibility than you think. It depends what we close of the current stock. This is a good review: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9963385/Coals-final-chapter-is-not-yet-written.htmlCharles said:
Not sure it is that practical to switch large portion of our energy sources between different fuel types given lead time for necessary investments etc. Suspect it can only impact decisions on whether to mothball/reopen individual plans.DavidL said:@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.
Slightly startled to note that 40% of our electricity came from burning coal last year. No wonder our energy is relatively cheap!
0 -
According to the chart I linked to coal has gone from $40 to $60 over 12 years, only a 50% increase and probably no increase at all in real terms given inflation over that period. Are you saying these figures are wrong?rcs1000 said:The price of coal (and oil) spiked in 2008, ignoring this, it has been roughly flat for five years. But it is still up 300% in the last ten years. (and, yes, cheap gas in the us had allowed it to export appalachian coal to Europe. But with us gas prices now having doubled from their lows of last year I wouldn't be surprised if coal prices rose once more.)
0 -
We seem to be re-entering a quieter phase with the daily YouGov just moving within MOE around a 7-10 Labour lead. In 6 weeks the politicians will wander off on holiday for two months - are we expecting anything significant in that period? The spending review, though that doesn't usually move votes month. Anything else?0
-
@NickPalmer Nature abhors a vacuum. There will be some story that seems compelling for a while.0
-
Do you think so? All the evidence seems to suggest that Labour has lost quite a significant amount (10% plus) of support over the last few months. This has largely been hidden by Tory arguments. Unless the current 34%/35% that Labour is getting is rock solid - and I concede there are reasons to believe it is pretty firm - the party has a real fight on its hands just to overtake the Tories on seat count in 2015. As it is, the chances of an overall majority look vanishingly thin (as someone who is actively hoping for a Labour/LD pact, I might add a thankfully here!). Surely all this represents a failure of Labour's leadership.NickPalmer said:We seem to be re-entering a quieter phase with the daily YouGov just moving within MOE around a 7-10 Labour lead. In 6 weeks the politicians will wander off on holiday for two months - are we expecting anything significant in that period? The spending review, though that doesn't usually move votes month. Anything else?
0 -
Doesn't it also depend on the 'type' of coal? Coal is not a uniform substance and certain types of coal are better for purposes of burning - anthracite being a prime example which is also (relatively) clean burning.rcs1000 said:The price of coal (and oil) spiked in 2008, ignoring this, it has been roughly flat for five years. But it is still up 300% in the last ten years. (and, yes, cheap gas in the us had allowed it to export appalachian coal to Europe. But with us gas prices now having doubled from their lows of last year I wouldn't be surprised if coal prices rose once more.)
Note, IANAE.0 -
If you look at the National Grid data there isn't a separate dial for Solar. It appears to deliver as near as nothing to the grid.rcs1000 said:Only around 5% of the electricity we use comes from wind, and a much smaller proportion comes from solar (I don't know the exact number, but I'd guess less than 1%).
Of course, the vast majority of the solar electricity generated will be used locally, in the building the solar panels sit on top of, so measuring how much solar in aggregate is generated is difficult.
Also, just to play devil's advocate on your argument about price: is it possible that one of the reasons electricity is so relatively cheap in the UK is that the electricity companies have been running down existing assets, rather than investing in the new build that we will need to provide electricity over the next 30-50 years?0 -
and now the EU wants to close Blackpool beach.
What is the world coming to?
Do you think Dave secretly put them up to it to force the working classes back into work and restrict their leisuretime?0 -
Our carbon dioxide emissions rose last year principally because we were burning more [relatively cheap US] coal than gas. So we are already doing what the anti-greenies want us to do.DavidL said:
I think we have more flexibility than you think. It depends what we close of the current stock. This is a good review: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9963385/Coals-final-chapter-is-not-yet-written.htmlCharles said:
Not sure it is that practical to switch large portion of our energy sources between different fuel types given lead time for necessary investments etc. Suspect it can only impact decisions on whether to mothball/reopen individual plans.DavidL said:@rcs1000
Coal prices have fallen sharply since 2008: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/
My understanding is that this is because America has basically replaced their previously large coal consumption with shale gas.
We certainly should be using this coal more at the present time to reduce energy costs.
Slightly startled to note that 40% of our electricity came from burning coal last year. No wonder our energy is relatively cheap!0 -
You can't really look at the Labour share in isolation. Both major parties have now lost votes to UKIP, and I'd argue that either UKIP will continue to flourish or they'll do something silly and both parties will recover some of the lost votes. I agree that the Tories have lost rather more, and Labour has returned a few of the votes it got from the LibDems. But the strategic position doesn't seem very different to me: Labour up to 6-10% on 2010, mostly from disaffected 2010 LD voters, Tories down a bit, LDs down a lot. "Vanishingly thin" is surely overstated - I'd see it more as 35% Lab majority, 40% Lab-Lib majority, 15% Con majority, 10% no change.SouthamObserver said:
Do you think so? All the evidence seems to suggest that Labour has lost quite a significant amount (10% plus) of support over the last few months. This has largely been hidden by Tory arguments. Unless the current 34%/35% that Labour is getting is rock solid - and I concede there are reasons to believe it is pretty firm - the party has a real fight on its hands just to overtake the Tories on seat count in 2015. As it is, the chances of an overall majority look vanishingly thin (as someone who is actively hoping for a Labour/LD pact, I might add a thankfully here!). Surely all this represents a failure of Labour's leadership.NickPalmer said:We seem to be re-entering a quieter phase with the daily YouGov just moving within MOE around a 7-10 Labour lead. In 6 weeks the politicians will wander off on holiday for two months - are we expecting anything significant in that period? The spending review, though that doesn't usually move votes month. Anything else?
0 -
Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband0 -
Historically, European countries traded with each other, whilst the UK traded globally - much through Empire/Commonwealth connections.
The failure of the UK to develop after WW2 in the way that some other (mainly N European) countries have done is largely due to the lack of strategic investment in the UK - our C19th- era infrastructure has been, and remains, a damning indictment on successive Govts - of all political colours - who have failed to see beyond the next election.
The effect of this chronic short-termism is that Govts have chosen to borrow to buy votes (Welfare State) rather than borrow to create a world-class infrastructure. Until 1979, the State provided your gas, electricity, coal, many of your white-good appliances, your post, telephone, ports, airports, roads, rail home (in many cases directly, in many more cases by controlling supply through planning); your health care and education - and even holidays (via Thomas Cook).
For many years, the amount of money you could take abroad was strictly limited too.
Now, under such Soviet-style centralised State control is it any wonder that the UK has lagged so badly behind other nations?
Time to have our Govts run by people, not with a sub-5 year outlook on what constitutes 'long-term' but by those with a generational view: bring back rule by an unelected House of Lords, staffed by hereditary Peers (mainly)?
[Ducks}
On the issue of coal, burning as much as possible until we have sufficient nuclear to provide all our base-load AND export power for 12+ hrs a day seems sensible: subsiding ANY one source of power whilst taxing others is a recipe for economic impoverishment, mass unemployment - and revolution (ultimately): if the State ran food as they run our roads, we'd all have starved years ago.0 -
It's the Osbrowne, stupid.0
-
Some magnificent tweets on the Guardian data cafe.
liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/30/the-ten-most-cringingly-bad-guardiancoffee-tweets/0 -
Very interesting article in Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
The only thing they don't mention that they ought to is that we have already seen this happen in the UK when the DUP started as a tiny party and subsequently destroyed the conservative party in NI (official unionists), largely over one issue, sovereignty, the same issue that drives UKIP.
0 -
I am quite fond of Blackpool. The Beach is fine for lazing or donkey rides but you would have to be bonkers to go for a swim in it!TOPPING said:and now the EU wants to close Blackpool beach.
What is the world coming to?
Do you think Dave secretly put them up to it to force the working classes back into work and restrict their leisuretime?0 -
"Working-class voters in safe Labour seats felt abandoned by the party that once championed their cause. Turnout slumped, and a sour anti-establishment mindset took hold. Immigration came to symbolise the pathology of New Labour for old Labour loyalists. The former cared more about foreigners than its core supporters, they thought. When they complained, they were attacked as "bigots".nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
Now the politics of resentment bubbling under the surface of British politics has started to erupt. Ukip strategists are pointing to a coalition of disgruntled social conservatives, who are mocked on the right as "swivel-eyed loons" and dismissed on the left as unbearable bigots. Now screening their candidates, Ukip offers them what the toxic far right couldn't: a populist outlet that does not force them to compromise their democratic principles. Ukip has no grand ideological vision. Its narrative is simple but effective. Enough is enough. No more immigration. No more Europe. No more cosmopolitan condescension from liberal London elites."
Well I do declare!
As a working class man who has only ever voted Labour but recently joined UKIP I completely agree with the article, particularly the above quote.
I seem to have been making this point on here for about three or four months, and yes, Labour posters have constantly accused me of misrepresenting the working class and being a bigot for not being socially liberal enough.
Well it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.
0 -
I'm all in favour of cosmopolitan condescension for UKIP from liberal London elites. Unfortunately, I can't find a party that's condescending enough towards UKIP.0
-
Meanwhile, the consensus is growing that we're now in a phase of anaemic but steady recovery:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22723384
If this is right, this poses problems for both the coalition and Labour. The coalition, because we're hardly looking forward to milk and honey any time soon. Labour, because it's hard to argue that the government is driving the country onto the rocks.
There are going to be a lot of grumpy voters out there at the next election. The question is who can most effectively get their grudging consent to govern next time.0 -
@antifrank
The country is currently haemorraghing from the aftermath of two crises: the global financial crisis, and the Eurozone crisis. The policies that were the cause of both them were supported by the liberal London elite. It's thus pretty obvious who really deserves condescension.
Still most of these numpties aren't bright enough to realise who was to blame even after it's obvious, so I'm not expecting them to wake up any time soon.0 -
If the non ukip posters on here started a party, your wish would be granted.antifrank said:I'm all in favour of cosmopolitan condescension for UKIP from liberal London elites. Unfortunately, I can't find a party that's condescending enough towards UKIP.
An authoritian, dogmatic, exclusive clique that see themselves as edgy and progressive, yet are mindnumbingly out of touch with real people
0 -
It's a good article, but the image conjured up by the US prison slang meaning of that verb is a horrific one.nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband0 -
First 40 2015 Tory candidates overview:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2013/05/by-mark-wallacefollowmarkon-twitter-in-october-cchq-announced-that-it-was-launching-a-4040-strategy-aimed-at-winning-the.html
OT - @classicpics worth a follow for an interesting/eclectic mix. Two from yesterday:
https://twitter.com/History_Pics/status/340253657872355329/photo/1
https://twitter.com/History_Pics/status/340255280967331841/photo/10 -
Loved Gove's article in the Telegraph this morning - the fact the Staggers are whining about it suggests it hit the target.
0 -
Anyone who denies that there is a strong socially conservative streak among the traditional working class in the UK - and England especially - is a fool; my grandparents, my father-in-law were all very socially conservative; you should hear my mother talk about immigration and political correctness. The interesting thing about UKIP, though, will be how it develops its policies moving forwards. At the moment, once you get beyond immigration and things such as gay marriage there is very little that is coherent about what UKIP proposes and what there is seems to be weighted very much in favour of the wealthy. How do you pay for a flat tax without massively cutting the services that so many working class voters depend on, especially when you are proposing spending increases on defence? A socially conservative, Euro-sceptic, redistributive party might be a very exciting thing - but I am not sure there is anyone in the UKIP leadership that could deliver it, even if they were inclined to.isam said:
"Working-class voters in safe Labour seats felt abandoned by the party that once championed their cause. Turnout slumped, and a sour anti-establishment mindset took hold. Immigration came to symbolise the pathology of New Labour for old Labour loyalists. The former cared more about foreigners than its core supporters, they thought. When they complained, they were attacked as "bigots".nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
Now the politics of resentment bubbling under the surface of British politics has started to erupt. Ukip strategists are pointing to a coalition of disgruntled social conservatives, who are mocked on the right as "swivel-eyed loons" and dismissed on the left as unbearable bigots. Now screening their candidates, Ukip offers them what the toxic far right couldn't: a populist outlet that does not force them to compromise their democratic principles. Ukip has no grand ideological vision. Its narrative is simple but effective. Enough is enough. No more immigration. No more Europe. No more cosmopolitan condescension from liberal London elites."
Well I do declare!
As a working class man who has only ever voted Labour but recently joined UKIP I completely agree with the article, particularly the above quote.
I seem to have been making this point on here for about three or four months, and yes, Labour posters have constantly accused me of misrepresenting the working class and being a bigot for not being socially liberal enough.
Well it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.
0 -
You also have to look at the Labour lead over the Tories and how that has declined - less so with YouGov, but significantly with most other pollsters, especially the phone ones.NickPalmer said:
You can't really look at the Labour share in isolation. Both major parties have now lost votes to UKIP, and I'd argue that either UKIP will continue to flourish or they'll do something silly and both parties will recover some of the lost votes. I agree that the Tories have lost rather more, and Labour has returned a few of the votes it got from the LibDems. But the strategic position doesn't seem very different to me: Labour up to 6-10% on 2010, mostly from disaffected 2010 LD voters, Tories down a bit, LDs down a lot. "Vanishingly thin" is surely overstated - I'd see it more as 35% Lab majority, 40% Lab-Lib majority, 15% Con majority, 10% no change.SouthamObserver said:
Do you think so? All the evidence seems to suggest that Labour has lost quite a significant amount (10% plus) of support over the last few months. This has largely been hidden by Tory arguments. Unless the current 34%/35% that Labour is getting is rock solid - and I concede there are reasons to believe it is pretty firm - the party has a real fight on its hands just to overtake the Tories on seat count in 2015. As it is, the chances of an overall majority look vanishingly thin (as someone who is actively hoping for a Labour/LD pact, I might add a thankfully here!). Surely all this represents a failure of Labour's leadership.NickPalmer said:We seem to be re-entering a quieter phase with the daily YouGov just moving within MOE around a 7-10 Labour lead. In 6 weeks the politicians will wander off on holiday for two months - are we expecting anything significant in that period? The spending review, though that doesn't usually move votes month. Anything else?
0 -
@SouthamObserver
What does "redistributive" even mean? I agree UKIP need to add one extra band to their flat tax, but I don't think an outright "take money from the rich to give to the poor" is what their target market want. Most don't expect hand me downs from the rich, they just want a decent job, to get back what they put in to the government, and to have their concerns listened to.0 -
Did this really happen?! These days - I can't tell satire from political discourse at time.
"Ed Miliband managed to attend Google’s Big Tent conference. There, he gave a lecture on business ethics that held up Willy Wonka as the model of a successful modern entrepreneur and attacked Montgomery Burns – a character from The Simpsons – as a representative of the predatory capitalism that is our biggest contemporary problem..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10089425/Ed-Miliband-is-a-blancmange-in-a-hurricane.html
and OUCH
"There are certainly men and women with ideas in the Labour Party. Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman are gifted, fascinating thinkers, but are held in scorn by Balls and the Brownite restorationists. Between them stands, or rather hides, Miliband, incapable of choosing when he should be eager to lead, inconstant and vacillating when he should be backing the idealists, seeking refuge in a world where Willy Wonka and Montgomery Burns seem relevant because he cannot bear too much reality. "0 -
I would not claim to know what most UKIP voters want, I was talking about the traditional Labour voters (or potential Labur voters) that may veer towards UKIP now. They were Labour for a reason and if it was not because of the social policies, it was because they felt Labour looked after them - a minimum wage, relatively high spending on public services, social security, a decent pension and so on. All these things depend on funding and that means a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer. I do not see how UKIP can square the circle on this with a flat tax; though to be fair I am not sure that they have ever really thought about it. The party's leaders seem to be right wing, Euro-sceptic Tories in the main and they come to things from that perspective. If they are being honest I am sure they would concede that what has happened over the last few months has caught them by surprise too. They need time to think through what it all means for them as a party.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
What does "redistributive" even mean? I agree UKIP need to add one extra band to their flat tax, but I don't think an outright "take money from the rich to give to the poor" is what their target market want. Most don't expect hand me downs from the rich, they just want a decent job, to get back what they put in to the government, and to have their concerns listened to.
0 -
@SO, All these things depend on funding and that means a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer.
Not necessarily. There's two ways that the less well off can get more cake, one is to cut it more equally, another is to make a bigger one. As Socrates points out earlier, most people want a decent job. Those people should be cheered on. There are some people who can't work, through no fault of their own (e.g. genuine illness, disability). We should care for those too.0 -
@SouthamObserver
It would certainly be interesting if UKIP outflanked the Tories on a living wage.
On the state stuff, I'm not convinced. Obviously such people want social security and a decent pension, but they don't expect it to be funded by others, they just want to get out what they feel they have already paid in.0 -
This is rather interesting - any NE PBers seen it?
Sky stand on a crossroads; on the cusp of wholly re-inventing the UK local media landscape. All of which would appear to be news to OfCom, GNM and Co… http://rickwaghorn.co.uk/2013/05/30/sky-stand-on-a-crossroads-on-the-cusp-of-wholly-re-inventing-the-uk-local-media-landscape-all-of-which-would-appear-to-be-news-to-ofcom-gmg-and-co/0 -
Republicans have been pretty worried about the future of their party in the last few months, but thankfully they finally have some good news:
More than half a year after his election loss, Mitt Romney is putting a tentative foot back onto the public stage. Romney said that he plans to re-emerge in ways that will "help shape national priorities.
As a first step, the former Republican presidential nominee plans to welcome 200 friends and supporters to a three-day summit next week that he will host at a Utah mountain resort. He is considering writing a book and a series of opinion pieces, and has plans to campaign for 2014 candidates. But he is wary of overdoing it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324682204578515422189492536.html
0 -
The Newcastle price is the price including shipping from the Australian port of Newcastle (I had always assumed that "taking coals to Newcastle" referred to our Newcastle but I now suspect not) which is a regional price for Asia market. As you said we have been buying Appelachian coal from the US which pre shale would have been used domestically so I am not sure what is the better price for the UK.rcs1000 said:@DavidL
Yes, your coal price is wrong. You are looking at CAPP coal, which is US Appalachian coal. You need to look at Newcastle coal, which is the benchmark for seaborne coal.
Newcastle prices have been falling for some time, pretty much 3 years now: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=120 There is a lot of moaning about it: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1452895/pain-mounts-as-coal-price-falls/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-03/coal-seen-stalling-after-best-quarter-since-2011-energy-markets.html
As US shale oil output surges there is likely to be even more cheap displaced coal to buy. I was very disappointed when we gave up on the clean coal/carbon capture technology. We may come to regret that even more than I thought at the time.
0 -
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.tim said:Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC9730 -
My guess, and it is only a guess please don't try and pin me down to micro details, is that the flat tax will be dropped in favour of a two tier tax with no NI... Farage hinted on QT that it would be 25% and 40%... and no tax on the minimum wage... Godfrey Bloom still seems to want a flat tax with none paid until £13500, that's why there is no official policy at the moment.SouthamObserver said:
I would not claim to know what most UKIP voters want, I was talking about the traditional Labour voters (or potential Labur voters) that may veer towards UKIP now. They were Labour for a reason and if it was not because of the social policies, it was because they felt Labour looked after them - a minimum wage, relatively high spending on public services, social security, a decent pension and so on. All these things depend on funding and that means a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer. I do not see how UKIP can square the circle on this with a flat tax; though to be fair I am not sure that they have ever really thought about it. The party's leaders seem to be right wing, Euro-sceptic Tories in the main and they come to things from that perspective. If they are being honest I am sure they would concede that what has happened over the last few months has caught them by surprise too. They need time to think through what it all means for them as a party.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
What does "redistributive" even mean? I agree UKIP need to add one extra band to their flat tax, but I don't think an outright "take money from the rich to give to the poor" is what their target market want. Most don't expect hand me downs from the rich, they just want a decent job, to get back what they put in to the government, and to have their concerns listened to.
I think you are right that they have been caught on the hop a little by their popularity with working class ex Labour voters and are trying to accommodate them more than previously. Diane James and Mehdi Hasan on QT last night agreed on everything bar immigration, and the new PB is meant to be aimed at WWC types so it seems to be something they are working on.
Hope so, as my family were thinking of me as a bit of a turncoat I think, and now maybe they will understand its ok not to vote Labour.0 -
It does. The phrase predates the rise of Newcastle Australia, before the First World War more than half the coal exported in the world went from the Tyne.DavidL said:The Newcastle price is the price including shipping from the Australian port of Newcastle (I had always assumed that "taking coals to Newcastle" referred to our Newcastle but I now suspect not).
Dorothy Parker "To Newcastle"
I met a man the other day-
A kindly man, and serious-
Who viewed me in a thoughtful way,
And spoke me so, and spoke me thus:
"Oh, dallying's a sad mistake;
'Tis craven to survey the morrow!
Go give your heart, and if it break-
A wise companion is Sorrow.
"Oh, live, my child, nor keep your soul
To crowd your coffin when you're dead...."
I asked his work; he dealt in coal,
And shipped it up the Tyne, he said.0 -
@Plato The language appears to be English, but could someone translate from mediageek into the more standard form?0
-
I was taken aback by the vehemence of Diane James' attack on the Tory "reorganisation" of the NHS. She was going at them hammer and tongs and knowledgeably.isam said:
My guess, and it is only a guess please don't try and pin me down to micro details, is that the flat tax will be dropped in favour of a two tier tax with no NI... Farage hinted on QT that it would be 25% and 40%... and no tax on the minimum wage... Godfrey Bloom still seems to want a flat tax with none paid until £13500, that's why there is no official policy at the moment.SouthamObserver said:
I would not claim to know what most UKIP voters want, I was talking about the traditional Labour voters (or potential Labur voters) that may veer towards UKIP now. They were Labour for a reason and if it was not because of the social policies, it was because they felt Labour looked after them - a minimum wage, relatively high spending on public services, social security, a decent pension and so on. All these things depend on funding and that means a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer. I do not see how UKIP can square the circle on this with a flat tax; though to be fair I am not sure that they have ever really thought about it. The party's leaders seem to be right wing, Euro-sceptic Tories in the main and they come to things from that perspective. If they are being honest I am sure they would concede that what has happened over the last few months has caught them by surprise too. They need time to think through what it all means for them as a party.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
What does "redistributive" even mean? I agree UKIP need to add one extra band to their flat tax, but I don't think an outright "take money from the rich to give to the poor" is what their target market want. Most don't expect hand me downs from the rich, they just want a decent job, to get back what they put in to the government, and to have their concerns listened to.
I think you are right that they have been caught on the hop a little by their popularity with working class ex Labour voters and are trying to accommodate them more than previously. Diane James and Mehdi Hasan on QT last night agreed on everything bar immigration, and the new PB is meant to be aimed at WWC types so it seems to be something they are working on.
Hope so, as my family were thinking of me as a bit of a turncoat I think, and now maybe they will understand its ok not to vote Labour.0 -
The state also means the NHS, schools, roads etc. UKIP is often accused of harking back to the 50s and 60s. Look at what the state involved itself in then and look at the dramatic rises in living standards that we saw almost across the board. Remember we are talking specifically about Old Labour voters here. My very socially conservative grandfather was also a very staunch union man.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
It would certainly be interesting if UKIP outflanked the Tories on a living wage.
On the state stuff, I'm not convinced. Obviously such people want social security and a decent pension, but they don't expect it to be funded by others, they just want to get out what they feel they have already paid in.
0 -
Yes, a must-read article (BTW Rob Ford occasionally writes guest pieces here on PB).nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
As I've been saying for a while, a key question is whether Labour defectors to UKIP will behave differently to Conservative defectors when it comes to the GE. The other key question of course will be the geographic distribution of those defectors; it may be that UKIP get a good number of ex-Labour voters in safe Labour seats and ex-Tory voters in safe Tory seats, thus having little electoral impact overall. But there are also some marginals with a mix of traditional working-class Labour areas and leafier suburbs (for example in the Midlands and in the Southampton/Portsmouth areas), where UKIP's effect may be significant and lead to some surprises.0 -
Most of the dramatic rises in living standards occurred because we had just come out of a war.SouthamObserver said:
The state also means the NHS, schools, roads etc. UKIP is often accused of harking back to the 50s and 60s. Look at what the state involved itself in then and look at the dramatic rises in living standards that we saw almost across the board. Remember we are talking specifically about Old Labour voters here. My very socially conservative grandfather was also a very staunch union man.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
It would certainly be interesting if UKIP outflanked the Tories on a living wage.
On the state stuff, I'm not convinced. Obviously such people want social security and a decent pension, but they don't expect it to be funded by others, they just want to get out what they feel they have already paid in.0 -
Excellent. Thanks very much for that.CarlottaVance said:
It does. The phrase predates the rise of Newcastle Australia, before the First World War more than half the coal exported in the world went from the Tyne.DavidL said:The Newcastle price is the price including shipping from the Australian port of Newcastle (I had always assumed that "taking coals to Newcastle" referred to our Newcastle but I now suspect not).
Dorothy Parker "To Newcastle"
I met a man the other day-
A kindly man, and serious-
Who viewed me in a thoughtful way,
And spoke me so, and spoke me thus:
"Oh, dallying's a sad mistake;
'Tis craven to survey the morrow!
Go give your heart, and if it break-
A wise companion is Sorrow.
"Oh, live, my child, nor keep your soul
To crowd your coffin when you're dead...."
I asked his work; he dealt in coal,
And shipped it up the Tyne, he said.0 -
@Tim
Yes,lots of bogus students have been cut.
'500 bogus colleges closed in UK in 18 months - IBNLive
ibnlive.in.com/news/500-bogus-colleges-closed-in-uk.../302071-2.html
Oct 25, 2012 – British immigration authorities have closed down an estimated 500 bogus colleges operating in the country over the last 18 months, affecting a ...0 -
Thurrock and South Basildon & Thurrock are vey strong chances for UKIP I think.RichardNabavi said:
Yes, a must-read article (BTW Rob Ford occasionally writes guest pieces here on PB).nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
As I've been saying for a while, a key question is whether Labour defectors to UKIP will behave differently to Conservative defectors when it comes to the GE. The other key question of course will be the geographic distribution of those defectors; it may be that UKIP get a good number of ex-Labour voters in safe Labour seats and ex-Tory voters in safe Tory seats, thus having little electoral impact overall. But there are also some marginals with a mix of traditional working-class Labour areas and leafier suburbs (for example in the Midlands and in the Southampton/Portsmouth areas), where UKIP's effect may be significant and lead to some surprises.
I wouldn't be surprised if Farage stood in Thurrock... PP not quoting him so maybe a decent price.. if anyone can get on mail me!
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1011276
0 -
isam said:
Thurrock and South Basildon & Thurrock are vey strong chances for UKIP I think.RichardNabavi said:
Yes, a must-read article (BTW Rob Ford occasionally writes guest pieces here on PB).nigel4england said:Sorry if this has been posted earlier, it's enough to make Tim choke on his muesli:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband
As I've been saying for a while, a key question is whether Labour defectors to UKIP will behave differently to Conservative defectors when it comes to the GE. The other key question of course will be the geographic distribution of those defectors; it may be that UKIP get a good number of ex-Labour voters in safe Labour seats and ex-Tory voters in safe Tory seats, thus having little electoral impact overall. But there are also some marginals with a mix of traditional working-class Labour areas and leafier suburbs (for example in the Midlands and in the Southampton/Portsmouth areas), where UKIP's effect may be significant and lead to some surprises.
I wouldn't be surprised if Farage stood in Thurrock... PP not quoting him so maybe a decent price.. if anyone can get on mail me!
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1011276
UKIP is increasingly the " One Nation " party . It seems able to gain support in Labour's rotten boroughs and ghettoes , where the Tories and LibDems cannot reach.0 -
Ah the smithson lie returns, ignoring the fact the EU heavily affects 1-3 in the list and claim its a non issue...0
-
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).tim said:
Again you are conflating students with migrants.Grandiose said:
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.tim said:Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
Some will stay because employers want them, good.
Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused.
But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools?
Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.0 -
Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)0 -
One, it isn't a lie, it is a polling fact.megalomaniacs4u said:Ah the smithson lie returns, ignoring the fact the EU heavily affects 1-3 in the list and claim its a non issue...
Two, as this thread is my thread, Mr Smithson is blameless.
0 -
Lacky!TheScreamingEagles said:
One, it isn't a lie, it is a polling fact.megalomaniacs4u said:Ah the smithson lie returns, ignoring the fact the EU heavily affects 1-3 in the list and claim its a non issue...
Two, as this thread is my thread, Mr Smithson is blameless.
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Agreed. NZ will be more motivated. England are already looking towards the Ashes.0 -
Gerry_Mander said:SouthamObserver said:
Note that, as you clearly accept, the 'dramatic rise in living standards' experienced since WW2 in other EU states was much, much greater than that in the UK.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
Most of the dramatic rises in living standards occurred because we had just come out of a war.
Indeed, what's quite clear is that if the Attlee Govt had not nationalised everything is sight and allowed Market Forces to run all that they had before WW2, we'd have been up theree were Germany, Japan and the USA, rather than languishing as 'the sick man of Europe' until 1980 or so.
Note that i'm not excusing British managers during that period - they were equally supine and useless too - AND came from the same background/universities as most of Whitehall (hence same mind-set)0 -
@Charles
The issue isn't even that English Language College students don't add value, its that alot of them were simply using that route as a means to work in the UK rather than study
"When the Labour government’s points based system (PBS) was first introduced in 2008, student applications had to be temporarily suspended in some parts of South Asia amid fears that the dramatic rise in applications was fuelled in part by fraudulent applications. In the first year of Labour’s Points Based System (PBS) alone the National Audit Office estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 ‘students’ entered the UK to work and not study.
And just last year the Home Office found that 48 per cent of Pakistani students and 59 per cent of Indian students who were interviewed as part of a pilot scheme would have potentially been refused a visa on credibility grounds.
The vast majority of these potential refusals were applying for further/higher education and not university."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/0 -
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.0 -
I would also add that the main reason foreigners come to study at English language colleges is because they want to be able to work for companies in their own countries that do business with the English speaking world. Thus in addition to any economic benefit we get from their residence here, there is likely to be a longer-term indirect benefit to the British economy. In short the English language is one of our most valuable exports.tim said:
At least that's honest.Charles said:
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).tim said:
Again you are conflating students with migrants.Grandiose said:
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.tim said:Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
Some will stay because employers want them, good.
Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused.
But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools?
Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.
We will shut down colleges Charles sees as unworthy and those people will then go to other countries and spend their money elsewhere.
Any tourist attractions you don't like while you're at it?
As for being a small country well New Zealand has four times as many overseas students as wee do in relative terms.
Australia has many more too, and both these are countries with high cost bases.
In addition our university sector is not growing as fast as the market anyway, your arguments about "freeing up capacity" are obviously specious.0 -
On topic, Mike said this in his tweet:
"The Ipsos-MORI Issues Index is unique because the questioning is unprompted & is seen as best test of the salience of issues"
Seen by who? Mike Smithson?
I really don't get this logic at all. Imagine you ask people what their favourite films are, and they say:
"Inception is probably my favourite. Django Unchained I thought was brilliant. Skyfall was really awesome too."
"Did you like Pulp Fiction?"
"Oh! I loved Pulp Fiction. That was better than Django thinking about it. Definitely in my top three."
It would be fairly absurd to judge from that conversation that the person didn't really like Pulp Fiction that much, because the question was prompted.0 -
The 26-year-old is going at 7.79 runs an over and, after the Ranchi game, is now the most expensive bowler in one-day international history.DavidL said:
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/dernbach-to-pay-for-costly-odi-displays-8460934.html0 -
Don't be silly. It's not a question of "unworthy" or not. It's a question of focusing on those colleges with appropriate proceedures in place to prevent abuse of the application process by individuals/organisations that plan to use them to facilitate illegal immigration (the "bogus colleges").tim said:
At least that's honest.Charles said:
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).tim said:
Again you are conflating students with migrants.Grandiose said:
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.tim said:Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
Some will stay because employers want them, good.
Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused.
But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools?
Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.
We will shut down colleges Charles sees as unworthy and those people will then go to other countries and spend their money elsewhere.
Any tourist attractions you don't like while you're at it?
As for being a small country well New Zealand has four times as many overseas students as wee do in relative terms.
Australia has many more too, and both these are countries with high cost bases.
In addition our university sector is not growing as fast as the market anyway, your arguments about "freeing up capacity" are obviously specious.
Additionally, it is entirely reasonable for the UK government to establish a policy saying (a) we only want to accept a limited number of immigrants, either permanent or temporary, and want to ensure those places are allocated to the individuals who add the greatest value to the country. This would tend to focus attention towards universities (both under and post graduate) at the cost of language colleges. Fundamentally there is fixed capacity in much of our infrastructure and we need to decide how best to use it.
Can you tell me how you fact capacity implications (say for public transport) into your calculations? Over-crowding on the tube, for example, is significantly unpleasant and delays can have an economic cost.
As for New Zealand and the number of overseas students, it depends on the population, spare infrastructure capacity, the focus of the country's economic strategy and the probability of temporary migrants looking for a long-term residency. Just to point to the headline number is entirely specious.0 -
But the point is that they wouldn't have Pulp Fiction in mind when they cast their vote. It wouldn't influence them as the others they actually mention would.Socrates said:On topic, Mike said this in his tweet:
"The Ipsos-MORI Issues Index is unique because the questioning is unprompted & is seen as best test of the salience of issues"
Seen by who? Mike Smithson?
I really don't get this logic at all. Imagine you ask people what they're favourite films are, and they say:
"Inception is probably my favourite. Django Unchained I thought was brilliant. Skyfall was really awesome too."
"Did you like Pulp Fiction?"
"Oh! I loved Pulp Fiction. That was better than Django thinking about it. Definitely in my top three."
It would be fairly absurd to judge from that conversation that the person didn't really like Pulp Fiction that much, because the question was prompted.0 -
DavidL.
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
I thought Vettori would be back for the one-dayers? NZ really missed him during the test series.0 -
According to Cricinfo, Dernbach (nickname 'Dirtbag', apparently) has an ODI economy of 6.28. He's obviously improved somewhat.TheScreamingEagles said:
The 26-year-old is going at 7.79 runs an over and, after the Ranchi game, is now the most expensive bowler in one-day international history.DavidL said:
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/dernbach-to-pay-for-costly-odi-displays-8460934.html
His ODI batting average is 2.83, amusingly.0 -
Loved this one:TOPPING said:Some magnificent tweets on the Guardian data cafe.
liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/30/the-ten-most-cringingly-bad-guardiancoffee-tweets/
"Popping down to #guardiancoffee later on to order a 'Toynbee': short, rich and intensely bitter"
0 -
Unless a campaigner brings up Pulp Fiction before the vote, in which case they would change their mind fairly quickly. Thus the argument that no one should talk about Pulp Fiction because no one cares about it is rather stupid.Anorak said:
But the point is that they wouldn't have Pulp Fiction in mind when they cast their vote. It wouldn't influence them as the others they actually mention would.Socrates said:On topic, Mike said this in his tweet:
"The Ipsos-MORI Issues Index is unique because the questioning is unprompted & is seen as best test of the salience of issues"
Seen by who? Mike Smithson?
I really don't get this logic at all. Imagine you ask people what they're favourite films are, and they say:
"Inception is probably my favourite. Django Unchained I thought was brilliant. Skyfall was really awesome too."
"Did you like Pulp Fiction?"
"Oh! I loved Pulp Fiction. That was better than Django thinking about it. Definitely in my top three."
It would be fairly absurd to judge from that conversation that the person didn't really like Pulp Fiction that much, because the question was prompted.0 -
Not just English bowlers then.TheScreamingEagles said:
The 26-year-old is going at 7.79 runs an over and, after the Ranchi game, is now the most expensive bowler in one-day international history.DavidL said:
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/dernbach-to-pay-for-costly-odi-displays-8460934.html
Weeps softly.
0 -
There's a thoughtful article in the Guardian about how UKIP intends to re-direct their attack towards labour. Some quite interesting points
Even the left are getting a bit restive about Ed's lack of policies.0 -
I do see your point, but in that a large section of society has no interest in politics or current affairs but still votes, then - as usual - the actual 'salience' probably lies between the two situations we've outlined.Socrates said:
Unless a campaigner brings up Pulp Fiction before the vote, in which case they would change their mind fairly quickly. Thus the argument that no one should talk about Pulp Fiction because no one cares about it is rather stupid.Anorak said:
But the point is that they wouldn't have Pulp Fiction in mind when they cast their vote. It wouldn't influence them as the others they actually mention would.Socrates said:On topic, Mike said this in his tweet:
"The Ipsos-MORI Issues Index is unique because the questioning is unprompted & is seen as best test of the salience of issues"
Seen by who? Mike Smithson?
I really don't get this logic at all. Imagine you ask people what they're favourite films are, and they say:
"Inception is probably my favourite. Django Unchained I thought was brilliant. Skyfall was really awesome too."
"Did you like Pulp Fiction?"
"Oh! I loved Pulp Fiction. That was better than Django thinking about it. Definitely in my top three."
It would be fairly absurd to judge from that conversation that the person didn't really like Pulp Fiction that much, because the question was prompted.
0 -
This is going to sound very very weird - but I had a dream the other night about Polly Toynbee - I was really quite rude to her. Given I don't read her columns or tweets and instantly change channels when she's on - what prompted this is beyond me... I think it must have been falling asleep in front of Supernatural on the TV :^ODavidL said:
Loved this one:TOPPING said:Some magnificent tweets on the Guardian data cafe.
liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/30/the-ten-most-cringingly-bad-guardiancoffee-tweets/
"Popping down to #guardiancoffee later on to order a 'Toynbee': short, rich and intensely bitter"0 -
He's South African really.DavidL said:
Not just English bowlers then.TheScreamingEagles said:
The 26-year-old is going at 7.79 runs an over and, after the Ranchi game, is now the most expensive bowler in one-day international history.DavidL said:
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/dernbach-to-pay-for-costly-odi-displays-8460934.html
Weeps softly.0 -
Dernbach must have something on Flower - he's the definition of a pie chucker.
England to win though - all in.0 -
ThomasNashe said:
DavidL.
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
I thought Vettori would be back for the one-dayers? NZ really missed him during the test series.
Yes its a shame. He is good to watch and has a truly magnificent beard.
0 -
I had that theory as well, but he must have something on Ashley Giles now.TGOHF said:Dernbach must have something on Flower - he's the definition of a pie chucker.
England to win though - all in.0 -
JandJ said:
And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
However - we can cut taxes and long term spending and run leaner.JandJ said:And, JJ, our economy is heavily (over-heavily) tied to that of Europe AND the freedom of any UK Govt to act to affect the economy (such as burning as much never-cheaper coal as possible in power stations and scrapping all wind/solar subsidies) is determined by...Europe.
Thus, the central issue affecting the UK is, was and has been for120 years - Europe.
That many/most people fail to make the connection is a damning tribute to the venality and incompetence of our political class: because of decisions taken over the last 40 years they have little or no power to affect the course of the UK's economy and our citizen's lives any more - powerless puff-merchants seeking power fro power#s sake.
If you are going to drag an anchor behind you it's better to be fit than fat. See France as the bloater of Europe.0 -
Why can't he bat then?TheScreamingEagles said:
He's South African really.DavidL said:
Not just English bowlers then.TheScreamingEagles said:
The 26-year-old is going at 7.79 runs an over and, after the Ranchi game, is now the most expensive bowler in one-day international history.DavidL said:
Did somone (maybe Botham) not recently point out that Dernbach concedes more runs in ODIs than any English bowler in history? I find their desire to play him bewildering. It's not like he can bat or frankly even field that well.TheScreamingEagles said:Betting post.
Back New Zealand to win the first ODI.
Jade Dernbach is playing, that's England doomed.
And why are we playing in all red?
We're not Lancashire!
(Says the Lancashire CCC member)
Still I think this NZ have been worn down and they are now missing one of their best bowlers through injury. I think England will do it despite the extra 20 runs Dernbach will give them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/dernbach-to-pay-for-costly-odi-displays-8460934.html
Weeps softly.0 -
How to alienate your supporters and shift voters to UKIP.
1. Allow local Council to accept planning applications from Sainsbury and Waitrose (both on green-field but within town boundary sites).
2. Council takes very extensive soundings, both firms canvas local residents and >800 people wrote in to the Council - split 70% Waitrose, 20% Sainsbury, 10% neither (roughly)
3. Both firms, but Waitrose particularly, produce very, very detailed plans with great consideration given to the feed-back they've received.
4. Town now has 2 x Co-op 1 small one in High St and one medium sized one (similar to Aldi/Lidl stores) on what was edge-of-town but is now surrounded by houses. Hence no choice - >70% of residents go to other towns to shop - mainly Morrisons or Tesco.
5. After endless debate, lobbying, soundings etc, the Council have a long (3hr+) meeting and vote unanimously to support the Waitrose proposal.
6. 24hrs later you, as local MP, unilaterally refer the matter to Pickles for no other reason that anyone can understand other than that you personally prefer Sainsbury (or their option).
Result? Local people's clear wishes ignored,. local Council decision over-ridden, 'localism' exposed as a sham - and lead story on local radio this morning - AND all that everyone (genuinely, everyone I'm seen or met today - around a dozen) are ABSOLUTELY furious.
At the very very least, there will be a delay of years in getting a definitive decision...
The right option, obviously, would be to vote through BOTH proposals, knowing full well that the town is scheduled to expand considerably over the next decade and that
a) The High St Co-op will become a Tesco Express
b) The medium-sized Co-op will become and Aldi/Lidl
With Waitrose AND Sainsbury as well, all tastes and shopping preferences would be catered for and competition would ensure that prices were kept low and quality maintained high - better for absolutely everyone.
No wonder the political class as so despised and loathed: UKIP have gained (they claim!) a number of new recruits for future elections - including a couple who have been avid Conservative canvasser/leafleteers in the past.0 -
Now that's a black swan. Tim (or anyone with an IQ over 80) talking health advice from the Daily Mail!!!tim said:@Charles
Babies will be born deaf and blind if teenagers don't get MMR to prevent rubella timebomb, warns leading scientist
He explained that mumps can render young men infertile and added that women infected with rubella have a 20 per cent chance of abortion.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2333144/Babies-born-deaf-blind-teenagers-dont-MMR-prevent-rubella-timebomb-warns-leading-scientist.html#ixzz2UrcGW54i
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Hopefully you've changed your mind on "taking a chance with mumps" over the last few months.0 -
tim calls for Darling to return
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100219500/the-return-of-alistair-darling-would-shut-the-tories-up/
0 -
ukip - the opportunistic party, ready to jump on any bandwagon where there are aggrieved residents.JandJ said:How to alienate your supporters and shift voters to UKIP.
1. Allow local Council to accept planning applications from Sainsbury and Waitrose (both on green-field but within town boundary sites).
2. Council takes very extensive soundings, both firms canvas local residents and >800 people wrote in to the Council - split 70% Waitrose, 20% Sainsbury, 10% neither (roughly)
3. Both firms, but Waitrose particularly, produce very, very detailed plans with great consideration given to the feed-back they've received.
4. Town now has 2 x Co-op 1 small one in High St and one medium sized one (similar to Aldi/Lidl stores) on what was edge-of-town but is now surrounded by houses. Hence no choice - >70% of residents go to other towns to shop - mainly Morrisons or Tesco.
5. After endless debate, lobbying, soundings etc, the Council have a long (3hr+) meeting and vote unanimously to support the Waitrose proposal.
6. 24hrs later you, as local MP, unilaterally refer the matter to Pickles for no other reason that anyone can understand other than that you personally prefer Sainsbury (or their option).
Result? Local people's clear wishes ignored,. local Council decision over-ridden, 'localism' exposed as a sham - and lead story on local radio this morning - AND all that everyone (genuinely, everyone I'm seen or met today - around a dozen) are ABSOLUTELY furious.
At the very very least, there will be a delay of years in getting a definitive decision...
The right option, obviously, would be to vote through BOTH proposals, knowing full well that the town is scheduled to expand considerably over the next decade and that
a) The High St Co-op will become a Tesco Express
b) The medium-sized Co-op will become and Aldi/Lidl
With Waitrose AND Sainsbury as well, all tastes and shopping preferences would be catered for and competition would ensure that prices were kept low and quality maintained high - better for absolutely everyone.
No wonder the political class as so despised and loathed: UKIP have gained (they claim!) a number of new recruits for future elections - including a couple who have been avid Conservative canvasser/leafleteers in the past.
0 -
Is that pb's tim??TGOHF said:tim calls for Darling to return
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100219500/the-return-of-alistair-darling-would-shut-the-tories-up/0 -
Typical stuff from The Daily Nimbygraph.tim said:Subprime George, screwing up everything he touches.
George Osborne's botch job has left housing in crisis
The Help to Buy scheme is pointless without a coherent approach to planning
So the Downing Street consensus is that planning reform is dead this side of 2015. “At which point we can go back to the party and ask them for more, as they’ll see the need by then,” says one senior figure.
So what can be done? Well, the Treasury lists a number of people who support Help to Buy who aren’t called George Osborne; they are developers such as Berkeley and their representatives at the Home Builders Federation. But there’s no point in making it easier to buy if there’s nothing to buy. And though the Government could have responded to the wise words of the OECD and the IMF about a lack of supply, it isn’t going to. It seems its strategy for mortgage finance is too ambitious, while its strategy for planning reform isn’t ambitious enough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10089428/George-Osbornes-botch-job-has-left-housing-in-crisis.html
0
