politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP drop 6 pts in latest ICM phone poll
Comments
-
@ RichardNabavi
Indeed. We simply have to cut spending, reduce the deficit and maintain the confidence of markets. A bit of money printing to enable this is a regrettable necessity.
If Labour come in in 2015 with any different plans then the market reaction could be swift and horrific. So there will certainly be ALOT more scrutiny on BAlls in the run up to the big day.
If they fluff it either we'll not get a Labour government or we'll get one that in short order presides over an interest rate and solvency disaster.0 -
@david_kendrick1 - It would be 'normal and reasonable', except for the fact that a vote for UKIP means we won't get the chance to leave.
If you don't believe Cameron can get anything (and that's certainly a very arguable position), all the more reason to vote Conservative, to get the referendum.0 -
Does that mean the Ukip 2020 landslide is still nailed on ?
LD+Ukip+Others still nearly higher than both blues and reds.
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Must reaise issue with a LabourList piece:
http://labourlist.org/2013/06/ed-miliband-is-trying-to-build-a-britain-the-tories-cant-break/
"Economically – what Labour did when we were in power has proved incredibly easy to reverse."
.....
If only.0 -
I'd love to know how much wonga both the Gov't and the Royal mail are chucking down the drain to ATOS.NickPalmer said:
I met a chap who was laid off by Royal Mail because their ATOS adviser said he wasn't fit for work, then refused benefit because another ATOS adviser said he WAS fit for work.He was more phlegmatic about it than I would have been - seemed to just feel this was the normal run of crap things that happen, and was morosely drawing JSA with no prospect whatever of getting another job..OblitusSumMe said:
For a short period of time. Then they face assessment from ATOS again, and face being judged fit to work by the same system.Socrates said:
Once they win their appeals, they'll be able to claim disability again, though...edmundintokyo said:
A decent proportion of these people are going on to win their appeals, so presumably they don't.Socrates said:"One of the key conditions of entitlement for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) – the benefit for those unemployed not unwell – is that the claimants is able to work."
But they have been declared fit for work, so surely they'll meet that condition?0 -
Iain Martin blogs
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100221285/ukip-hit-by-poll-slump/
"the idea – which seems to be the view favoured by some hardline Ukippers – that this insurgent force is taking on the characteristics of a great soaring, political movement that is going to keep climbing until it produces a massive popular uprising, a millennial cleansing and then an entirely "new politics" in which BLIAR and all the others are put on trial for treason, may turn out to be balls.
What seems much more likely is 10 per cent of the vote, a Labour government and no referendum on membership of the European Union. Just saying."0 -
NIESR estimates 0.6% GDP growth in 3 months ending May. In making that estimate they assume that Production fell MoM in May Services is largely unchanged for last 4 months and Construction was flat for last 3 months.
http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/gdp0613.pdf
So you can see it won't take much to get a good number in Q2, hence all of the current forecasts are way too pessimistic. If there is a way to bet on Q2 GDP I'd be looking into it.0 -
Mr. Denmark, 'tis good to see you on.0
-
Why don't we ensure everyone is in gainful employment first?Patrick said:Blimey. Avery appears to know his onions when it comes to deficit definitions.
However defined - please can we get it down
You'll find the deficit falls faster and more sustainably that way - no need to hive off State assets into the private sector which then runs them into the ground. No need to squirrel away pension assets at the expense of longer term liabilities. No need to offset gilt interest (effectively pissing away cheap money today at the direct expense of dear money tomorrow http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dba8ab0-2da3-11e2-9988-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Vv6i8wjD). No need to overstate likely 4G income in a desperate bid to unsettle a political opponent while appearing to come in under last year's borrowing requirement.
No need for all these Osborne-tainted wheezes at all. Like there is no need for Osborne at all. The bloke is a disaster.0 -
@AveryLP
So you are saying that George can reduce the deficit by £30bn on 1.2% growth because he can sell stuff off like the Post Office and the Bank shares?
That is not really what you have been saying. What you have been saying is that 1.2% growth will impact on the adjusted deficit, effectively the CACB, by £30bn and it simply won't. Growth will improve tax revenues slightly but not much because real wages are falling. Growth will reduce unemployment at the margins but given the relative generosity of inwork benefits the difference in spending will be small. Our companies may or may not choose to pay any tax but they probably won't. The banks and others have losses to set off against tax for a long time anyway.
So the net effect on the underlying position will be positive but small. Much, much smaller than £30bn.
Of course the government should do what it can to slow the growth of the debt mountain. I recognise that the government is doing that. But we need to get back to a sustainable future where we are paying down debt, funding public services and have cash for capital investment. We have a long, long way to go.0 -
MrsB - does your B stand for Bilderberg, then?MrsB said:The drop in UKIP support must be due to the Bilderberg meeting.
0 -
@RichardNabavi
I don't have much time to post on pb at the moment, so when I do I like to make it count.
Ciao!0 -
a brief check says A state of denmark was closest in the competition with 30/12. Almost everyone ,like the pollsters overestimated the Kippers share!0
-
Whats the split for others in this poll ? Greens in Norwich South nailed on ?0
-
The amount of anti-EU heading into the ballot box with this particular thought in their head and voting CON instead of UKIP at the next GE is going to be diminishingly small. Its a very logical argument and one I agree with but ultimately too sophisticated for the great British public.RichardNabavi said:@david_kendrick1 - It would be 'normal and reasonable', except for the fact that a vote for UKIP means we won't get the chance to leave.
If you don't believe Cameron can get anything (and that's certainly a very arguable position), all the more reason to vote Conservative, to get the referendum.0 -
You might well be right.Pulpstar said:The amount of anti-EU heading into the ballot box with this particular thought in their head and voting CON instead of UKIP at the next GE is going to be diminishingly small. Its a very logical argument and one I agree with but ultimately too sophisticated for the great British public.
That's why I'm rebalancing my portfolio gradually to be less dependent on the UK economy, to hedge against inflation as much as possible (although there aren't many attractive options for that), and to benefit if government bond yields rise and sterling falls.0 -
Can I have some ice cream with my apple pie, mommy?BenM said:
Why don't we ensure everyone is in gainful employment first?Patrick said:Blimey. Avery appears to know his onions when it comes to deficit definitions.
However defined - please can we get it down
Gainful employment is that which creates value over and above the cost of employment. How do you plan to go about creating all these great new job?0 -
Really? The sage of Peckham strikes !Icarus said:a brief check says A state of denmark was closest in the competition with 30/12. Almost everyone ,like the pollsters overestimated the Kippers share!
0 -
That is the tory line. But it can be no surprise that if your leader takes an unbelievable approach, nobody believes him.RichardNabavi said:@david_kendrick1 - It would be 'normal and reasonable', except for the fact that a vote for UKIP means we won't get the chance to leave.
If you don't believe Cameron can get anything (and that's certainly a very arguable position), all the more reason to vote Conservative, to get the referendum.
How many people, who have given the matter serious thought, really think that Cameron can gain a substantially better deal for Britain in the EU?
The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to be offered a referendum---and, more importantly, to win one. You're a canny bloke: come and join us.
0 -
@david_kendrick1
"How many people, who have given the matter serious thought, really think that Cameron can gain a substantially better deal for Britain in the EU?"
Me for one.0 -
DavidL
If I get Avery right he's saying the deficit is being cut essentially by cancelling or shelving government spending projects.
Of course if there's no growth or recession at the same time then its a slow process because more is being paid out in benefits etc.
But if there IS growth we can maybe see an uptick in revenues at the same time as this government capex falls.
That in essence is squeezing the deficit from two ways rather than one and could be quite quick...
At least I think that's what he said!!
0 -
I thought this one was better...tim said:@TGOHF
The comments under that Iain Martin piece are more unhinged than the PB Kippers banging on about Bulgarians and Somalians.
This poll is by the Metropolitan Elite for the Metropolitan Elite. Nothing they do or say can be trusted.
If It takes 10 , 20 , or more Years to Get The country back, then we WILL Continue the Political Fight. First we Have to Get Wonga Cameron Out of office in 2015.
Will we not be deterred By the GAMES of the PTB, and Their Media Machine
... I'm not entirely sure what it means though... ;-)
0 -
tim and ben want to return to the good old days of housing and jobs for everyone.
East Germany 1974 I believe it was called.
Only a matter of time before rEd is knifed for being too right wing.0 -
I fear frothaggedon when Ukip fail to win in 2015 and a Lib/Lab "Battenburg" pact rules out a referendum forever.tim said:@TGOHF
The comments under that Iain Martin piece are more unhinged than the PB Kippers banging on about Bulgarians and Somalians.
This poll is by the Metropolitan Elite for the Metropolitan Elite. Nothing they do or say can be trusted.
Although Martin's assertion that the Lib Dems are cheering a UKIP fall shows he knows as much as Dan Hodges when it comes to elections
The Telegraph comments pages won't be safe after dark.
0 -
"Only a matter of time before rEd is knifed for being too right wing."
He certainly ought to be.0 -
He wouldn't last 5 mins north of the border eh ?JamesKelly said:"Only a matter of time before rEd is knifed for being too right wing."
He certainly ought to be.0 -
"He wouldn't last 5 mins north of the border eh ?"
His contribution to the 2011 campaign speaks for itself. Iain "the Snarl" Gray shouldn't be taking all the credit.0 -
tim said:TGOHF said:
I fear frothaggedon when Ukip fail to win in 2015 and a Lib/Lab "Battenburg" pact rules out a referendum forever.tim said:@TGOHF
The comments under that Iain Martin piece are more unhinged than the PB Kippers banging on about Bulgarians and Somalians.
This poll is by the Metropolitan Elite for the Metropolitan Elite. Nothing they do or say can be trusted.
Although Martin's assertion that the Lib Dems are cheering a UKIP fall shows he knows as much as Dan Hodges when it comes to elections
The Telegraph comments pages won't be safe after dark.
It's the Tory MP's that agree with the nutters who should be worrying you more.
Dave wants a majority dependent on these people
They don't worry me - giving the people a vote is overdue.
0 -
The comments are certainly an over reaction! Why would they get so upset? 12% is a perfectly good score for UKIP in an ICM poll, some are calling it their 2nd best ever!TGOHF said:
I fear frothaggedon when Ukip fail to win in 2015 and a Lib/Lab "Battenburg" pact rules out a referendum forever.tim said:@TGOHF
The comments under that Iain Martin piece are more unhinged than the PB Kippers banging on about Bulgarians and Somalians.
This poll is by the Metropolitan Elite for the Metropolitan Elite. Nothing they do or say can be trusted.
Although Martin's assertion that the Lib Dems are cheering a UKIP fall shows he knows as much as Dan Hodges when it comes to elections
The Telegraph comments pages won't be safe after dark.
0 -
Yes - but the ATOS report said that his disability (severe back injury as I recall, so he couldn't sit at a desk for long or carry any loads or walk far) was so serious that Royal Mail concluded that they had no jobs (or, presumably, no vacant jobs) in the organisation that he would be able to carry out. The Job Centre adviser presumably either disagreed, or hypothesized that there were jobs out there which involved neither carrying anything nor sitting down for long periods.Charles said:
Can you lay someone off because they are not fit for work? Wouldn't you have an obligation to address those needs (e.g. a desk job) first?NickPalmer said:
I met a chap who was laid off by Royal Mail because their ATOS adviser said he wasn't fit for work, then refused benefit because another ATOS adviser said he WAS fit for work.He was more phlegmatic about it than I would have been - seemed to just feel this was the normal run of crap things that happen, and was morosely drawing JSA with no prospect whatever of getting another job..OblitusSumMe said:
For a short period of time. Then they face assessment from ATOS again, and face being judged fit to work by the same system.Socrates said:
Once they win their appeals, they'll be able to claim disability again, though...edmundintokyo said:
A decent proportion of these people are going on to win their appeals, so presumably they don't.Socrates said:"One of the key conditions of entitlement for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) – the benefit for those unemployed not unwell – is that the claimants is able to work."
But they have been declared fit for work, so surely they'll meet that condition?
If one draws the line that sharply, then almost anyone is fit for work - you might be dying of cancer, but still able to do some envelope-stuffing, say. The way the system is supposed to work is that you get points for every sort of thing you can't do, and if they add up enough then you're deemed to be unable in reality to get a job. That's not unreasonable in theory, but in practice the doctors seem motivated to err on the side of "oh, I expect you can do something" and leaving it to the appeal system to sort it out.
0 -
That's not unreasonable in theory, but in practice the doctors seem motivated to err on the side of "oh, I expect you can do something" and leaving it to the appeal system to sort it out."
A lot of the time they're not even doctors - they're nurses and assorted 'health professionals' who may know nothing about the conditions they're faced with (such as mental health problems).0 -
In April alone, after excluding the effects of non-recurring transactions, the "Public Sector Current Account budget deficit" was £2.5 bn lower than in the same month in 2012.DavidL said:@AveryLP
So you are saying that George can reduce the deficit by £30bn on 1.2% growth because he can sell stuff off like the Post Office and the Bank shares?
That is not really what you have been saying. What you have been saying is that 1.2% growth will impact on the adjusted deficit, effectively the CACB, by £30bn and it simply won't. Growth will improve tax revenues slightly but not much because real wages are falling. Growth will reduce unemployment at the margins but given the relative generosity of inwork benefits the difference in spending will be small. Our companies may or may not choose to pay any tax but they probably won't. The banks and others have losses to set off against tax for a long time anyway.
So the net effect on the underlying position will be positive but small. Much, much smaller than £30bn.
Of course the government should do what it can to slow the growth of the debt mountain. I recognise that the government is doing that. But we need to get back to a sustainable future where we are paying down debt, funding public services and have cash for capital investment. We have a long, long way to go.
Doing nothing more complex than multiplying the monthly actual by 12 gives us the £30 bn figure.
The PSNB ex year on year reduction in April was less, only £1 bn, again after stripping out the distortions.
Assuming £5 bn of bank share sales and £5 bn of other non-recurring receipts and a growth rate above that achieved in Q1, it is not unreasonable for the Treasury to set itself a target for deficit reduction including non-recurring transactions of around £30 bn.
This is all very back of the envelope and it will be interesting to see where the OBR goes in July.
One very important factor will be the stabilising of the fall in Oil & Gas extraction from the UKCS. It fell 15% per annum in the first two years of this government and if that trend persists then it will seriously hold back growth prospects for the economy as a whole.
There is reason to be cautiously optimistic here as new investments in large fields are due to start coming online in late 2013 and recent performance (Q1) has arrested the steep decline.
The problem is the risk of downtime to key fields. One field, Buzzard, for example, accounts for over 10% of total output and has been prone to frequent interruptions in production. Buzzard went down for a couple of months in Aug-Oct last year and knocked 0.2% off GDP as a result.
So if the new big fields come online on schedule, it should improve both the resilience and volume of output.
Much of Q1 2013's growth and today's ONS Production Index improvement is due to Dry Gas extraction being up this year. Gas output tends to be more demand driven than oil and this 'growth' was no doubt influenced by the cold weather up to April. If next winter is mild we might see an unwelcome decline.
It is time for Richard Tyndall to concentrate on the main task in hand: bolstering UK not UKIP growth.
0 -
If a better deal were on offer, which it isn't, it is unclear what persuades you to believe that Cameron is the man to negotiate it. The sheer detailed slog has to be done by the leader himself. The requirement is not for urbane and polished charm.DavidL said:@david_kendrick1
"How many people, who have given the matter serious thought, really think that Cameron can gain a substantially better deal for Britain in the EU?"
Me for one.
The successful trader would need a barrow-boy instinct, an attention to detail, and an understanding of not just that your partners dissemble, but how and why.
The only practical way of achieving what Britain needs would be on the back of a formal notice to quit.
0 -
The major reductions in capital expenditure were put in place by Darling in 2008 and 2009 because his boss did not have the courage or honesty to cut current spending. Osborne kept these in place because, as the former Chief Secretary said, there was no money left and increasing borrowing would have risked a seriously adverse market reaction.taffys said:DavidL
If I get Avery right he's saying the deficit is being cut essentially by cancelling or shelving government spending projects.
Of course if there's no growth or recession at the same time then its a slow process because more is being paid out in benefits etc.
But if there IS growth we can maybe see an uptick in revenues at the same time as this government capex falls.
That in essence is squeezing the deficit from two ways rather than one and could be quite quick...
At least I think that's what he said!!
Reductions in capital spending are not really a feature of current falls in the deficit. In fact, as Avery points out, capital spending is now being re-introduced on a modest scale. What we don't have is anything like the same scale of off balance sheet spending through PFI and this has adversely affected construction (and therefore growth) very considerably over the last 2 years as existing projects wound down.
Avery is correctly pointing out that any business with a cash flow problem looks to sell assets and non core functions to improve its cash position. I completely agree with that and also think there might be other benefits from the government getting out of the banking business. These are, by their nature one offs. If we sell the Post Office this year then all other things being equal the deficit will go back up again next year.
That is why the underlying position is more important than Avery is accepting. It is not that the sales are not worthwhile and a good thing, it is just that they are not a long term solution. The long term comes from bringing current spending below revenue so that debt can be repaid.
That is what we need from all governments of any persuasion for a very long time. They can choose where to spend the available monies and will no doubt argue about priorities. They can argue about tax burdens and the allocation of their taxes. But with over £1.1 trillion of debt the days of spending for growth are over.
0 -
Says the supporter of the man who connived with the ONS in obscuring over £50 billion of additional borrowing to bail out the UK banks.BenM said:
Why don't we ensure everyone is in gainful employment first?Patrick said:Blimey. Avery appears to know his onions when it comes to deficit definitions.
However defined - please can we get it down
You'll find the deficit falls faster and more sustainably that way - no need to hive off State assets into the private sector which then runs them into the ground. No need to squirrel away pension assets at the expense of longer term liabilities. No need to offset gilt interest (effectively pissing away cheap money today at the direct expense of dear money tomorrow http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dba8ab0-2da3-11e2-9988-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Vv6i8wjD). No need to overstate likely 4G income in a desperate bid to unsettle a political opponent while appearing to come in under last year's borrowing requirement.
No need for all these Osborne-tainted wheezes at all. Like there is no need for Osborne at all. The bloke is a disaster.
It is not the bailouts I am objecting to, Ben, it is the "Brown-tainted wheeze" of hiding the debt from the public figures. Far, far worse than any similar wheeze deployed by St. George.
0 -
All perfectly arguable, but irrelevant, or if anything an argument for the opposite of what you are saying. Suppose you are right: Cameron fails completely to get anything meaningful. There will then be a referendum, and his failure makes it easier for you to persuade the public to say 'We're Out'. (You should be more worried that he WILL get significant concessions.)david_kendrick1 said:If a better deal were on offer, which it isn't, it is unclear what persuades you to believe that Cameron is the man to negotiate it. The sheer detailed slog has to be done by the leader himself. The requirement is not for urbane and polished charm.
The successful trader would need a barrow-boy instinct, an attention to detail, and an understanding of not just that your partners dissemble, but how and why.
The only practical way of achieving what Britain needs would be on the back of a formal notice to quit.
Either way, the one absolute prerequisite is a Conservative majority government. If you seriously want to have the chance to leave the EU, it's the only possible way of getting to your goal.0 -
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
Greece has now lost both its equivalent of the NYT and the BBC to this crisis. National broadcaster to close at midnight.0 -
Another LOL poll that simply roots to the spot the same picture that has been with us for what seems like time immemorial, a not particularly sparkly, but very stubborn, Labour lead. It is of course plenty big enough – if repeated at a GE. The Tories are pinning their hopes on swingback, but from whom will this swingback swing?0
-
Watch the Buzzard!astateofdenmark said:NIESR estimates 0.6% GDP growth in 3 months ending May. In making that estimate they assume that Production fell MoM in May Services is largely unchanged for last 4 months and Construction was flat for last 3 months.
http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/gdp0613.pdf
So you can see it won't take much to get a good number in Q2, hence all of the current forecasts are way too pessimistic. If there is a way to bet on Q2 GDP I'd be looking into it.
It wasn't flying last weekend.
0 -
Is the world coming to an end?tim said:NickPalmer said:
Quite. I don't think that either personal or corporate taxes and benefits are fit for purpose in this globalised age, and those of us who aren't mobile are paying more because others are paying less.Cyclefree said:I'm surprised more isn't being made of the Thames Water tax story.
I'm all in favour of having successful companies here but if they don't pay any tax, what's the point? It does sometimes feel as if I and people like me are the only ones paying any bloody tax in this country.
Grumpy rant over.....
Short of One World Government (hello Bilderberg, where do we sign up?), this needs a coordinated international push - the G20 being the obvious place to start.
I don't think the Thames Water case is to do with cross border tax arrangements is it, it's more to do with offsetting investment against current rather than future tax.
Of course they ramp up prices and pay the directors a fortune when profits fall but thats been the same for 25 years in the water industry.
I can agree with at least one of those paragraphs, tim.
No, not the second. The first.
0 -
A completely potty analogy.tim said:@Avery.
Thats the Francis Maude method of spending reduction.
"We saved £12.50 on a pot plant, therefore we will save £12,500,000 on pot plants over the next accounting period"
"But Mr Maude, govt spending is up"
"You haven't included all the pot plant reductions going forward"
You need training on the matter, tim.
0 -
DavidL
Thanks for explaining the situation so lucidly and in such detail.
It strikes me that the underlying deficit position is much more difficult to get to grips with, as no government can fully know how attempts at spending curbs will really turn out.
For example, many of the government's welfare reforms are only now kicking in (universal credit, housing benefit cap) and some on here have argued they may actually result in higher spending.
0 -
Interesting contrast in UKIP fortunes in the local elections as one travels north-westwards through Suffolk from Babergh to St Edmundsbury to Forest Heath:
Babergh: 14.5%
St Edmundsbury: 24.3%
Forest Heath: 35.6%
0 -
Some pointless fun - can you beat me?
I won "Ed Balls Teaches Typing" in 0.633 seconds! My rating: "Ed Balls!" http://toys.usvsth3m.com/edballs/
EDIT I realised afterwards that you don't need to do the capitalisations - that got me down to 0.524 :^O0 -
David, it may not come as a total surprise to you that I have a great deal more confidence in Cameron, and indeed in Osborne and Hague, than you do. They have repeatedly delivered in respect of the EU in more difficult circumstances than this.david_kendrick1 said:
If a better deal were on offer, which it isn't, it is unclear what persuades you to believe that Cameron is the man to negotiate it. The sheer detailed slog has to be done by the leader himself. The requirement is not for urbane and polished charm.DavidL said:@david_kendrick1
"How many people, who have given the matter serious thought, really think that Cameron can gain a substantially better deal for Britain in the EU?"
Me for one.
The successful trader would need a barrow-boy instinct, an attention to detail, and an understanding of not just that your partners dissemble, but how and why.
The only practical way of achieving what Britain needs would be on the back of a formal notice to quit.
We will no doubt agree to differ on that but one reason I have optimism about this is that it is obvious that what we want will suit our partners in the EU too. They simply cannot have the UK taking every financial decision to the ECJ. They must find a solution to their banking crisis and sovereign crisis. This is going to require levels of co-ordination unimaginable under the current treaties with the budgets of most or even all countries being pre-approved by a central authority.
I think the majority in this country would think this to be a major mistake and that many countries should leave the Euro but they won't. They are effectively going to become one country with a large degree of devolution. I think that they will recognise (the Germans already do) that such a development requires a different arrangement from what we have had to date in the EU.
The threat of departure must be real and it is. Look at the opinion polls. The solution must be mutually beneficial and I believe it can be. And if you don't like it you can vote no. Or you can have a Labour government which will no doubt want to be at the heart of Europe again. Maybe not the choice you would want but the choice that UKIP supporters will be facing in 2015.
0 -
"How Ukip could cut income tax to a flat rate 25%" , and also eliminate Employers' and Employees' NI, and increase personal allowances, and make personal allowances transferable, and other fairy tales:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/godfrey-bloom-mep-how-ukip-could-cut-income-tax-to-a-flat-rate-25/1072281.article0 -
Damn I only managed 0.707!!!Plato said:Some pointless fun - can you beat me?
I won "Ed Balls Teaches Typing" in 0.633 seconds! My rating: "Ed Balls!" http://toys.usvsth3m.com/edballs/
EDIT I realised afterwards that you don't need to do the capitalisations - that got me down to 0.524 :^O0 -
So not all bad news for the Greeks then ?Plato said:Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
Greece has now lost both its equivalent of the NYT and the BBC to this crisis. National broadcaster to close at midnight.
0 -
It's rather amusing, isn't it. Whoever came up with it has managed to waste our time most productively...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Damn I only managed 0.707!!!Plato said:Some pointless fun - can you beat me?
I won "Ed Balls Teaches Typing" in 0.633 seconds! My rating: "Ed Balls!" http://toys.usvsth3m.com/edballs/
EDIT I realised afterwards that you don't need to do the capitalisations - that got me down to 0.524 :^O0 -
It's more their problem than mine. In any case, they don't need to trust him - there wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in hell of him surviving as Conservative leader if he didn't produce the referendum.tim said:@RichardNabavi.
Your problem selling this "Trust Dave" line is that UKIP voters and pensioners don't rate him0 -
Maybe a bit of a work in progress? Deary me. Can you imagine such arguments with Andrew Neill in an election?RichardNabavi said:"How Ukip could cut income tax to a flat rate 25%" , and also eliminate Employers' and Employees' NI, and increase personal allowances, and make personal allowances transferable, and other fairy tales:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/godfrey-bloom-mep-how-ukip-could-cut-income-tax-to-a-flat-rate-25/1072281.article0 -
Wonder if they'll be a Greek Baby Boom now that Greeks haven't got anything else to do of an evening? :^OPlato said:Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
Greece has now lost both its equivalent of the NYT and the BBC to this crisis. National broadcaster to close at midnight.
0 -
Anyone left in Greece is either over 65 or under 16.0
-
Imagine no longer!DavidL said:
Maybe a bit of a work in progress? Deary me. Can you imagine such arguments with Andrew Neill in an election?RichardNabavi said:"How Ukip could cut income tax to a flat rate 25%" , and also eliminate Employers' and Employees' NI, and increase personal allowances, and make personal allowances transferable, and other fairy tales:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/godfrey-bloom-mep-how-ukip-could-cut-income-tax-to-a-flat-rate-25/1072281.article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgikF9uFCsY
0 -
Miss Plato, I got to 0.712, then realised you didn't have to capitalise and got it down to 0.608.0
-
Anyone seen Mr Bloom in the same room as Steven Berkoff ?
Uncanny.0 -
Just seen you got it down to 0.524. That's pretty swift. Down to 0.592 right now.0
-
Thanks. I can't listen here but will do so tonight.isam said:
Imagine no longer!DavidL said:
Maybe a bit of a work in progress? Deary me. Can you imagine such arguments with Andrew Neill in an election?RichardNabavi said:"How Ukip could cut income tax to a flat rate 25%" , and also eliminate Employers' and Employees' NI, and increase personal allowances, and make personal allowances transferable, and other fairy tales:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/godfrey-bloom-mep-how-ukip-could-cut-income-tax-to-a-flat-rate-25/1072281.article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgikF9uFCsY
(Whilst taking typing lessons since I am apparently incredibly slow)0 -
It's amazing how fast it can be typed - sure a prof typist could knock it out in fractions of my time. I used to work with an ancient old lady who using a manual typewriter could do 95wpm [that's good shorthand speed] - a modern keyboard - well back in the late 80s - couldn't cope with the buffering.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, I got to 0.712, then realised you didn't have to capitalise and got it down to 0.608.
0 -
Personal best! 0.503 seconds!
Rating: ED BALLS! Tweet this
Personal best! 0.496 seconds!
Rating: ED BALLS!!! Tweet this
Sad case0 -
This article to do with the latest challenge on shortselling is a good example of the sort of tactics that the UK will use to get the new deal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10113280/UK-challenges-illegal-EU-power-to-ban-short-selling.html0
-
Just had to retweet this.
@JamesKelly 0.123 secs on Ed Balls typing test. Adopted passive aggressive approach and let my fingers float above keyboard. Easy.0 -
0.497. Although that did involved hitting the buttons and hoping on the order a bit.
Edit: improved to 0.468. Pity this doesn't get me a degree.
Edit 2: 0.428.0 -
This reminds me of the evening I spent doing the Times spelling bee competition - I hugely enjoyed myself, but its not something to tell a prospective date...isam said:Personal best! 0.503 seconds!
Rating: ED BALLS! Tweet this
Personal best! 0.496 seconds!
Rating: ED BALLS!!! Tweet this
Sad case0 -
If negotiations on a new treaty have not been completed in 2017-18 (likely) but are finally getting under way (quite possible) then even Eurosceptical voters might think it eccentric to call a referendum in the middle of them - the "in" vote would then be for an unknown outcome. He could perfectly reasonably say he was fighting to get the best deal for Britain, and he'd call a referendum as soon as the negotiations had produced a result. Since these things drag on, sadly, he might well have the package ready for a vote around 2020, at which point he could ask for voters to re-elect him so that he could conduct an in-out referendum, unlike those evil Labour and LibDem parties who would deny voters a say..RichardNabavi said:
It's more their problem than mine. In any case, they don't need to trust him - there wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in hell of him surviving as Conservative leader if he didn't produce the referendum.tim said:@RichardNabavi.
Your problem selling this "Trust Dave" line is that UKIP voters and pensioners don't rate him
Would you really demand that he resign at any point in this process? Of course, once re-elected he would call the referendum on the back of it and ask for a vote of confidence in his supposedly great negotiating result. I don't think that withdrawal would be likely on that basis.
0 -
I loved this.... http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/11/bank-clerk-falls-asleep-on-keyboard-and-accidentally-transfers-189million-to-customer-3836991/
A bank clerk who fell asleep on his keyboard accidentally transferred €222,222,222.22 (£189million) to one very lucky customer.
The tired bank worker had been making a payment of €64.20 (£54) when he fell asleep at his desk with his fingers on the number two key on his keyboard.
The huge transfer was then missed by the clerk’s supervisor and was only caught later in the day by another colleague who managed to correct the mistake before it cost the bank millions of euros.
A court in Germany has now ruled the 48-year-old supervisor should not have been dismissed by the bank for missing the clerk’s error, claiming she should only have been reprimanded for the unfortunate mistake last April.
The judges pointed out the unnamed woman, who had been at the bank since 1986, had already checked 812 transactions that day with only a few seconds to check each one.
They have since ordered that the supervisor should be reinstated.0 -
@NickPalmer
Nick, I think you are underestimating how much work and discussion there will have been about this already. Very little, if anything will happen before the German election but I suspect we will see quite a bit more of the outline of a deal before the UK election.
Getting the offer into a sellable form will, I would guess, be a key part of the platform for getting UKIP supporters back.0 -
It would be one thing to ask the public to hold on for six to twelve months for a referendum, but there's no way he'd get away with leaving it three years. How many times could he expect the public to say "just vote me in one more time and you'll get a referendum"? If Cameron gets in next time, he'll have to hold his referendum. He'd get replaced before 2020 if he didn't.NickPalmer said:
If negotiations on a new treaty have not been completed in 2017-18 (likely) but are finally getting under way (quite possible) then even Eurosceptical voters might think it eccentric to call a referendum in the middle of them - the "in" vote would then be for an unknown outcome. He could perfectly reasonably say he was fighting to get the best deal for Britain, and he'd call a referendum as soon as the negotiations had produced a result. Since these things drag on, sadly, he might well have the package ready for a vote around 2020, at which point he could ask for voters to re-elect him so that he could conduct an in-out referendum, unlike those evil Labour and LibDem parties who would deny voters a say..RichardNabavi said:
It's more their problem than mine. In any case, they don't need to trust him - there wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in hell of him surviving as Conservative leader if he didn't produce the referendum.tim said:@RichardNabavi.
Your problem selling this "Trust Dave" line is that UKIP voters and pensioners don't rate him
Would you really demand that he resign at any point in this process? Of course, once re-elected he would call the referendum on the back of it and ask for a vote of confidence in his supposedly great negotiating result. I don't think that withdrawal would be likely on that basis.0 -
'BREAKING James Crosby, the former chief executive, has been formally stripped of his knighthood. More coming at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/' christopherhope0
-
If Miliband thought it would guarantee him a being PM, he'd offer a referendum like a shot. He is still more likely to than not.RichardNabavi said:
All perfectly arguable, but irrelevant, or if anything an argument for the opposite of what you are saying. Suppose you are right: Cameron fails completely to get anything meaningful. There will then be a referendum, and his failure makes it easier for you to persuade the public to say 'We're Out'. (You should be more worried that he WILL get significant concessions.)david_kendrick1 said:If a better deal were on offer, which it isn't, it is unclear what persuades you to believe that Cameron is the man to negotiate it. The sheer detailed slog has to be done by the leader himself. The requirement is not for urbane and polished charm.
The successful trader would need a barrow-boy instinct, an attention to detail, and an understanding of not just that your partners dissemble, but how and why.
The only practical way of achieving what Britain needs would be on the back of a formal notice to quit.
Either way, the one absolute prerequisite is a Conservative majority government. If you seriously want to have the chance to leave the EU, it's the only possible way of getting to your goal.
'I am the only party leader to guarantee you a referendum on the EU' seems a politically clumsy step for Cameron to take. Much too easy to match---look at Labour's ever-so-flexible appoach to welfare.
FWIW, I think we're very likely to have a referendum. The problem will be winning one, and that is why UKIP need all possible support, and coverage, right now.
If a tory leader offered a referendum, and stated that he'd campaign to leave....
0 -
And the good news keeps on coming, even from the NIESR
Not George's favourite think tank, but adored by Ben, the NIESR has finally conceded the success of austerity economics and house building driven growth.
UK gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 0.6 per cent in the three months ended in May, following a rate of expansion of 1.0 per cent for the three months to April, according to the latest estimate from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
By the think-tank's own estimates both the production and private services sectors provided significant positive contributions to GDP growth in the recent three month period.
NIESR’s latest quarterly forecast (published May 2nd 2013) projected growth of 0.9% per annum this year and 1.5% in 2014. The private services sector is likely to drive economic growth through the remainder of this year, it adds.
Time for the two Eds to contemplate some more U-Turns methinks.0 -
If you think our party faction fighting is bad, in OZ Mark Latham has just called Kevin Rudd 'in the realm of evil' and of engaging in a 'jihad of revenge' as speculation mounts as to whether Gillard will be toppled. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/06/11/06/41/gillard-facing-another-leadership-challenge
Meanwhile Gillard has played the gender card in a last desperate attempt to keep her job, women will be "banished" from politics and abortion will be "the political plaything of men" if the Opposition wins the election.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-11/gillard-says-coalition-will-banish-women-from-politics/4747138
Finally, the Sunday Fairfax papers carried results from a ReachTEL automated phone of 3500 respondents in six Labor seats, which found Jason Clare on 48% of two-party preferred in Blaxland, Peter Garrett on 49% in Kingsford Smith, Bill Shorten and Wayne Swan on 53% in Maribyrnong and Lilley, and Jenny Macklin on 57% in Jagajaga. Also covered was Craig Emerson’s seat of Rankin, but here we were told only that he was trailing. The poll also inquired as to how people would vote if Kevin Rudd was returned to the leadership, which had Labor improving 4.5% in Kingsford Smith, 8.4% in Blaxland, 3.6% in Lilley, 11.8% in Rankin, 3.1% in Jagajaga and 8.6% in Maribyrnong.0 -
PPP Michigan 2016 Hillary Clinton (D) 44%
Chris Christie (R) 38%
Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
Jeb Bush (R) 37%
Hillary Clinton (D) 53% (51%)
Marco Rubio (R) 36% (37%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 55%
Rand Paul (R) 35%0 -
The revolution starts! well it could:
http://rt.com/news/austerity-greece-state-media-542/
Greek employees seize the state radio.0 -
It will be impossible for Cameron to claim that he has failed to get anything meaningful, because that is not what he wants to do. And that is what makes his 're-negotiate the deal' so implausible. He's already stated that he will recommend that Britain stays in the EU.
Coming to a completely different accommodation with Europe can only be done while Britain is 'working notice' to leave.
0 -
There's no way in hell the Republicans will win Michigan next time. I don't know why anyone's bothering to poll the place.HYUFD said:PPP Michigan 2016 Hillary Clinton (D) 44%
Chris Christie (R) 38%
Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
Jeb Bush (R) 37%
Hillary Clinton (D) 53% (51%)
Marco Rubio (R) 36% (37%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 55%
Rand Paul (R) 35%0 -
What does "taking on UKIP" entail, other than saying they're "in denial", "wrongheaded" and "rejecting the modern world"?tim said:@DavidL
I suspect we will see quite a bit more of the outline of a deal before the UK election.
Getting the offer into a sellable form will, I would guess, be a key part of the platform for getting UKIP supporters back.
No you won't, Camerons entire strategy depends on him not saying what he'll negotiate about.
As for getting UKIP supporters back,well they're obsessed by immigration rather than Europe, and Dave can't offer them anything on that within the single market.
Of course he could grow a pair and take on UKIP instead of trying to pander to them0 -
Socrates - True, but it is still technically a swing state and Obama won Michigan by 10% nationally in 2012, thus all candidates bar Christie would seem to be doing worse nationally against Hillary than Romney did against Obama (even accounting for Romney being a son of Michigan)0
-
@HYUFD
A swing state? Republicans might win occasionally at the state level, but for national elections it's blue through and through. It's consistently voted Democratic in presidential elections for twenty years, One Senate seat has been Democratic for 12 years and the other one for more than thirty. Obama defeated Romney there by a nine and a half point margin, despite Romney having strong family connections to the state. In 2008, it went to Obama by sixteen and a half points. It's simply not a swing state.0 -
You respond to a question on what "taking on" means by using the same term again. You think he should specifically argue to the public that large scale immigration from Eastern Europe is a positive thing?tim said:Socrates said:
What does "taking on UKIP" entail, other than saying they're "in denial", "wrongheaded" and "rejecting the modern world"?tim said:@DavidL
I suspect we will see quite a bit more of the outline of a deal before the UK election.
Getting the offer into a sellable form will, I would guess, be a key part of the platform for getting UKIP supporters back.
No you won't, Camerons entire strategy depends on him not saying what he'll negotiate about.
As for getting UKIP supporters back,well they're obsessed by immigration rather than Europe, and Dave can't offer them anything on that within the single market.
Of course he could grow a pair and take on UKIP instead of trying to pander to them
He could start by pointing out why Tory Govts believe in a single market and always have,and take on the immigration obsessed xenophobes rather than trying to outflank them with Lynton "f*cking Muslims" Crosby's amateur appeasement.0 -
Rubio is a talented politician. It's just his party is dragging him down and binding him to unpopular positions.tim said:HYUFD said:Socrates - True, but it is still technically a swing state and Obama won Michigan by 10% nationally in 2012, thus all candidates bar Christie would seem to be doing worse nationally against Hillary than Romney did against Obama (even accounting for Romney being a son of Michigan)
These polls seem to be exposing Rubio.
Always totally overrated0 -
@Tim
"He could start by pointing out why Tory Govts believe in a single market and always have,and take on the immigration obsessed xenophobes.."
It's interesting Tim how you respond immediately, emotionally, and viscerally to any view critical of mass immigration, even though it's clear that it's something you know about through google rather than life-experience.
I would expect you to be pleased to see your political opponents making what you view as a mistake
So I think your reaction comes from either
- The sight of one of your sacred cows being slaughtered
OR
- A deep fear that Labour is very much on the wrong side of Popular opinion on immigration, perhaps damagingly so for their electoral prospects.0 -
Tim - Indeed, but I doubt he will get the nomination anyway, he is too liberal on immigration. I would go with OGH and tip Rand Paul, or Barry Goldwater - The Sequel!0
-
Socrates - It is on the outer reaches of swing state, agreed, but Bush Senior won it in 1988 and Kerry only won it in 2004 by a little over 3%!0
-
@HYUFD
The establishment wouldn't tolerate Rand Paul, and he has enough positions that are anathema to the GOP base that they could sink him. Just wait until his opponents start telling elderly Iowans that he wants to legalise pot. If the nominee isn't Rubio, I suspect it'll be someone not on most people's radar: a Pence or a Walker.0 -
Can I request an update on the situation in Syria from Y0kel?0
-
Bush Senior is a very, very long way from any possible GOP nominee, and the state has moved dramatically since then. You may as well say California is a swing state on that basis.HYUFD said:Socrates - It is on the outer reaches of swing state, agreed, but Bush Senior won it in 1988 and Kerry only won it in 2004 by a little over 3%!
As for Kerry, he was probably the worse possible cultural fit for Michiganders and he still managed to win the place by more than three points. That's the Democrats' floor.0 -
I don't have private sources on this (do you? - genuine question), but I do read the Continental press. There seem broadly two schools of thought: people who want to find a way to get effective fiscal union in the Eurozone without a new treaty, and people who feel the problem has gone away so they don't want to do anything. I might be wrong, but there appears to be netiher the political will nor any concrete preparation for a new Treaty - and to get one in 2017 they'd really need to be starting now.DavidL said:@NickPalmer
Nick, I think you are underestimating how much work and discussion there will have been about this already. Very little, if anything will happen before the German election but I suspect we will see quite a bit more of the outline of a deal before the UK election.
Getting the offer into a sellable form will, I would guess, be a key part of the platform for getting UKIP supporters back.
The German election is indeed key, but only in releasing German willingness to help in practical ways - bank aid, basically - that the electorate wouldn't like.
0 -
Socrates - No candidates don't win the GOP nomination unless they have a large case advantage and are the establishment choice well beforehand if they are not the choice of the base. After 2 moderates the GOP base will pick a conservative in 2016, and Paul gets his most ardent support amongst very conservative voters and has now said he opposes marijuana legalisation, although he thinks there are better alternatives than prison. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-to-marijuana-legalization/
If not Paul, I could see Santorum getting it, as he won Iowa in 2008. Against Hillary the GOP will probably lose anyway but will want to go down fighting and the GOP establishment could not stop Goldwater nor Reagan and is in an even weaker spot now after 20120 -
Rand Paul hasn't opposed marijuana legalisation.HYUFD said:Socrates - No candidates don't win the GOP nomination unless they have a large case advantage and are the establishment choice well beforehand if they are not the choice of the base. After 2 moderates the GOP base will pick a conservative in 2016, and Paul gets his most ardent support amongst very conservative voters and has now said he opposes marijuana legalisation, although he thinks there are better alternatives than prison. If not Paul, I could see Santorum getting it, as he won Iowa in 2008. Against Hillary the GOP will probably lose anyway but will want to go down fighting and the GOP establishment could not stop Goldwater nor Reagan and is in an even weaker spot now after 2012
Yeah, they'll choose a conservative, but there's a difference between someone conservative and someone very conservative.0 -
Socrates - Kerry won California by 10 points in 20040
-
But Bush won it in 1988. I'm sorry, but if a three point loss is your best result in twenty years, that's not a swing state. A swing state has to actually swing.HYUFD said:Socrates - Kerry won California by 10 points in 2004
I also think you're not appreciating how the respective parties positions on the auto bailout has realigned the state.0 -
Socrates - Well Bush only won nationally by 3%, if he had had a comfortable victory, say 6% or more he would probably have won Michigan, it is not a key state, but can swing in the right circumstances0
-
The reality is that the vast majority of the British public don't believe in it, however, and they're not going to be persuaded by Dave or anyone else trying to charm them. It's thus politically suicidal to come out for it. The best case you can make that people will accept is that it's a necessary price to pay for being part of the EU, which is overall a good thing.tim said:
I assume you voted for it all your life, as has Cameron.Socrates said:
You respond to a question on what "taking on" means by using the same term again. You think he should specifically argue to the public that large scale immigration from Eastern Europe is a positive thing?tim said:Socrates said:
What does "taking on UKIP" entail, other than saying they're "in denial", "wrongheaded" and "rejecting the modern world"?tim said:@DavidL
I suspect we will see quite a bit more of the outline of a deal before the UK election.
Getting the offer into a sellable form will, I would guess, be a key part of the platform for getting UKIP supporters back.
No you won't, Camerons entire strategy depends on him not saying what he'll negotiate about.
As for getting UKIP supporters back,well they're obsessed by immigration rather than Europe, and Dave can't offer them anything on that within the single market.
Of course he could grow a pair and take on UKIP instead of trying to pander to them
He could start by pointing out why Tory Govts believe in a single market and always have,and take on the immigration obsessed xenophobes rather than trying to outflank them with Lynton "f*cking Muslims" Crosby's amateur appeasement.
Either you believe in free movement in a single market or not0 -
But the reason why no Republican has won by more than 3% in twenty years is that there's lots of states like Michigan! You have the causation the wrong way round.HYUFD said:Socrates - Well Bush only won nationally by 3%, if he had had a comfortable victory, say 6% or more he would probably have won Michigan, it is not a key state, but can swing in the right circumstances
0 -
I quickly skimmed the first half of the thread - hasn't anyone at all pointed out to Mike that the header says the poll is June 2012? People are normally on to that sort of thing like a knife.0
-
Could you quote an example of the "sickening" xenophobia on here?tim said:
Politically I'm enjoying the damage to the Tory party.Fat_Steve said:@Tim
"He could start by pointing out why Tory Govts believe in a single market and always have,and take on the immigration obsessed xenophobes.."
It's interesting Tim how you respond immediately, emotionally, and viscerally to any view critical of mass immigration, even though it's clear that it's something you know about through google rather than life-experience.
I would expect you to be pleased to see your political opponents making what you view as a mistake
So I think your reaction comes from either
- The sight of one of your sacred cows being slaughtered
OR
- A deep fear that Labour is very much on the wrong side of Popular opinion on immigration, perhaps damagingly so for their electoral prospects.
But the xenophobia in some parts of this country (and among some on here) at the moment is sickening.
If Cameron hasn't got the balls to stand up for Thatcherite priinciples of free movement then he should let someone with some bottle have a go.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
