politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM 6% CON lead sets the election alight
Comments
-
To put things in perspective - if LA had reached another Tory instead of Labour supporter in Scotland, the Tories would have had a 3% lead over Labour.0
-
Well, a business rarely gets to create or operate its own currency, and if it goes bust it ceases to exist. It also gets to choose its employees and it is generally formed and then run to make a profit - or at least to generate revenue. So there are a few big differences between a business and a country to get you started.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
0 -
Today's YouGov poll uses survey results from 11-12 April. Tomorrow's will use survey results from 12-13 April. Are 12th April responses reused, or they fresh responses?0
-
In Nov and Dec, ICM had UKIP collecting 19% of 2010 Tory votes.
Their last three polls have been 9,8 and 6.
Either the Kippers are going back to the Tories, or people are a bit shy on the telephone.
There's something similar happening on Ashcroft and Comres phones.0 -
The Big Society was a superb idea criminally badly explained or PR'd. It doesn't negate the principles behind it that remain solidly good.
It's the thing I'm most sore about re GE2010. I know a great many volunteers who were just sneered at as a consequence - it breaks my heart.
Just look at @Charles here - his family has done more than most PBers put together as a social conscious on the ground - yet it gets rubbished as he's a Tory, that he's from a family of bankers just makes it all less acceptable. I hate all the nay sayers who want to drag everything down to their own small minds and meaness. I doubt they can look into their hearts and raise a candle to what he's done.
Hmpf. Rant over.Alistair said:
I thought that the the "Big Society" thing that Cameron did was not focus grouped at all.SeanT said:
They would not be spending this time and money on an attack line that had not been relentlessly focus grouped, and shown to work.0 -
Nope, he had a go at me, for not posting the UKIP figures from a poll. Even though my origianl tweet said, Only Lab & Con figures available at the moment.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, that's sad to hear. It's one of the various reasons I hardly ever tweet about anything political.
Are you sure he wasn't outraged by your shocking ignorance of classical history?0 -
I reckon PC could get a bounce from the SNP sticking it to the (Labour) man in Scotland. And SW Wales has had quite an influx of English over the past 10 years. I just think that there will be significantly more marginals to fight over next time....Plato said:I haven't followed any Welsh polling or subsamples - is there anything in them to show a significant shift to anyone?
MarqueeMark said:
I have a sneaky feeling Labour could be in for a shock in Wales. Nothing like Scotland, but enough to scare the bejeeesus out of them.....OblitusSumMe said:
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?weejonnie said:Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...
And we so L-O-V-E marginals here...0 -
Fresh responses.Dadge said:Today's YouGov poll uses survey results from 11-12 April. Tomorrow's will use survey results from 12-13 April. Are 12th April responses reused, or they fresh responses?
A YouGov poll begins at 5pm on day 1, and ends around 3pm on day 2.
The next YouGov poll begins at 5pm on day, and ends around 3pm on day 3.0 -
If you run a business you're spending your own money. Governments don't have any money of their own. If they don't get enough revenue from the private sector being taxed etc, then they can either print it or borrow it, effectively without limit. Businesses can't do that.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.0 -
There'll probably be a midday or 6pm cut-off.Dadge said:Today's YouGov poll uses survey results from 11-12 April. Tomorrow's will use survey results from 12-13 April. Are 12th April responses reused, or they fresh responses?
0 -
It quite simple, if the Tories want to be in the running they have to get UKIP vote down below 10. I would have thought focusing on vote Farage get Miliband + Sturgeon is the best form of attack, not personal on them, rather the direction they want to take Britain.
Even then I think Cameron has burned some many bridges trying to cozy up to the Guardianista types and so few high profile Tories that sounds and act normal, going to be a hard job to do so in 3 weeks.0 -
Do stick around, I miss my shoe shopping - I feel you are a proxy!Beverley_C said:
Thank you.OblitusSumMe said:I think this means that the opposition to a minority PM now gets to choose when to hold an early election, rather than the incumbent PM - assuming that the opposition can assemble a majority to vote in such a way.
It would certainly be entertaining to watch, I might even indulge myself. :-)0 -
Went leafletting in Bosworth and Hinckley. Masses of Lib Dem posters, 1 Labour, 1 UKIP, 2 Tory. An absent Tory who thinks the NHS should use astrology to decide when to operate on patients is the current MP.
The Liberals run the council and the town seems to be awakening with new shopping centre, Cinema etc and 1,000 government jobs comming after years of decline as the hosiery trade collapsed.
Need big UKIP vote (ex Tory county councillor) and if get it could be a close result.0 -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/04/13/john-lanchester/episode-seven-panic-the-kippers/MaxPB said:
Really, if this is the way it goes down then the Tories will have played a blinder. Make Ed look like a dangerous lefty, have a centrist platform to win votes in the centre and then Tories on holiday in UKIP land come home a couple of weeks before the election meaning the Tories don't have to tack to the right and lose the centre ground.Tissue_Price said:
Right now I'd split the difference. For May 7th, I'd be leaning quite heavily ICM.antifrank said:The ICM and Lord Ashcroft polls are very similar indeed. The only substantial difference between them is how to allocate the Con+UKIP share.
If that is how it ends up going down then the Tories will win a majority in the most unlikely of circumstances, but that is what ICM is showing right now.0 -
The difference is that you wouldn't run your business at a loss during a normal year. It would take an abnormal event or bear market to sink profitability. Labour were running deficits from 1997-2007 above economic growth in all but one year when they sold the 3G licences. A business run like that would be bankrupt. It's only because the government has the ability to print money that it is protected from such a fate.SouthamObserver said:Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
0 -
Most serious punters I know expect a hung Parliament, and the more serious they are the more they expect it.Beverley_C said:
I suspect that given the apparent closeness and uncertainty, the supporters of each side will be shouting for their man to win and sensible discussion is unlikely. Most of the people I know expect a hung parliament and a second election, except that we now have fixed five year terms.Peter_the_Punter said:
I meant a good day in terms of sane and sensible discussion. But then perhaps it is never good in such respects.
I presume, therefore, that the Heath and Wilson scenario of the 1970's cannot happen this time around and when I mention that people go "ummm.. err...". Of course it gets difficult when they then ask me what the answer is - how do we have a second election - and I have to admit I have no idea.
What are the chances of 1974 happening under current rules? Is it even remotely possible? I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a re-run.
Beyond that, it's impossible to call. Goodness knows what the next Government will be and how long it will last.0 -
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
What utter tosh, Southam!SouthamObserver said:
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
0 -
The problem with the Big Society idea was that it wanted to bring back 1950s-style civic participation with 2010s levels of spare time. The voluntary sector can not pick up the slack from a shrinking state when the only people who have time to help out are the stay-at-home spouses of millionaires.Plato said:The Big Society was a superb idea criminally badly explained or PR'd. It doesn't negate the principles behind it that remain solidly good.
It's the thing I'm most sore about re GE2010. I know a great many volunteers who were just sneered at as a consequence - it breaks my heart.
Just look at @Charles here - his family has done more than most PBers put together as a social conscious on the ground - yet it gets rubbished as he's a Tory, that he's from a family of bankers just makes it all less acceptable. I hate all the nay sayers who want to drag everything down to their own small minds and meaness. I doubt they can look into their hearts and raise a candle to what he's done.
Hmpf. Rant over.Alistair said:
I thought that the the "Big Society" thing that Cameron did was not focus grouped at all.SeanT said:
They would not be spending this time and money on an attack line that had not been relentlessly focus grouped, and shown to work.0 -
People who say "Running the country is not the same as running a business" are, without exception, Labour supporters justifying ever increasing 'investment' in the client state.Plato said:Why not? How is UK plc not under the same constraints as your business or my household spending budget?
Money and expenditure are the same commodities whatever universe we're using them in. Only Bubble Market fools believe those basic rules don't apply and get burned by them.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.Plato said:Straight question, if your own business was overspending - what would you do? Run it into the ground/borrow/mortgage your home or cut back to maintain the core and rebuild?
That's the principle of it all. You aren't daft, and neither am I. That's the choice a CoE has to make.
Whilst the piss was taken - Mrs T was right about household budgets. Eventually, spending beyond your means catches up with you.SouthamObserver said:
My natural inclination is for as few cuts as possible. Philosophically I am opposed to the small state the Tories favour because I see the state as a force for good.TheWatcher said:
But Labour's vague and fluffy cuts as announced this morning are OK.SouthamObserver said:
£60 billion of unexplained cuts over five years. That will inevitably have a major impact on a lot of people - many of whom will be in full time work on low salaries.TheWatcher said:
Baby eating? Seriously, what do you think they might do that is so awful?SouthamObserver said:
That way, some of their more draconian stuff can be prevented.0 -
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
Quite. And surely that's the most obvious baseline of any argument?Richard_Nabavi said:
What utter tosh, Southam!SouthamObserver said:
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.0 -
Good afternoon all and having got over the shock of Populus not showing a Labour lead, the Ashcroft numbers are just a repeat of 4 weeks ago. As for ICM, on those numbers, David Cameron will be taking an overall majority into No 10 in 3 weeks time.
Lots of people trying to say the ICM poll is an outlier. they said that when ICM first recorded the Tories on 36% in February and repeated it when the Tories again scored 36% in March. Close on their heels we saw ComRes on 36% on 30th March, Opinium had the Tories on 36% yesterday, YouGov had the Tories 36% and 37% on 1st and 2nd April and Ashcroft had the Tories on 36% a fortnight ago. I know there have been low 30s from online pollsters in between. The point I am making is ICM first broke ranks to show the Tories on 36%. They could very well now be breaking ranks to show the Tories scoring about the 2010 score.
The ICM numbers today would be in line with the average swing in last week's Ashcroft 10 of under 2%.0 -
Tim_B said:
If you run a business you're spending your own money. Governments don't have any money of their own. If they don't get enough revenue from the private sector being taxed etc, then they can either print it or borrow it, effectively without limit. Businesses can't do that.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
Governments don't have any money of their own. If they don't get enough revenue ... they can either print it or borrow it, effectively without limit.
There may not be hard "limits" but there are darn well negative consequences for the population.
0 -
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.Pulpstar said:
Scotland:OblitusSumMe said:
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.Bob__Sykes said:What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
...snip...
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss??
The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
0 -
@ScotTories: Labour in chaos over the economy. We have the the track record and vision to keep our economy on track. #voteforit http://t.co/dtzponMKtF0
-
The last Lord Ashcroft marginals batch had UKIP on 11% in Lab/Con marginals , 15% in Con/LD marginals, plus there are of areas of UKIP strength where they are challenging to win themselves. Add that on to the votes they get as being the new alternative to Labour in their heartlands and I find it difficult to believe they could only be on a total of 7% nationwide.0
-
Pah, you're Angels On The Head Of A Pin again.
Money In = Money Out.
For a patent businessman, you display the minute attention to detail required and deliberately miss the wood the rest of us see.
I really am perplexed that you think the rest of us aren't as smart as you and hood-winked by it or deflected by the feathers on an angelic wing.SouthamObserver said:
Well, a business rarely gets to create or operate its own currency, and if it goes bust it ceases to exist. It also gets to choose its employees and it is generally formed and then run to make a profit - or at least to generate revenue. So there are a few big differences between a business and a country to get you started.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.0 -
Absolutely!MarkHopkins said:Tim_B said:
If you run a business you're spending your own money. Governments don't have any money of their own. If they don't get enough revenue from the private sector being taxed etc, then they can either print it or borrow it, effectively without limit. Businesses can't do that.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
Governments don't have any money of their own. If they don't get enough revenue ... they can either print it or borrow it, effectively without limit.
There may not be hard "limits" but there are darn well negative consequences for the population.0 -
Neither of those things are in any way proof of a genuine motivation. It doesn't surprise me that he abused you; his job would be to be as vile as possible.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, it's a genuine Kipper account. 56,000 tweets, and photos of him attending UKIP events.Luckyguy1983 said:
Or an account pretending to be one.Slackbladder said:
UKIP voter, enough said.RobD said:
Not quite sure what the guys beef is?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.
0 -
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
What utter tosh, Southam!SouthamObserver said:
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
0 -
The SNP score is more or less in line with the Scotland specific polling, the Labour score is low. But low scores on Labour phone polling in the Scottish phone subsamples are fairly common.Flightpath said:
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.Pulpstar said:
Scotland:OblitusSumMe said:
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.Bob__Sykes said:What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
...snip...
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss??
The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Labour are probably on 27 odd %.0 -
Still think that all the criticism of contributing companies and governments to the Clinton Foundation isn't working?
She's resigned from it within hours of announcing..
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-resigns-from-board-of-clinton-foundation/0 -
We haven't had a Welsh poll since the 7-way leader's debate, and I don't think the Welsh subsamples are worth looking at for anything other than amusement value.
The polling in Wales suggests the following changes relative to 2010: Lib Dems down a lot, UKIP up quite a lot, Labour and Greens up a bit, Conservatives and Plaid static.Plato said:I haven't followed any Welsh polling or subsamples - is there anything in them to show a significant shift to anyone?
MarqueeMark said:
I have a sneaky feeling Labour could be in for a shock in Wales. Nothing like Scotland, but enough to scare the bejeeesus out of them.....OblitusSumMe said:
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?weejonnie said:Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...0 -
Reckless probably...Ishmael_X said:
He seems a bit upset about something, for sure. Kipper/Green parity?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/5876402586128957440 -
I would guess that the SNP will do just as well if not better if there was a 2nd election this year. The only thing that is certain at the moment is that the SNP are going to be polling 45% or more and their supporters are the most energised by this election.Beverley_C said:
What are the chances of 1974 happening under current rules? Is it even remotely possible? I suspect that the SNP would not do well in a re-run.Peter_the_Punter said:
I meant a good day in terms of sane and sensible discussion. But then perhaps it is never good in such respects.
Heck if we have a 2nd election there is every chance that they focus on the few seats that they didn't take in May and look for the clean sweep. (This would make an indyref in 2017/8 a certainty) They definitely have the membership numbers to easily fight a 2nd election unlike some other parties up here.0 -
SouthamObserver,
Here is a link to government spending per person in different countries:
http://tinyurl.com/lzsv8r9
I don't see what we get for our money that the Australians, Japanese, New Zealanders and Israelis don't.0 -
The ICM "outlier"
Labour (last 6) - 32, 33,33, 32,35,33
-----
Con (last 6) -- 31,28,30,36,36,39
UKIP (last 6) --19,19,13, 9, 8, 6
LD (last 6) ---- 11,14, 8, 7, 6, 7
Tories picking up blue Liberals and returning defectors?0 -
I am genuinely perplexed that you see yourself as a spokesman for the rest of the world. If you do not see that being able to create and run a currency is a bit more than a nicety, then I guess we must remain puzzled by each other forever.Plato said:Pah, you're Angels On The Head Of A Pin again.
Money In = Money Out.
For a patent businessman, you display the minute attention to detail required and deliberately miss the wood the rest of us see.
I really am perplexed that you think the rest of us aren't as smart as you and hood-winked by it or deflected by the feathers on an angelic wing.SouthamObserver said:
Well, a business rarely gets to create or operate its own currency, and if it goes bust it ceases to exist. It also gets to choose its employees and it is generally formed and then run to make a profit - or at least to generate revenue. So there are a few big differences between a business and a country to get you started.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.
0 -
Labour go onto Tory economic heartland
Kings Fund comes out slagging off Labour's commitment to NHS funding
I'M
Pretty good day for the Tories0 -
But is not the SNP surge coming from Labour votes? What is it about Labour voters that suddenly changes when they become SNP voters?Pulpstar said:
The SNP score is more or less in line with the Scotland specific polling, the Labour score is low. But low scores on Labour phone polling in the Scottish phone subsamples are fairly common.Flightpath said:
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.Pulpstar said:
Scotland:OblitusSumMe said:
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.Bob__Sykes said:What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
...snip...
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss??
The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Labour are probably on 27 odd %.0 -
The Conservatives have produced a full rebuttal of Labour’s manifesto
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/13/election-2015-live-ed-miliband-labour-party-manifesto0 -
If the Conservatives get say 310 seats and form another Gov't with the Lib Dems then I'd imagine the Scots will be happier to have elected SNP MPs rather than the salary bagging quislings of Scottish Labour.0
-
You couldn't be more wrong. When I worked in Whitehall at DWP - the Perm Sec was dead keen on Big Society stuff and gave all his senior managers a target of at least 1 day doing it.
That they didn't fancy it due to Blackberry demands is neither here nor there. The mandate came from the top and Leigh Lewis lived it. He was a superb role model. I was with him when he spent a day handling Crisis Loans phone line - it was an eye opener with many claimants repeat *I lost my wallet* candidates.
Nothing beats Back To The Floor for bosses.JEO said:
The problem with the Big Society idea was that it wanted to bring back 1950s-style civic participation with 2010s levels of spare time. The voluntary sector can not pick up the slack from a shrinking state when the only people who have time to help out are the stay-at-home spouses of millionaires.Plato said:The Big Society was a superb idea criminally badly explained or PR'd. It doesn't negate the principles behind it that remain solidly good.
It's the thing I'm most sore about re GE2010. I know a great many volunteers who were just sneered at as a consequence - it breaks my heart.
Just look at @Charles here - his family has done more than most PBers put together as a social conscious on the ground - yet it gets rubbished as he's a Tory, that he's from a family of bankers just makes it all less acceptable. I hate all the nay sayers who want to drag everything down to their own small minds and meaness. I doubt they can look into their hearts and raise a candle to what he's done.
Hmpf. Rant over.Alistair said:
I thought that the the "Big Society" thing that Cameron did was not focus grouped at all.SeanT said:
They would not be spending this time and money on an attack line that had not been relentlessly focus grouped, and shown to work.0 -
A Hillary sighting - and it's a van, not a bus.
http://time.com/3819355/hillary-clinton-scooby-doo-van/0 -
SNP surge is mainly from Labour and Lib Dems, one or two Tories in there but they are holding up the vote well and may even gain vote share in Scotland.Flightpath said:
But is not the SNP surge coming from Labour votes? What is it about Labour voters that suddenly changes when they become SNP voters?Pulpstar said:
The SNP score is more or less in line with the Scotland specific polling, the Labour score is low. But low scores on Labour phone polling in the Scottish phone subsamples are fairly common.Flightpath said:
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.Pulpstar said:
Scotland:OblitusSumMe said:
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.Bob__Sykes said:What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
...snip...
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss??
The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Labour are probably on 27 odd %.0 -
That must make Ed really keen to go to a Challengers Debate. Very easy for him to explain to all his interest groups.......Scott_P said:Nicola Sturgeon has predictably responded to Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna’s correction of Jim Murphy’s claims about no further spending cuts in Scotland. Sturgeon said the Scottish Labour leader had been “hung out to dry”, proving that his party is “no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour”:
The truth is out about Labour spending cuts. Jim Murphy’s false claims in the TV debates have been rubbished by his own party bosses at Westminster, who have hung him out to dry.
Labour would impose swingeing spending cuts on Scotland and the rest of the UK, carrying on with austerity where the Tories left off - that is the core aspect of the manifesto they have published. It sweeps away Jim Murphy’s pretence, and leaves him devoid of any credibility in this campaign.
Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna have just confirmed that Labour in Scotland continue to be no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour. That is why so many voters in Scotland are moving away from Labour and choosing the SNP, and we will continue to work hard to earn people’s trust.0 -
:-) It depends. I may have rather a large block of work heading my way. I will know in a few day's time.Plato said:Do stick around, I miss my shoe shopping - I feel you are a proxy!
Anyway - on to serious matters. I hope that the cats are OK and that you are doing well. As I recall you had a few medical issues (leg/hip?) so I hope that they have cleared up for you.
As for me, things are going well enough and I acquired a few nice shoes and boots and my daughter was kind enough to donate a rather fetching handing that goes very well with my leather jacket so that was nice. Luckily for me I have an excuse to go spending soon as I need a new outfit for a big family party in a few weeks time.
Much more interesting than how I thought this election was going to turn out, but the election might be interesting, especially on election night.
0 -
I notice that Peter Kellner gets quite a bit of abuse over on UKPR, due to his projection that the Conservatives will be the largest party after May 7th. Left-wing posters think he's in the pay of CCHQ! A lot of people will blame the messenger for the message they dislike.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, that's sad to hear. It's one of the various reasons I hardly ever tweet about anything political.
Are you sure he wasn't outraged by your shocking ignorance of classical history?0 -
Labour have had a huge own goal today by leading their manifesto on fiscal responsibility and focussing all the media on their weakest area. The media seem to be panning their lack of detail re cuts and dealing with the deficit, no more so than the IFS. Whilst the 6% conservative poll lead today maybe optimistic this could be the day the election came alive and focussed voters attention and not in a good way for labour. With the conservative manifesto reported to be up beat and with the recent positive ratings on both competence on dealing with the economy and David Cameron's personal standing a conservative most seats seems much more likely and even a small majority after the debacle the challengers debate will be for Ed Miliband this coming thursday. Why he agreed to take part is a complete mystery0
-
The vast majority of us do not work for politically-involved civil servants who are happy for us to dedicate one fifth of the work week to non-work related issues.Plato said:You couldn't be more wrong. When I worked in Whitehall at DWP - the Perm Sec was dead keen on Big Society stuff and gave all his senior managers a target of at least 1 day doing it.
That they didn't fancy it due to Blackberry demands is neither here nor there. The mandate came from the top and Leigh Lewis lived it. He was a superb role model. I was with him when he spent a day handling Crisis Loans phone line - it was an eye opener with many claimants repeat *I lost my wallet* candidates.
Nothing beats Back To The Floor for bosses.JEO said:
The problem with the Big Society idea was that it wanted to bring back 1950s-style civic participation with 2010s levels of spare time. The voluntary sector can not pick up the slack from a shrinking state when the only people who have time to help out are the stay-at-home spouses of millionaires.Plato said:The Big Society was a superb idea criminally badly explained or PR'd. It doesn't negate the principles behind it that remain solidly good.
It's the thing I'm most sore about re GE2010. I know a great many volunteers who were just sneered at as a consequence - it breaks my heart.
Just look at @Charles here - his family has done more than most PBers put together as a social conscious on the ground - yet it gets rubbished as he's a Tory, that he's from a family of bankers just makes it all less acceptable. I hate all the nay sayers who want to drag everything down to their own small minds and meaness. I doubt they can look into their hearts and raise a candle to what he's done.
Hmpf. Rant over.Alistair said:
I thought that the the "Big Society" thing that Cameron did was not focus grouped at all.SeanT said:
They would not be spending this time and money on an attack line that had not been relentlessly focus grouped, and shown to work.0 -
"I reckon PC could get a bounce from the SNP sticking it to the (Labour) man in Scotland. And SW Wales has had quite an influx of English over the past 10 years. I just think that there will be significantly more marginals to fight over next time…. "
There is not much evidence for this.
PC have been in a deep slumber for years, and Leanne Wood is not an impressive figure.
SW Wales already has 2 Tory MPs for the Pembrokeshire constituencies. I can see Gower falling to the Tories, possibly in 2015, certainly in the long run. I don't see the Tories being able to take many more seats in S Wales, except possibly Bridgend.
I don't think much will change in Wales before the Assembly elections next year -- then the astonishing 201,000 UKIP voters in the Euros (mainly in the Valleys and NE Wales) may re-assert themselves.
For the moment, Welsh Labour will not be following SLAB to destruction.
After all, this the fourth blow for SLAB, after the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, 2011, and the SIndy.
It does now look as though the SNP will kill them off, but this is the endpoint of a process that has taken almost a decade.0 -
Yes.Big_G_NorthWales said:Labour have had a huge own goal today by leading their manifesto on fiscal responsibility and focussing all the media on their weakest area. The media seem to be panning their lack of detail re cuts and dealing with the deficit, no more so than the IFS.
The BBC Political correspondent just said exactly that.
And Labour's next step is they are accusing the Tories of wanting to spend too much moneyLabour has shown how every promise in our manifesto is fully funded and paid for with no additional borrowing. The challenge for the Tories is to show where the money comes from for the over £20 billion of unfunded and unbelievable promises they have made so far.
0 -
@smashmorePH: On PM Rachel Reeves: Labour need to "open the books" before they detail spending plans - ('books' claim described by IFS as "nonsense")0
-
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.Richard_Nabavi said:
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
What utter tosh, Southam!SouthamObserver said:
I am not sure that survival should be the limit of the offering. I doubt I am the cleverest person that there has ever been in my family - by a long chalk - but I was the first one who stayed on at school and went to university. And that was down to the opportunities the state provided. Just as it provided decent accommodation, healthcare and social support where it had not existed before. We tried the small state for hundreds of years. It worked for a tiny minority. Most people "survived" in grinding poverty until they were about 30. Then they croaked.
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.
0 -
That must make Ed really keen to go to a Challengers Debate. Very easy for him to explain to all his interest groups.......philiph said:Scott_P said:Nicola Sturgeon has predictably responded to Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna’s correction of Jim Murphy’s claims about no further spending cuts in Scotland. Sturgeon said the Scottish Labour leader had been “hung out to dry”, proving that his party is “no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour”:
The truth is out about Labour spending cuts. Jim Murphy’s false claims in the TV debates have been rubbished by his own party bosses at Westminster, who have hung him out to dry.
Labour would impose swingeing spending cuts on Scotland and the rest of the UK, carrying on with austerity where the Tories left off - that is the core aspect of the manifesto they have published. It sweeps away Jim Murphy’s pretence, and leaves him devoid of any credibility in this campaign.
Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna have just confirmed that Labour in Scotland continue to be no more than a branch office of Westminster Labour. That is why so many voters in Scotland are moving away from Labour and choosing the SNP, and we will continue to work hard to earn people’s trust.
Sturgeon has had three very tough debates up in Scotland, with Murphy who could get under anyone's skin, tricky moderators and held up pretty well under alot of pressure at times. She's made one error which didn't sound great at the time...
Miliband is like doing 10 laps of the local 25 metre pool after being in the water with the Murphy shark.0 -
Mr. H, when is the quintet debate?0
-
Many thanx - I wish we had more hard data. Let's see what happens - I can't help feeling that the SNP will have an effect in Wales with PC - whatever way.OblitusSumMe said:
We haven't had a Welsh poll since the 7-way leader's debate, and I don't think the Welsh subsamples are worth looking at for anything other than amusement value.
The polling in Wales suggests the following changes relative to 2010: Lib Dems down a lot, UKIP up quite a lot, Labour and Greens up a bit, Conservatives and Plaid static.Plato said:I haven't followed any Welsh polling or subsamples - is there anything in them to show a significant shift to anyone?
MarqueeMark said:
I have a sneaky feeling Labour could be in for a shock in Wales. Nothing like Scotland, but enough to scare the bejeeesus out of them.....OblitusSumMe said:
Plaid are on 11% in the Wales and South-West subsample. What does that equate to in Wales itself...?weejonnie said:Looking at LA has some interesting subsamples (caveats apply)
Specifically in the Midlands, the tories seem to be doing very well. Which is where UKIP is the highest! Red-kippers abandoning EU ED?
Wales should be about 1-in-20 of the sample as a whole, so Wales is about one-third of the Wales and South-West subsample, putting Plaid Cymru on about 33% in Wales on the basis of the roughly 27 Welsh respondents to Ashcroft's poll...0 -
Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. As I say, it is a perfectly reasonable philosophical disagreement that both sides wrap up in highly emotive language.JEO said:SouthamObserver,
Here is a link to government spending per person in different countries:
http://tinyurl.com/lzsv8r9
I don't see what we get for our money that the Australians, Japanese, New Zealanders and Israelis don't.
0 -
@MrHarryCole: Mair pulling carpet from beneath Reeves on R4. painful listening. She just admitted Lab will spend 8bn on NHS just didnt put it in manifesto0
-
Ha ha ha. Gizza a job. I could do that. Gizza a job...Luckyguy1983 said:
Neither of those things are in any way proof of a genuine motivation. It doesn't surprise me that he abused you; his job would be to be as vile as possible.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, it's a genuine Kipper account. 56,000 tweets, and photos of him attending UKIP events.Luckyguy1983 said:
Or an account pretending to be one.Slackbladder said:
UKIP voter, enough said.RobD said:
Not quite sure what the guys beef is?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.0 -
Mr Dancer, on the 16th.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. H, when is the quintet debate?
0 -
@MarkReckons: Rachel Reeves just opened a can of worms. She's confirmed on #radio4pm that Labour have only guaranteed extra £2.5bn for the NHS not £8bn.0
-
Wales simply doesn't have the same economic capability that Scotland does. It is a fundamental problem for Plaid Cymru, Wales would suffer terribly if it went it alone.YBarddCwsc said:"I reckon PC could get a bounce from the SNP sticking it to the (Labour) man in Scotland. And SW Wales has had quite an influx of English over the past 10 years. I just think that there will be significantly more marginals to fight over next time…. "
There is not much evidence for this.
PC have been in a deep slumber for years, and Leanne Wood is not an impressive figure.
SW Wales already has 2 Tory MPs for the Pembrokeshire constituencies. I can see Gower falling to the Tories, possibly in 2015, certainly in the long run. I don't see the Tories being able to take many more seats in S Wales, except possibly Bridgend.
I don't think much will change in Wales before the Assembly elections next year -- then the astonishing 201,000 UKIP voters in the Euros (mainly in the Valleys and NE Wales) may re-assert themselves.
For the moment, Welsh Labour will not be following SLAB to destruction.
After all, this the fourth blow for SLAB, after the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, 2011, and the SIndy.
It does now look as though the SNP will kill them off, but this is the endpoint of a process that has taken almost a decade.0 -
Yeah, we never heard that from the Tories in 2010 did we? Cue VAT riseScott_P said:@smashmorePH: On PM Rachel Reeves: Labour need to "open the books" before they detail spending plans - ('books' claim described by IFS as "nonsense")
0 -
Sweet Jesus.isam said:
"He's abused me in the past as well..."TheScreamingEagles said:
No, it's a genuine Kipper account. 56,000 tweets, and photos of him attending UKIP events.Luckyguy1983 said:
Or an account pretending to be one.Slackbladder said:
UKIP voter, enough said.RobD said:
Not quite sure what the guys beef is?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.
Not all bad then
Give the obsession a rest, you gibbering mockney manchild.
Thus ends a 7 year lurk, and most likely begins another.0 -
Rachel Reeves? Where???Scott_P said:@MarkReckons: Rachel Reeves just opened a can of worms. She's confirmed on #radio4pm that Labour have only guaranteed extra £2.5bn for the NHS not £8bn.
0 -
That's the other part of the questionable manifesto concentration on spending. Ed has to debate all of this on Thursday with three anti-austerity parties and UKIP. I don't see how Ed will approach this now that he has come out in favour of more cuts and austerity. When he had a platform of more spending vs the Tories and Lib Dems he was okay and Labour's core vote were happy, but now it will just lead to more of his 35% leaking away to parties who want to spend more. I think Leanne Wood could play a blinder on Wednesday if she attacks Labour on the NHS and links that to his new love of cuts. Anecdotally Welsh people I have contact with aren't happy with the state of the NHS in Wales, but I don't think enough of them realise that it is a Labour run area, many of them blame Westminster for NHS cuts. Neither PC nor the Tories have pinned it on Labour well enough, Thursday will be the last chance. Could deliver a lot of votes for PC.0
-
Here is a serious thought for you all. Given the way things appear to be heading in Scotland and it is the SLAB vote which is imploding, could the SCons actually get as many votes as SLAB even if fewer seats.0
-
Oh dear me, trying to expand my point to absurdity to validate yours.
Come on. I'm happy to accept that you see the world with Labour coloured glasses. That's the visceral bit of politics - when we refuse to accept logic because our hearts tell us we're right.
I'm quite a bit more emotionally detached and hence I can switch sides without any shame. You don't feel the same. Heyho - we're all different and that makes the world go round.SouthamObserver said:
I am genuinely perplexed that you see yourself as a spokesman for the rest of the world. If you do not see that being able to create and run a currency is a bit more than a nicety, then I guess we must remain puzzled by each other forever.Plato said:Pah, you're Angels On The Head Of A Pin again.
Money In = Money Out.
For a patent businessman, you display the minute attention to detail required and deliberately miss the wood the rest of us see.
I really am perplexed that you think the rest of us aren't as smart as you and hood-winked by it or deflected by the feathers on an angelic wing.SouthamObserver said:
Well, a business rarely gets to create or operate its own currency, and if it goes bust it ceases to exist. It also gets to choose its employees and it is generally formed and then run to make a profit - or at least to generate revenue. So there are a few big differences between a business and a country to get you started.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.0 -
SO: but what you're saying is that the state should step in where the private sector is inadequate. I agree. But that doesn't mean that a large state is a good in itself, which is what you seem to be saying - and forgive me if I've misunderstood you. It's not the size of the state which matters but what it does and, I would add, that what it does it does as well as possible. You seem to be saying today that you want a large state - almost regardless of whether that large state is (a) effective; (b) spends the money sensibly; and (c) its size does not have unintended consequences.SouthamObserver said:
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.Richard_Nabavi said:
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's what I don't understand about your argument. If a smaller state did all the things you want it to do are you still staying that you'd want the state to be larger?
0 -
Overbearing state involvement in their lives that sucks much of the pleasure out of existence.SouthamObserver said:
Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not.JEO said:SouthamObserver,
Here is a link to government spending per person in different countries:
http://tinyurl.com/lzsv8r9
I don't see what we get for our money that the Australians, Japanese, New Zealanders and Israelis don't.
0 -
If the SCons get as many votes as SLAB then Scons will have 1 or 2 seats whereas Labour will have zip.Easterross said:Here is a serious thought for you all. Given the way things appear to be heading in Scotland and it is the SLAB vote which is imploding, could the SCons actually get as many votes as SLAB even if fewer seats.
Labour are racking up alot of useless 30 -> 40% scores, whereas DCT is a bastion.0 -
@PopulusPolls: SamCam as leader would give Conservatives an 8-point lead, Populus poll for @MailOnline finds: http://t.co/CKipx1sv1I http://t.co/3oIiRGsfwI0
-
Mr. F, aye, Twitter's useful and interesting in lots of ways, but there's a lot of uncivil behaviour there too.
Dr. Prasannan, cheers.0 -
29% who plan to vote for Ukip say they would back Mrs CameronTheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: SamCam as leader would give Conservatives an 8-point lead, Populus poll for @MailOnline finds: http://t.co/CKipx1sv1I http://t.co/3oIiRGsfwI
Those people shouldn't be allowed to vote.0 -
@SouthamObserver
'Fair enough. But then I see what the Scandinavians get that we do not. '
Massive taxation on everything that moves but you get to die in a luxury care home.0 -
Is this the Labour Party which is running a brilliant campaign compared to the tories and which has just had its economic plan shot to pieces by the IFS?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Rachel Reeves? Where???Scott_P said:@MarkReckons: Rachel Reeves just opened a can of worms. She's confirmed on #radio4pm that Labour have only guaranteed extra £2.5bn for the NHS not £8bn.
0 -
Many would say you already do.Flightpath said:
Ha ha ha. Gizza a job. I could do that. Gizza a job...Luckyguy1983 said:
Neither of those things are in any way proof of a genuine motivation. It doesn't surprise me that he abused you; his job would be to be as vile as possible.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, it's a genuine Kipper account. 56,000 tweets, and photos of him attending UKIP events.Luckyguy1983 said:
Or an account pretending to be one.Slackbladder said:
UKIP voter, enough said.RobD said:
Not quite sure what the guys beef is?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.
0 -
I think what that shows more than anything else is how strong the Lib Dem brand still is and how loathed Clegg is by the 2010 LD > Lab switchers. From 8 > 21 points with an unknown person in charge. It also goes against common perception that Labour is a stronger pull than Ed, they would do worse without him. Interesting poll.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: SamCam as leader would give Conservatives an 8-point lead, Populus poll for @MailOnline finds: http://t.co/CKipx1sv1I http://t.co/3oIiRGsfwI
0 -
I learned on here that The King's Fund is historically a very interesting organisation. It gave them a lot of credits in my book as an opinion former.
Founded as the Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund for London in 1897,[4] the fund changed its name in 1902 to King Edward's Hospital Fund after the accession to the throne of King Edward VII.[5] In 1907, Parliament incorporated the fund as the King's Fund.
George Stephen, 1st Baron Mount Stephen worked closely with the future George V in building the charity's endowment fund. Lord Mount Stephen was the charity's most important benefactor, having made gifts to the amount of £1,315,000.[6]
The fund was originally set up to contribute to London's voluntary hospitals. It later started to inspect hospitals. After the NHS was created in 1948, the fund re-purposed itself as think tank.[5]saddo said:
ICM obviously. Blinkin spell chequesaddo said:Labour go onto Tory economic heartland
Kings Fund comes out slagging off Labour's commitment to NHS funding
I'M
Pretty good day for the Tories0 -
Indeed. It is quite possible to have a small state that sets the framework of acceptable behaviour and minimum standards by private companies based upon the will of the electorate but which does not involve itself in the day to day running of businesses or services.Cyclefree said:
SO: but what you're saying is that the state should step in where the private sector is inadequate. I agree. But that doesn't mean that a large state is a good in itself, which is what you seem to be saying - and forgive me if I've misunderstood you. It's not the size of the state which matters but what it does and, I would add, that what it does it does as well as possible. You seem to be saying today that you want a large state - almost regardless of whether that large state is (a) effective; (b) spends the money sensibly; and (c) its size does not have unintended consequences.SouthamObserver said:
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.Richard_Nabavi said:
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's what I don't understand about your argument. If a smaller state did all the things you want it to do are you still staying that you'd want the state to be larger?
Many European countries do this for example, with their health services which are effectively privately run within a public framework. And in many cases their clinical outcomes are far better than the UK's.
0 -
Rachel Reeves now on BBC News confirming Labour will not fund the NHS0
-
Oh well.. time to pop off for a bit. I have special satay and fried rice to throw together and that is not a five minute job - unlike party political financial planning.0
-
@paulwaugh: King's Fund on Labour manifesto: positive but scrapping Lansley 'disruptive' + no £8bn for NHS "a significant gap at the heart of its plans"0
-
Thought you might find this interesting - the candidates in opposition to the Conservatives for the council elections in the South Hams part of the Totnes constituency:
"The Greens are fielding the largest number of candidates with 11, widely spread. Labour are next with 9 but they are concentrated with 3 in both Dartmouth and Totnes, 2 in S Brent and 1 in Dartington. The Lib Dems have only 5, down significantly on previous years and including no defence of S Brent where they had a Councillor. Despite all the UKIP hype they have only 1 candidate, in Totnes (Town). There is 1 TUSC (Trade Union & Socialist Coalition) in Totnes and 2 Independents in Dartmouth."
Remember when some on here had Totnes down as a potential UKIP gain? Hmmmm...
Also interesting to see how the LibDems have been hollowed out at the local level. 1 UKIP, 5 LibDems, 11 Greens.....0 -
" It is a fundamental problem for Plaid Cymru, Wales would suffer terribly if it went it alone."
Historically, Wales was a richer country than Scotland (that is why there was much more emigration from Scotland to the US than Wales).
But, I do agree that Plaid Cymru has made no effort to develop any sort of economic plan for the regeneration of Wales (one of their many failings), and so the thrust of your argument is correct.
Labour's votes in South Wales are there for the taking. The party is the same empty & hollow husk as the Scottish Labour Party is.
The SNP have shown PC what to do.
I think it is more likely that UKIP will take the Welsh working class vote in the Valleys than Plaid Cymru. But, not in 2015. Perhaps in the Assembly elections.
It beggars belief that Labour can have controlled the Welsh Assembly since inception, and have not suffered any real political damage from the colossal failures in health and education on their watch.
But, in a democracy, that does not continue indefinitely. Eventually, there is a reckoning.0 -
I bought a rather lovely camel hide shoulder bag - it gets lots of attention in queues at check-outs. I've no idea why but it's cool!Beverley_C said:
:-) It depends. I may have rather a large block of work heading my way. I will know in a few day's time.Plato said:Do stick around, I miss my shoe shopping - I feel you are a proxy!
Anyway - on to serious matters. I hope that the cats are OK and that you are doing well. As I recall you had a few medical issues (leg/hip?) so I hope that they have cleared up for you.
As for me, things are going well enough and I acquired a few nice shoes and boots and my daughter was kind enough to donate a rather fetching handing that goes very well with my leather jacket so that was nice. Luckily for me I have an excuse to go spending soon as I need a new outfit for a big family party in a few weeks time.
Much more interesting than how I thought this election was going to turn out, but the election might be interesting, especially on election night.0 -
Have the markets moved?
SPIN spreads look exactly the same...0 -
Haha big man!RossM said:
Sweet Jesus.isam said:
"He's abused me in the past as well..."TheScreamingEagles said:
No, it's a genuine Kipper account. 56,000 tweets, and photos of him attending UKIP events.Luckyguy1983 said:
Or an account pretending to be one.Slackbladder said:
UKIP voter, enough said.RobD said:
Not quite sure what the guys beef is?TheScreamingEagles said:See, this what us people who tweet polling figures have to deal with
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/587640258612895744
He's abused me in the past as well, for merely posting the polling figures.
Not all bad then
Give the obsession a rest, you gibbering mockney manchild.
Thus ends a 7 year lurk, and most likely begins another.0 -
Yes I get that, but why is it that ex Labour and now SNP voters suddenly become more reliable at answering the phone.Pulpstar said:
SNP surge is mainly from Labour and Lib Dems, one or two Tories in there but they are holding up the vote well and may even gain vote share in Scotland.Flightpath said:
But is not the SNP surge coming from Labour votes? What is it about Labour voters that suddenly changes when they become SNP voters?Pulpstar said:
The SNP score is more or less in line with the Scotland specific polling, the Labour score is low. But low scores on Labour phone polling in the Scottish phone subsamples are fairly common.Flightpath said:
Well, in 2010 LDs had 19% and 11 seats. Tories had 17% and 1 seat.Pulpstar said:
Scotland:OblitusSumMe said:
Subsamples are fun, but you will tie yourself in knots if you take them too seriously.Bob__Sykes said:What a shame the ICM poll unravelled after about 30 minutes. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
If it looked obviously "too Tory a sample", and the sub-sample numbers were coming out plainly ridiculous, why could they not adjust it to make it representative?
Surely ICM have their credibility shot away to buggery if they think the Tories are on 35% in Scotland, running the SNP close on 44%? Or leading Labour in the north and amongst C2s?
Can't imagine the Guardian leading for much longer on this obviously duff poll!
What is the margin of error on the Scottish subsample?
...snip...
Yields
SNP 44%
Con 24%
Lab 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 7%
With a massive distortion currently going on in Scotland why does Mr Sykes decry a 7% tory gain but are seemingly happy with a 13% LD loss??
The figures you quote show SNP up by 24 - something Mr Sykes passes no comment on and Labour down 28. Is there anything unusual in this, given the other national polls?
Labour are probably on 27 odd %.0 -
Great stuff :-DPlato said:Oh dear me, trying to expand my point to absurdity to validate yours.
Come on. I'm happy to accept that you see the world with Labour coloured glasses. That's the visceral bit of politics - when we refuse to accept logic because our hearts tell us we're right.
I'm quite a bit more emotionally detached and hence I can switch sides without any shame. You don't feel the same. Heyho - we're all different and that makes the world go round.SouthamObserver said:
I am genuinely perplexed that you see yourself as a spokesman for the rest of the world. If you do not see that being able to create and run a currency is a bit more than a nicety, then I guess we must remain puzzled by each other forever.Plato said:Pah, you're Angels On The Head Of A Pin again.
Money In = Money Out.
For a patent businessman, you display the minute attention to detail required and deliberately miss the wood the rest of us see.
I really am perplexed that you think the rest of us aren't as smart as you and hood-winked by it or deflected by the feathers on an angelic wing.SouthamObserver said:
Well, a business rarely gets to create or operate its own currency, and if it goes bust it ceases to exist. It also gets to choose its employees and it is generally formed and then run to make a profit - or at least to generate revenue. So there are a few big differences between a business and a country to get you started.Beverley_C said:
I think Plato is being clear enough.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure what you mean by overspend. We made losses for three years before we made a profit, meaning we spent more tan we brought in. But then we moved into profit and have not looked back. If we made less profit, I don't believe our first reaction would be to cut - it would be to look at what we were doing wrong and to improve our products. As I say, running a business is not the same as running a country.
The difference between the country and your company is that we spent our way to a huge debt. The financial crisis was largely irrelevant because the ever prudent Mr Brown's policies were running up debts long before the financial crisis hit.
The basics of running a business or a household is exactly the same as running a country - unless you borrow you must spend less than you earn (or tax) and borrowing always comes with interest and charges and must be paid back.0 -
Mr. Isam, must agree it's not witty to praise someone for hurling abuse over Twitter.0
-
Your point is lost as this isn't about who you work for but what you'd like to do.
Given the freedom to do it, many do and gain a lot from it.
Think of it like National Service. It may not suit you in advance - but you get it afterwards - even if it just means you can iron your own shirts.JEO said:
The vast majority of us do not work for politically-involved civil servants who are happy for us to dedicate one fifth of the work week to non-work related issues.Plato said:You couldn't be more wrong. When I worked in Whitehall at DWP - the Perm Sec was dead keen on Big Society stuff and gave all his senior managers a target of at least 1 day doing it.
That they didn't fancy it due to Blackberry demands is neither here nor there. The mandate came from the top and Leigh Lewis lived it. He was a superb role model. I was with him when he spent a day handling Crisis Loans phone line - it was an eye opener with many claimants repeat *I lost my wallet* candidates.
Nothing beats Back To The Floor for bosses.JEO said:
The problem with the Big Society idea was that it wanted to bring back 1950s-style civic participation with 2010s levels of spare time. The voluntary sector can not pick up the slack from a shrinking state when the only people who have time to help out are the stay-at-home spouses of millionaires.Plato said:The Big Society was a superb idea criminally badly explained or PR'd. It doesn't negate the principles behind it that remain solidly good.
It's the thing I'm most sore about re GE2010. I know a great many volunteers who were just sneered at as a consequence - it breaks my heart.
Just look at @Charles here - his family has done more than most PBers put together as a social conscious on the ground - yet it gets rubbished as he's a Tory, that he's from a family of bankers just makes it all less acceptable. I hate all the nay sayers who want to drag everything down to their own small minds and meaness. I doubt they can look into their hearts and raise a candle to what he's done.
Hmpf. Rant over.Alistair said:
I thought that the the "Big Society" thing that Cameron did was not focus grouped at all.SeanT said:
They would not be spending this time and money on an attack line that had not been relentlessly focus grouped, and shown to work.0 -
Really - labour in all kinds of trouble over fiscal responsibility and now denying the NHS funding of 5.5 billion. You couldn't make today up.Scott_P said:Rachel Reeves now on BBC News confirming Labour will not fund the NHS
0 -
Less Scottish Labour MP's than Loch Ness Monsters - there's a chance Nessie might still be sighted in June.....Pulpstar said:
If the SCons get as many votes as SLAB then Scons will have 1 or 2 seats whereas Labour will have zip.Easterross said:Here is a serious thought for you all. Given the way things appear to be heading in Scotland and it is the SLAB vote which is imploding, could the SCons actually get as many votes as SLAB even if fewer seats.
Labour are racking up alot of useless 30 -> 40% scores, whereas DCT is a bastion.0 -
No. I am interested in outcomes. My direct experience, though, is that you tend to get better outcomes with a more active state. How the state is active is a different matter. I am not a Labour supporter and remain very open to a strong, regulated role for the private sector in service provision. But in this country, at least, I don't think the private sector has been managed by the state to do as well as it could in areas as diverse as social care, welfare provision, prisons and utilities.Cyclefree said:
SO: but what you're saying is that the state should step in where the private sector is inadequate. I agree. But that doesn't mean that a large state is a good in itself, which is what you seem to be saying - and forgive me if I've misunderstood you. It's not the size of the state which matters but what it does and, I would add, that what it does it does as well as possible. You seem to be saying today that you want a large state - almost regardless of whether that large state is (a) effective; (b) spends the money sensibly; and (c) its size does not have unintended consequences.SouthamObserver said:
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.Richard_Nabavi said:
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's what I don't understand about your argument. If a smaller state did all the things you want it to do are you still staying that you'd want the state to be larger?
0 -
What is your definition of *grinding poverty*? We're about the same age - I'm 49.
I'm all ears.I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed.
SouthamObserver said:
You see this where we disagree: I believe that the way society was structured condemned most people to grinding poverty because wealth was so unequally distributed. The rich man and the poor man had been given their allotted places by God and that was that. I agree that the advances made by capitalism and the private sector have been immensely important - which is why I am a capitalist and believe in the private sector - but I also believe that the emergence of the state as a means to ensure that all enjoyed the advances was vital. If you look at access to medicine as an issue - the treatments exist, but in many country the means to distribute them do not; instead, it is left to the private sector and so millions suffer needlessly.Richard_Nabavi said:
But you were saying that, for hundreds of years, the 'small state' led to most people being in grinding poverty. Yes, they were in grinding poverty, for the very good reason that capitalism and private-sector advances had not yet led to the abundance that we now take for granted. Your dichotomy is completely absurd.SouthamObserver said:
My mantra has plenty to say about the benefits of the private sector and the need to reform the state. I am certainly in favour of both. The Tory position is that what works best is a smaller state. It's a perfectly coherent position, but it's not one I agree with.Richard_Nabavi said:
What utter tosh, Southam!SouthamObserver said:
snipped for space
You could equally reverse that and point to the fact that almost every major enhancement in life - medical advances, vaccinations, railways, cars, central heating, dentistry, the provision of adequate clothing, abundant and good-quality food, etc etc - came from private (usually profit-motivated) private-sector initiatives. It would be equally true, and equally meaningless.
Your 'public sector = good' mantra is just blinkered ideology. It has nothing useful to say about improving efficienty in the NHS, or getting a sensible welfare system in place, or figuring out how to finance care for the elderly.
The Conservative position is: whatever works best.0 -
You'll get good odds on the Scottish Conservative vote being less than Labour, but if it is at 16.7% again - well that will be enough to kill Labour off.MarqueeMark said:
Less Scottish Labour MP's than Loch Ness Monsters - there's a chance Nessie might still be sighted in June.....Pulpstar said:
If the SCons get as many votes as SLAB then Scons will have 1 or 2 seats whereas Labour will have zip.Easterross said:Here is a serious thought for you all. Given the way things appear to be heading in Scotland and it is the SLAB vote which is imploding, could the SCons actually get as many votes as SLAB even if fewer seats.
Labour are racking up alot of useless 30 -> 40% scores, whereas DCT is a bastion.
If it drops sub 10 then Labour will do relatively well and may hold around 10 seats. But Ruth is doing a stirling job.0 -
@JGForsyth: Scottish Labour gets cut off at the knee by UK Labour http://t.co/RR4BGxRsXT0
-
Direct abuse and unsubtle smears are stable mates that deserve each otherMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Isam, must agree it's not witty to praise someone for hurling abuse over Twitter.
0
