Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on May 07, 2014, 12:36:59 pm
-
Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
My prediction of a Tory victory is looking better by the day. The country should heave a huge collective sigh of relief.
-
Erm, they still have a lead according to it, a lead is what it is.
I won't be confident unless it gets to election day and the Tories lead, which I still think is unlikely.
-
I can see it being another hung parliment
people have seemingly wised up to the fact tha labour jsut spend spend dpend
they also know that tories cut cut cut
the lib dems have lost out to UKIP meaning that UKIP would get into power through the back door, now that is a scary scary thought that a bunch of racists could get voted into power.
this country has gone to the dogs without a doubt
-
I can see it being another hung parliment
people have seemingly wised up to the fact tha labour jsut spend spend dpend
they also know that tories cut cut cut
the lib dems have lost out to UKIP meaning that UKIP would get into power through the back door, now that is a scary scary thought that a bunch of racists could get voted into power.
Wake up smell the coffee as blighty as allready gone to the dogs
Look at what some sub way branches are Now doing as a tester
this country has gone to the dogs without a doubt
-
So the country has gone to the dogs because Subway aren't serving bacon...
I think there are better yardsticks to use than that one, well, unless you are racist/xenphobic etc that is.
-
Maybe one day we'll live in a country where flying our own flag isn't classed as racist.
-
I think Godlike is right with his view of those figures. If there was a GE today then Labour would probably gain a small overall majority. Given the tendency of the incumbent party to pick up its share of the vote over the last few months of a Parliament, those numbers scream "Hung Parliament" to me.
I don't think that 14% for UKIP is particularly solid though. They're riding high at the moment because of the impending Euro Elections. If the notion that most UKIP voters are disaffected Tories is true, you may see the prospect of a Labour government driving some of them back into the Blue corner.
-
What is important here is that Labour are only 1% ahead with exactly one year to go to the General Election. They've lost 8% since last September. They are going to lose more support as the next 12 months are going to be very good on all fronts for the government. For Labour to have had any chance of winning the election they should be polling over 40% at this stage of the electoral cycle.
If Scotland vote for independence, which I think they will, Labour are going to be totally stuffed. Most UKIP supporters will vote Tory in marginal seats. We are not stupid. We know that the Tories will give us a referendum on Europe and that Labour won't. This is a massive own goal by Milliband and shows just how incompetent he is.
By the way we are not racist. All we want is controlled immigration. So do the vast majority of the indigenous 'foreign' population that already lives in this country.
-
A lot can happen in the next twelve months. American growth looks to be faltering, when America sneezes we generally catch a cold. China looks to be on the verge of a property bubble collapsing. Europe is still sick and god knows what happen in Ukraine.
Avoid the economy being tripped up from any of those quarters and they still have the problem of the London property Market overheating and the possible need for an interest rate rise, which would risk plunging the UK right back into recession.
Negotiate all that and keep the economy on an even keel and they still have to hope they can placate enough UKIP supporters to hope to get a majority.
-
The Conservatives had a 7% lead in the polls going into the 2010 general election but didn't get enough seats for a majority, the polls aren't exactly scientific and only really show the likely results if the voting pattern expressed in the polls is the same in every region and every constituency.
What is more accurate measure of calculating the election results is by using the swing % of voters from one party to another which can be applied to very close seats and give a far more accurate reading. At the moment it looks like Labour would fall short of a majority, factor in what would happen if Scotland leave the UK and Labour would lose 41 seats whereas the Tories would only lose 1 of the 59 seats. 296 would be all that's required for the majority, the Tories would be on around 270, Labour 279 and the Lib Dems 32, which means that if Labour can't snatch the Lib Dems from the Tories for a coalition they would have to govern as a minority as there would only be 18 other seats remaining of the 591.
Obviously all if buts and maybes but the Scottish referendum (and what will ultimately happen if they vote yes (as it remains unanswered regarding our parliament) could play a huge fate.
-
It seems to me that surveys aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Did any one ask you? They didn't ask me..
We shall see come 2015, that is the test not some daft survey now.
-
So the country has gone to the dogs because Subway aren't serving bacon...
I think there are better yardsticks to use than that one, well, unless you are racist/xenphobic etc that is.
That is the exact main problem today.say or think anything Thats off colour
And to stamp you down out comes 'you must be a racist'
Look at the shite clarkson is going Throu
-
Look at the shite clarkson is going Throu
I know! Ridiculous isn't it. I saw the video and I'm sure he really, really, REALLY tried his hardest not to say "nigger". But he just couldn't quite manage it.
Can't see why he should be pilloried for that.
-
Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
My prediction of a Tory victory is looking better by the day. The country should heave a huge collective sigh of relief.
Go on then, if we're playing the "I don't know what the f**k I'm talking about when I discuss opinion polls" game.
Labour 3% ahead today. Trebled their lead in 24 hours. At this rate, they'll be on 1000% come polling day.
-
Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
My prediction of a Tory victory is looking better by the day. The country should heave a huge collective sigh of relief.
Go on then, if we're playing the "I don't know what the f*** I'm talking about when I discuss opinion polls" game.
Labour 3% ahead today. Trebled their lead in 24 hours. At this rate, they'll be on 1000% come polling day.
The trend shows their lead decreasing - and more PPB's like the one yesterday won't help them much will it?
They need to fight an election on policy, not Tory bashing and trying to create a class war that we just don't need.
-
Go on then, if we're playing the "I don't know what the f*** I'm talking about when I discuss opinion polls" game.
Labour 3% ahead today. Trebled their lead in 24 hours. At this rate, they'll be on 1000% come polling day.
Looks like someone's a bit miffed that the writing is on the wall for Labour. I think it's you that has displayed that you don't know what you are on about when discussing opinion polls. It really makes my piss boil when percentages are misused. Once and for all, 100% is the maximum percentage that is possible. As a scientologist I'd have thought you'd have had a basic grasp of maths but obviously not.
It's the trend that is important and with a year to go go there is only one way that Labour's poll rating is going to go. That's the same way it's been going for the last 2 years. 2 years ago they were getting 44%. 1 year ago they were getting 42%. Now they are getting 36% (best case scenario). This data is from the BBC Poll of Polls and is a few weeks out of date. I fully expect the 36% to have shrunk by the time they next report.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Labour has suffered the more the economy has recovered. The best 12 months of the recovery are ahead for the government and that means one thing. Labour will not win the election. I fully expect a Tory majority.
Don't forget about the bet we had. Just be grateful that I took pity on you and didn't let you increase the wager.
-
Mick
As I've said times many, I'll double that bet any time you want. You just have to give the word.
How's that prediction of Labour polling 26% by May 2014 looking by the way?
-
I see my sarcasm missed the mark by the way. I was assuming that you were deliberately saying f**king daft things about poll numbers so I thought I'd join in the fun.
Here's a REALLLY daft thing that you said.
"No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election."
Now, I'm sure you copied and pasted that from somewhere, and you probably thought that was really profound.
Thing is, detailed polling in public opinion of political leaders only started in the late 70s. And since then, we've only had three occurrences of an Opposition winning. So you (or actually, the person you copied it from) draw a conclusion from a tiny data set.
If you are looking for more robust statistical precedents, consider this. In the 18 General Elections since the War, the ruling party has only twice managed to increase the vote share it got at the previous GE. Those two (1966 and October 1974) were GEs after short-term Parliaments where a minority Govt took engineered an upturn in approval and called a snap Election.
So, if the Tories improve on their 36% from 2010, they will do what no full-term Govt has done since before the War.
Now. Have a look at the "Can the Conservatives Win" graph here.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Can they get a majority if they don't get above 36%? Aye. If Labour falls below 20%.
Still predicting a Tory majority Mick?
-
Here's a REALLLY daft thing that you said.
"No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election."
Now, I'm sure you copied and pasted that from somewhere, and you probably thought that was really profound.
Nick Robinson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27308751
-
Here's a REALLLY daft thing that you said.
"No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election."
Now, I'm sure you copied and pasted that from somewhere, and you probably thought that was really profound.
Nick Robinson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27308751
Ah yes. How very unlike Mick to selectively quote to make a point. He'd make a superb MP.
-
Still predicting a Tory majority
I am but due to UKIP and the fact that Labour get more MP's for less votes than the Tories I'm not totally certain. However I am totally certain that the Tories will get a bigger share of the vote than Labour.
Forget the history books, we are in uncharted territory. You need to stop always looking backwards and look forwards instead.
-
Still predicting a Tory majority
Forget the history books, we are in uncharted territory.
This could be a first. You have actually said something sensible and germane.
'Course it means that saying "No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election" in the OP is utterly pointless, but you can't have it all.
-
No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Like I said you need to stop always looking backwards and extrapolating the future from it. I use my vast intellect to predict the future whilst having regard to the past but that is only one piece of the jigsaw in my decision making process.
-
No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Like I said you need to stop always looking backwards and extrapolating the future from it. I use my vast intellect to predict the future whilst having regard to the past but that is only one piece of the jigsaw in my decision making process.
Kind of makes your opening post in this thread pointless then:
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
My prediction of a Tory victory is looking better by the day. The country should heave a huge collective sigh of relief
Unless you look at previous historical examples of what/may have happened in a scenario- you have no idea of what may happen in a given scenario. Its called 'guessing'.
-
History is only one piece of the jigsaw. We have a coalition government. We have UKIP. We've had a devastating recession. This needs to be factored into predicting the future.
So history although important is not as relevant as it was in the past. I'm not stupid enough to think it is impossible for Labour to win based on history. Of course they can win. However I think it is extremely unlikely when considering all factors in the mix not just history.
-
Last night's poll again back to 34/35.
Delving in to it a bit deeper does throw up some interesting stats particularly a Scotland break which intriguingly would show Labour slightly worse off and the Tories better off. As the poll gets narrower then Labour will get more reliant on Scotland and if they vote yes in September then a few awkward years could lie ahead (imagine a Labour lead of say 25 seats, but 30 higher in Scotland - that is a nightmare they must all be considering).
But, the Labour lead is narrowing and could disappear completely. In reality the LD vote intention has dropped hugely. You would think Labour being the natural other left sided party would gain a lot, they haven't really.
The key things for me that will make the difference are this;
1. Tories benefitting from an improving economy thus negating the so called 'cost of living crisis' - that one that not too many people are feeling right now to the extent it's a 'crisis'.
2. Tories being able to offer some positives in budget etc - always happens.
3. Incumbnent party - seen as already able to do the job, benefit here from the usual 'labour left a mess' argument.
4. Ed Milliband. In reality he is the Tories biggest weapon. He's not a great leader in the scheme of things and that could show come election time.
5. Boris - Love or hate him, lots love him and the effect of him standing could be a boost.
6. Europe - The Tories and UKIP probably hold the cards here. We're a Euro sceptic country.
7. Cuts - Labour could benefit here if they win the cuts argument, in reality as they've said they'd have to continue cutting this one could equally be tough for them to win.
8. UKIP/Lib Dems - Be interesting to see how this pans out. In 2010 LD actually hurt the Tories more than Labour in marginals so if the LD vote does drop out it could help the Tories.
9. Ed Balls/Osbourne - Quite a key battle, but Labour IMO are hurt here in that Balls is not popular. In reality the policies we've heard of so far are not too different to each other.
I think policy will tell us a lot and that is still to come. Labour need to pull some rabbits out or they could lose the 'responsibility' argument on policy. If they pledge to cut/refuse to reverse unpopular Tory policies, people will question what their argument has been.
Given it has closed that gap, it could be a very interesting 12 months ahead. I predict a very close result, I wouldn't like to say which way it will go. Either way, if EM can't win this one after the cuts notions, he never will. Optimism in me says there are lots of positives for the blue party, but still a huge opportunity for Labour. Every comment/quote could make a difference and Labour must become a party of optimism, not just the anti Tory party. They never win with that approach.
-
BFYP you make many good points. I agree with most of them. I think that the LibDems have lost support to Labour but will get some of it back come election day. They will get some credit for the economic recovery which is set to power ahead over the next 12 months. A lot of the people who say they will vote UKIP today will switch to the Tories come election day as they will realise that a vote for UKIP will be a wasted vote and will let Labour in, thus denying them a referendum. UKIP supporters in the main want out of Europe. The Tories are the only party prepared to offer a referendum so will get a lot of the anti EU vote. UKIP would only be a threat to the Tories if they had a chance of winning a seat. They don't (with the possible exception of Nigel Farage).
It is interesting to note that only a year ago Labour were around 10% ahead of the Tories. Now they are neck and neck. That's a big loss of support for Labour in such a short space of time. This has coincided with the recovery in the economy. I fully expect this trend to continue as the Tories have the best 12 months to come of their term in office. I am totally surprised that based on the evidence anyone thinks Labour can still win. It totally defies logic.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
-
This is the graph that tells you all you need to know about the current polling issues.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png)
Yes, Labour has lost ~2% in the past 6 months and ~6% in the past 2 years.
But it's not gone to the Tories. The Tories are now polling pretty much exactly what they were when Labour were at their highest back in May 2012. None of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories (or the LDs who are still flatlining).
It's gone to UKIP. The UKIP rise over the past 4 years has had 6 periods.
1) Late 2010 - UKIP support rose by 2-3%. Difficult to say from whom they took the votes, but let's assume it was the Tories.
2) 2011 - UKIP's support was rock steady
3) Early 2012 - they took a couple of percent off the Tories.
4) Summer 2012- Spring 2013 - they took maybe 3-4% off both the Tories AND Labour.
5) Spring 2013 - The Tories took 3% or so back off UKIP
6) Jan-May 2014 - UKIP has taken another couple of percent back off Labour.
Clear as day from that graph.
I'd say that the net effect since the last Election is that UKIP has taken 5-6% off Labour and 5-6% off the Tories.
Yet the general assumption is that if UKIP's support shrinks in 2015, it will benefit the Tories. Not much evidence of it from that graph.
-
2 years ago Labour were around 13% ahead. 1 year ago they were around 10% ahead. Your figures are a joke. Currently they are neck and neck. With 12 months to go Labour will fall considerably behind on current trends.
UKIP are taking votes off the Tories far more than off Labour. Everyone knows that except you. The Tories will get the bulk of these votes back at the general election. You also ignore the fact that UKIP are picking up support off people that never vote (such as myself). Face facts and stop looking for excuses. Labour have got no chance of winning.
-
You trust your "everybody knows it" ideas above actually looking at the numbers.
Grand.
So double up then Mick.
-
Look, does Mrs Stubbs know you're being reckless with the family finances? Mrs IC1967 knows gambling is what I do for a living so she is fine with me betting. Does Mrs Stubbs know you've got a problem?
I refuse to allow you to lower the standard of living of your family. Just be grateful that one of us is allowing his head to rule his heart rather than the other way around.
-
Dr Fisher seems to know what he is on about. He predicts a Tory victory but falling short of a majority by 16. He uses a scientific method for his prediction. However he doesn't possess my skills of intuition which show there will in fact be a Tory majority of 20. I think if Dr Fisher teamed up with me he'd be able to give more accurate forecasts.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/
-
What do your skills of intuition say will be the number of seats each party will win in the European elections in a couple of weeks?
-
We've been through this before Mick. It's not gambling. It's deciding where charity money will go.
Your call.
PS: 21 days left for Labour's poll figure to reach 26%. What do you reckon?
-
What do your skills of intuition say will be the number of seats each party will win in the European elections in a couple of weeks?
I will answer that question when I get that abject apology you owe me.
-
We've been through this before Mick. It's not gambling. It's deciding where charity money will go.
Look, the first step in dealing with a gambling addiction is to admit you have a problem. It is gambling. Just because the proceeds are going to charity doesn't make it not so. Just be grateful I have realised you've got a problem and will not take advantage of the situation. I'll even let you cancel the bet if you want to as it's obvious you are going to lose. Just issue an abject apology for doubting my prediction and we'll say no more about it.
-
Mick
I give hundreds of pounds to charity each year. If the Tories happen to gain more seats than Labour in 2015, you have the opportunity of deciding where some of that money goes to. If they don't, I'll still give the money to charity, but it will be a charity of my own choosing, whilst you will give an equal amount to a charity of my choosing.
Now, you being a gambling man, you'll appreciate that this doesn't meet any rational definition if gambling, in as much as I don't stand to be either up or down personally, whatever the outcome (although in sure you're going to find an irrational one in Mikipedia).
So, I'll ask again, do you want to double up? I'm perfectly happy to do so. You seem to have no faith in your predictions. Course, given that your previous predictions included
Rovers getting relegated in 2012/13
Dog Meat winning the National
Deflation by July 2014
Labour being on 26% in the polls by May 2014
I can sort if see why you don't believe your own predictions.
-
So you haven't struck a proper bet with me then have you. I also give to charity. All that you are planning on doing is transferring from one charity to another. You are not risking any of Mrs Stubbs family allowance. I on the other hand was still going to give the same to charity as I'd already planned and if I lost that would have been extra out of my gambling profits.
So I take it back. You don't have a gambling problem as you don't understand what gambling is.
-
I'm lost Mick. Are you criticising me for gambling or for not gambling?
Or are you just talking ba-baa as usual?
-
You're lost because you don't understand gambling. Here's a definition:
'To risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet'.
Now, you haven't risked losing any money. You've merely risked that your money would go to a charity of your choice or mine. That is not gambling. It is shifting money around which is a completely different thing. I give to charity, (modesty prevents me from saying how much I donate, but it is much more than you do) and I was risking money other than this money so I was gambling.
I accept that you thought you were gambling but given that you are not gambling, I think the best thing to do is call off the 'bet'.
-
Your definition is as one-dimensional as ever Mick. Gambling does not have to involve the possibility of losing money. There are many other things you could be the stake in a bet. Your life. Your wife.
As it happens, YOU are staking something on this Mick. Something which Shakespeare knew was far more valuable than money. You're staking your reputation. (OK. I realise you've gone all in on that stake several times and been taken to the cleaners, but here's another chance.)
So it really is a gamble Mick. What's really at stake is your predictions being made to look daft once again. M
But just to make it doubly interesting, the charity that I'll be asking you to donate to after you've lost is the Foundation for the Support of Orphaned Sons of Marxist Sandinista Freedom Fighters.
No need to bother telling me yours. It's an academic point.
-
Look, you've not gambled in the true meaning of the word. You are just trying to be clever with money you have already allocated to charity. I was prepared to give extra money to charity if I lost. You were not. Shame on you.
Given the circumstances I think it best we call off the 'wager'.
As far as my reputation goes I couldn't care less what other people think about me. All I'm bothered about is what I think of myself. Shakespeare was obviously a crank if he thought reputation was so important. That says a lot about you. You espouse your views in order to enhance your reputation. I espouse my views without a second's thought as to what it will do to my reputation. I espouse my views because I truly believe what I say and am prepared for everyone else to think less of me if they want to. I really couldn't care less
You on the other hand seem very bothered about your reputation. I wouldn't be if I was you. I have already destroyed it on many previous occasions.
-
Oh dear. Things are worse than grim for Labour. The latest opinion polls in the leftie rag, the Guardian, show the Tories have now gone ahead of Labour! Get in.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/support-labour-drops-tories-lead-guardian-icm-poll
-
Carefully ignoring the one yesterday that had Labour 7% ahead.
Hey ho. As I've said for a while Mick, you my friend, make your conclusion then look for evidence to support it, ignoring everything else. It's a form of intellectual incapacity.
-
The poll you refer to was by Yougov and is out of date. You also need to factor in that these polls have a margin of error of 3-4%. The poll you refer to could quite easily have shown the parties neck and neck if you allow for this margin of error. I prefer to see what is happening across a range of polls to get an accurate idea of people's voting intentions. To my way of looking at it, Labour appears to have lost a lot of support lately. My impression is that the parties are neck and neck and with 12 months to go the Tories will pull ahead considerably. No opposition has ever won an election with one year to go when they are neck and neck with the government.
Anyway here are the latest up to date polls (one of them by Yougov).
YouGov/Sun – CON 35%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%
Populus – CON 35%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%
Ashcroft – CON 34%, LAB 32%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 15%
ICM/Guardian – CON 33%, LAB 31%, LDEM 13%, UKIP 15%
Game, set and match.
-
It's looking better for the blues that's for sure. I personally still think it's the milliband effect and lack of unique policies.
The tories are doing ok and not really hurting the masses if Imo playing it a little safe. Labour aren't offering much alternative though and on that strategy I don't see how they'll win - they need to be different and they're not massively.
UKIP I can see actually hurting labour. Their views are more likely matched by your more left wing tradesman type. Not many of them are tory voters I'd suggest. I can see UKIP despite what's said actually damaging labour as they appeal more to the working class.
Unfortunately I can't vote - downside of moving too close to election day!
-
I saw Miliband on Breakfast TV this morning. Even though his party are fighting elections to the European Parliament he had nothing to say about Europe. For all their faults, the Tories and Lib Dems have at least included Europe in their campaigns.
Labour's strategy, such as it is, seems to be to appeal to its core vote and hope that will be enough to deliver a majority in 2015. I doubt it will and for that reason I forecast another Hung Parliament.
-
Here we go again Mick. You get onto the subject of facts and you make yourself look a right dick.
There have been 5 General Elections since the end of WWII in which the Opposition won a majority. In 2 of those (1951, 1979) the poll nearest to 12 months before the Election had Labour and the Tories at neck and neck, allowing for margin of error (October 1950 - Labour 2.5% ahead of Tories - Tories won. May 1978, Labour and Tories level, Tories won).
So, when you say "No opposition has ever won an election with one year to go when they are neck and neck with the government."
What you really mean is "No opposition has ever won an election with one year to go when they are neck and neck with the government. Except twice in the last 5 times, where they have."
-
It's looking better for the blues that's for sure. I personally still think it's the milliband effect and lack of unique policies.
The tories are doing ok and not really hurting the masses if Imo playing it a little safe. Labour aren't offering much alternative though and on that strategy I don't see how they'll win - they need to be different and they're not massively.
BFYP
It's difficult to say that the Tories are doing OK, or that it's looking better for them. Their polling figures are at just the same level that they have been for the past 2 and a quarter years, barring a brief drop and rise last spring when UKIP surged then fell again.
What has happened recently is that UKIP have taken vote intention off Labour in the polls and as we approach the council and Euro elections, the Greens have also taken a couple of percent off Labour. The majority of those will go back to Labour over the next 12 months. What is emphatically NOT happening, is Labour support bleeding away to the Tories. That is what has been unique about this Parliament - there has been almost no churn between the two major parties. It's as though there is a block of voters who are saying that they will never vote Tory, no matter what (but are switching from LD, to Lab, then to UKIP or Green) and a block that are saying that they will never vote Labour (but are switching between UKIP and Tory). But there almost no sign whatsoever of Labour down = Tory up or vice versa. (Arguably, maybe, possibly, there were a couple of percent who moved from Tory-to-Lab after the omnishambles Budget in March 2012, but that is chickenfeed compared to the big swings that usually happen.) That is unprecedented in my lifetime. In every other Parliament, there has been a chunk of 10-15% of swing voters who move between the two main parties throughout the duration of the Parliament.
-
There's something in that the big two aren't capturing voters.
I think though that the plus for the tories is that as the sitting government they'll get some benefit as usually happens and I still firmly believe labour are getting it wrong being an anti tory party not a labour party that is just different. A lot of people see straight through that.
Time will tell and every small issue will make a big difference. I think time will tell, but tories will be more optimistic than before. Having been through cuts, recession etc they're still neck and neck up there - that has to be a positive that not too many expected.
-
BFYP
There's certainly an issue in the long term decline of support for the two main parties. Back in the 50s and 60s, Lab and Con both used to poll in the mid to high forties even in bad years. The Tories haven't consistently polled above 40% since the mid 80s. Labour has reached that level more often, but has still been 10-15% down on its post War figures for the last 30 years.
It's obscene that we don't have PR in such a situation.
As for Labour's negative approach, it was ever this for oppositions. The old saying is "Oppositions don't win elections: Governments lose them." You'd be hard pushed to ever find a positive Opposition campaign setting out a detailed strategy. Look at the last one. Posters of Dave looking concerned saying "We can't go in like this".
Look at the most brilliant and successful election poster of all time. Maggie's in 79
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Labour_Isnt_Working.jpg)
Genius. And utterly negative. Said nowt about Maggie's policies. Do you think she'd have won in 79 if she'd set out her policies in detail? If she'd said "Our policy is to hammer inflation out of the system and that will require a trebling of unemployment and doubling of interest rates"?
Good luck to any Opposition who tries that approach. Much more productive to snipe and engender a feeling that "we can't go on like this."
Shit int it? But it's us to blame, not the politicians.
-
Genius. And utterly negative. Said nowt about Maggie's policies. Do you think she'd have won in 79 if she'd set out her policies in detail? If she'd said "Our policy is to hammer inflation out of the system and that will require a trebling of unemployment and doubling of interest rates"?
If she had, it might have attracted her policies to those who felt inflation had to be controlled whatever the cost. The only problem, though, was that it didn't work. We had three million unemployed and high interest rates for ten years and inflation was just as high when she got knifed in the back as it was when she entered Number Ten.
-
Interestingly the better news for the Tories coincides with the improvement in the economy starting a year ago. Then Cameron's rating was -15 and it is now +2. Osbourne was on -25 and is now on +5 and Milliband was on -22 and is now on -25 his lowest rating. George and Dave's rating should continue to improve with the economy and Milliband's will continue to get worse. This spells electoral disaster for Labour.
-
Mick
But the Tory VI has barely budged in two years. It was averaging 33-34% in April 2012. It briefly dipped to 30-32% in winter 12/13, then lifted back to 33-34% by spring 13 and it's stayed there since.
In the last 26 months since the 2012 Budget, there have been something like 500 You Gov polls. Apart from the brief dip of a few weeks in early 2013, the Tory VI has only once been below 30 and only 3 times above 35.
Millpond smooth levels.
Whatever is happening in the polls, it is emphatically not an increase in Tory support.
-
It is undeniable that UKIP have taken some Tory support. Despite this the Tory support has remained consistent and has gone up recently. When the general election comes around a lot of this Tory support that UKIP is currently enjoying will flood back to the Tories. Hence electoral disaster for Labour.
-
It is undeniable that UKIP have taken some Tory support. Despite this the Tory support has remained consistent and has gone up recently. When the general election comes around a lot of this Tory support that UKIP is currently enjoying will flood back to the Tories. Hence electoral disaster for Labour.
I am just trying to get my head around how something that has been removed can be consistent - does that not break the laws of physics or is it just quantum Mickonomics at work again?
-
f***ing hell, it's like talking to the wind.
The Tory support has NOT gone up recently. Not as in "not". It's not gone anywhere for 10 months. And even then, the running average flickered up by no more than a percent or two.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a numerical equivalent of the Micktionary, where numbers staying constant mean they are actually going up?
Anyway in the latest You Gov poll, 14% of the people who voted Tory at the last election now say they support UKIP and 10% who voted Labour say the same.
12 months ago, the figures were roughly 20-23% and 4-5% respectively. A good chunk of the Tory losses already went back, in early summer last year. That was the last time there was any movement in Tory VI. What's happened over the past year is that Labour supporters have been dallying with UKIP. Those two facts pretty much entirely sum up why the polls have closed over the past year, with the Greens pulling a few off Lab (as they sometimes do in Euro elections) explaing the recent drop in Lab support.
Now, the Tories have already got their low hanging fruit back from UKIP. You can be as sure as eggs are eggs that Labour will do the same as we run up to the election.
-
Look it's very simple. Despite the Tories losing a lot of support to UKIP their polling results have improved. So their polling results have remained better than consistent. 12 months ago the Tories were averaging below 30%. They are now around the 34% mark. They've managed to increase their support despite losing people to UKIP. So this means they have attracted new support. This is because the economy has improved.
When the general election comes around due to the Tories offering a referendum most of UKIP Tories will come flooding back. Some of the UKIP Labour supporters will also vote Tory because they also feel strongly about Europe and want a referendum.
Labour have shot themselves in the foot big time by refusing a referendum. All things considered it's obvious that the Tories will hammer Labour at the general election.
-
I've decided to take it upon myself to keep you up to date with the demise of Labour. I will use this thread to keep you all abreast of what the latest polls are saying and what it means for the next parliament if the latest polls accurately predicted the outcome of the next general election. The latest YouGov poll dated 13.4.14 shows the following:
Conservative 34%
Labour 34%
LibDems 8%
UKIP 15%
Based on an average of recent polls this predicts a Labour majority of 14. This should be enough to make any democrat's piss boil. Not only do Labour get a load of MP's from a foreign country (Scotland) they also get far more seats in England due to the vagaries of the first past the post system than their percentage of the electorate warrant.
Despite this the trend is pointing to a Tory majority come polling day.
There's been more good news for the government today. Unemployment is now down to 6.8%. The main point to take from this is that in the last quarter, 283,000 more people found work, which was the largest quarterly increase since records began in 1971.
News like this will soon translate into more Tory votes.
-
There's a link here:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/14/update-labour-and-conservative-tied/
I guess the chances of the Tories increasing their share from around 34% depends on how much they can eat into the 15% figure for UKIP. The Lib Dems look like they've been squeezed as far as they will go, and if anything the only way for them will be up.
There is something seriously wrong with the electoral system though. If those figures were replicated at a GE UKIP would probably have no seats at all and the Lib Dems would still have around 20-30. After the next GE there needs to a proper debate on PR- and I don't mean that Alternative Vote rubbish we voted on recently.
-
There is something seriously wrong with the electoral system though. If those figures were replicated at a GE UKIP would probably have no seats at all and the Lib Dems would still have around 20-30. After the next GE there needs to a proper debate on PR- and I don't mean that Alternative Vote rubbish we voted on recently.
Agreed. It makes my piss boil that in a Conservative country (England), Labour have a disproportionate number of seats relating to their support. The first past the post system is totally discredited. Based on the following support, (an average of all recent polls) this is what it means in terms of seats:
Tories 33% 269
Labour 35% 332
LibDems 9% 22
UKIP 14% 0
What a joke. The only good news in all of this, is that UKIP supporters will think long and hard about wasting their vote voting for UKIP. The Tories should benefit.
-
What a joke. The only good news in all of this, is that UKIP supporters will think long and hard about wasting their vote voting for UKIP. The Tories should benefit.
While I think the 15% in terms of GE voting intentions may represent a high water mark for UKIP, I'm not sure how many UKIP supporters can be persuaded to vote Tory. A lot of them do not trust Cameron on Europe, especially after his failure to deliver on his "cast iron" pledge over the Lisbon Treaty. He's also made it pretty clear that as Prime Minister he'll campaign for a vote to stay IN, even though the "concessions" he could wring from the EU would probably not amount to much.
I still fancy a Hung Parliament in 2015. The real game-changer though could be the result of the Scottish Independence referendum.
-
Yes the Scotch hopefully will vote for independence. Brown, Darling and Bliar have done immense damage to England and the sooner the Scotch are kept out of English affairs the better. That would do serious damage to Labour. I think a hung parliament is very possible. The Tories would need to have a difference of 11% over Labour to form a majority government. That is a big ask but one that I think is possible. If only we had a fairer system the Tories would easily win.
For example in the recent scenario I gave, if we had proportional representation the makeup of the government would be as follows:
Tories 33% 208
Labour 35% 221
LibDems 9% 57
UKIP 14% 88
Others 9% 57
We'd pretty much always end up with a hung parliament but thats the way its going now anyway under first past the post. Unfortunately first past the post disenfranchises the majority of the population. Its only really worth voting in marginal seats. For example voting Tory in Doncaster is a complete waste of time so many (including myself) don't bother voting. This is not good for democracy. I take a great interest in politics and if someone like me doesn't feel like its worth voting then the system must be well and truly broken.
A hung parliament throws up an interesting question. Does the party with the most MP's get to form the government or does the party with the highest percentage of the vote get to form the government? It is quite possible that Labour could have the most MP's but with a smaller percentage of the vote than the Tories. I'd be all for the party with the highest percentage being given the first chance at forming a government. The parties need to make it clear what the procedure will be in such a situation. For example if they decided to do it my way then a vote for the Tories wouldn't be wasted in places like Doncaster as it would count in the event of a hung parliament if Labour had the most MP's with a lower percentage of the vote than the Tories. I would vote if this was decided as the way forward as would many other disenfranchised voters.
-
But I didn't think you lived in Doncaster? Even so we should all vote whatever. I'm actually now able to visit Doncaster next week so will now vote. Is it still the first and second choice system for euros? If so that helps UKIP a lot I expect.
-
But I didn't think you lived in Doncaster? Even so we should all vote whatever. I'm actually now able to visit Doncaster next week so will now vote. Is it still the first and second choice system for euros? If so that helps UKIP a lot I expect.
I have to say I thought it was a 1, 2, 3 vote but I had my ballot paper for my postal vote yesterday and I could only vote in the usual way- X for my first preference only. I think the seats are allocated based on the number of votes given to each party, so it is a kind of PR, but not a proper kind.
-
There is something seriously wrong with the electoral system though. If those figures were replicated at a GE UKIP would probably have no seats at all and the Lib Dems would still have around 20-30. After the next GE there needs to a proper debate on PR- and I don't mean that Alternative Vote rubbish we voted on recently.
Agreed. It makes my piss boil that in a Conservative country (England), Labour have a disproportionate number of seats relating to their support. The first past the post system is totally discredited. Based on the following support, (an average of all recent polls) this is what it means in terms of seats:
Tories 33% 269
Labour 35% 332
LibDems 9% 22
UKIP 14% 0
What a joke. The only good news in all of this, is that UKIP supporters will think long and hard about wasting their vote voting for UKIP. The Tories should benefit.
You and facts again, eh Mick? That adds up to 623 MPs. But there are only 533 in England.
-
You take pedantry to a new level.
-
Continuing the recent trend IPSOS Mori poll yesterday shows Labour support down 3% on a month ago with no change for the Tories.
-
You take pedantry to a new level.
Erm.... pedantry isn't pointing out facts. Its called validation.
-
He knows that the figures I posted are for the UK parliament. As does everyone else who isn't a pedant.
-
See, in that case Mick, I don't understand why you prefaced those figures with a rant about England being a conservative country. What on earth does your opinion of the moral or political bias of the English have to do with the number of seats that each party gets in the UK?
Just out of interest, do you have any evidence that Labour gets a disproportionate share of seats in England, compared to its vote share?
-
Im sure you already know and are just asking for the sake of it. However there are others out there that need educating so here goes.
There are many reasons why Labour gets more seats than it should. The main one being out of date boundaries and unequal seat sizes. Any fool knows that in general, Labour seats have fewer voters and Tory seats have more voters. For decades the population in the industrial North (Labour stronghold) has been falling and it has been growing in the South (Tory stronghold).
-
It would be nice if someone could come up with a better polling solution. The currenttmmd seems outdated now.
-
I'll take that as (yet) another "no" then Mick. It's really much easier to simply say "no" than to write a whole splurge of what every fool is supposed to know.
See, here's a funny thing Mick. It's about England, since you brought up the "fact" that England is a conservative country.
In the 2010 General Election, the Tory party could scarcely have written the script better if they'd tried. They faced a tired Govt which had lost a hell of a lot of support and trust over Iraq. They faced a bumbling, gaffe-prone, non-photogenic Prime Minister. The Election was held in the midlle of what was to become the longest Depression since Prince Albert was alive, and the public blamed the Govt for much of it.
Perfect electoral territory.
In England, 25.03 million votes were cast. 9.89million of them were for the Tories(39.5%), 7.0million for Labour(28.1%).
So, in the most perfect conditions that any political strategist could ever dream of, the Tory party managed to get fewer than 2 votes in 5 in the "conservative" England.
But here's another thing. Every fool knows that Labour gets an unfair advantage from the way that the constituencies are set up. Well aye. In England, the Tories got 1 MP for every 33,400 votes. Labour got 1MP for every 36,827 votes.
-
You talk a load of rubbish. Anyone listening to you would think the way things are set up benefits the Tories. Unbelievable cods wallop. If Labour leads in the vote they gain an overall majority. The Tories depending on how the LibDems do would need around a 10% lead to gain an overall majority. If both parties had the same share of the vote then Labour would have many more MPs. Fact.
-
The latest average of all recent polls (last month) shows the following:
Labour 34% 325 seats
Tories 33% 274 seats (a lot less seats than a 1% difference should warrant, putting the lie to the propaganda BST is peddling)
Libs 9% 23 seats
Others 24% 28 seats
So now we are into hung parliament territory with Labour short by 1.
-
Yes the Scotch hopefully will vote for independence. Brown, Darling and Bliar have done immense damage to England and the sooner the Scotch are kept out of English affairs the better. That would do serious damage to Labour. I think a hung parliament is very possible. The Tories would need to have a difference of 11% over Labour to form a majority government. That is a big ask but one that I think is possible. If only we had a fairer system the Tories would easily win.
For example in the recent scenario I gave, if we had proportional representation the makeup of the government would be as follows:
Tories 33% 208
Labour 35% 221
LibDems 9% 57
UKIP 14% 88
Others 9% 57
We'd pretty much always end up with a hung parliament but thats the way its going now anyway under first past the post. Unfortunately first past the post disenfranchises the majority of the population. Its only really worth voting in marginal seats. For example voting Tory in Doncaster is a complete waste of time so many (including myself) don't bother voting. This is not good for democracy. I take a great interest in politics and if someone like me doesn't feel like its worth voting then the system must be well and truly broken.
A hung parliament throws up an interesting question. Does the party with the most MP's get to form the government or does the party with the highest percentage of the vote get to form the government? It is quite possible that Labour could have the most MP's but with a smaller percentage of the vote than the Tories. I'd be all for the party with the highest percentage being given the first chance at forming a government. The parties need to make it clear what the procedure will be in such a situation. For example if they decided to do it my way then a vote for the Tories wouldn't be wasted in places like Doncaster as it would count in the event of a hung parliament if Labour had the most MP's with a lower percentage of the vote than the Tories. I would vote if this was decided as the way forward as would many other disenfranchised voters.
I didn't think even the SCOTS would give a vote to a liquid in a bottle, but of course this must be just one of your deliberate errors :whistle:
-
Latest update and its more bad news for Labour. ComRes have done a poll in the 40 most marginal seats. The results show that none of them would change hands. If thats the best Labour can do with nearly a year to go to the election then they've got no chance of winning.
-
The font of all Tory wisdom on polling, Lord Ashcroft, predicts a Labour victory at the GE.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10854513/Lord-Ashcroft-poll-Labour-on-course-to-win-general-election.html
-
In fairness RD, that poll has stretched from end March to early May. I suspect some of the earlier results might slightly overestimate Lab support.
And then there's the other thing. Ashcroft, the billionaire tax-dodging non-dom is using this polling to decide how best to target several million quids worth of his money on helping Tory candidates at the next Election. Last time round he poured money into a few dozen key marginals. He'll be doing the same over the next 12 months.
Great for democracy int it?
-
Jo Miller has just returned the Euro vote result for Doncaster.
-
I see the poll updates have dried up. How strange...
-
I'm letting the dust settle after the council and European elections before I post anymore poll updates. I think we need to get the Newark by election out of the way as well before things return to normal.
-
Unemployment down to 6.6%. 2 million new private sector jobs created since the coalition came to power. It was noticeable that Mr. Milliband didn't want to talk about this at PMQ's today. I wonder why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27791749
-
Right, the dust has settled after the recent elections and the latest Populus poll shows the following:
Tories 35%
Labour 36%
LibDems 9%
UKIP 14%
Not good enough Mr. Milliband with nearly a year of nothing but good news to come from the coalition.
-
More bad news for Labour. There has been a surge in passport applications (up 300,000 on last year). The reason? People are now feeling a lot more confident about the economy and are booking a lot more holidays abroad.
-
Wages rises have fallen behind inflation again though.
Good employment stats. It seems we're building a low skill, low wage, low productivity economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10891589/UK-unemployment-falls-to-five-year-low-but-wage-growth-slows.html
-
It's going to take a long time to put right the damage Labour did on productivity and low wages. Allowing so many immigrants in is mainly to blame.
-
The Tories have surged into the lead. Many UKIP supporters are realising we need to get the Tories back in to get a referendum as I knew they would. Get in.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/14/ukip-guardian-icm-poll-tories-labour-nigel-farage
-
More bad news for Labour. Unemployment continuing its dramatic fall. We've never had as many jobs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28325361
More bad news for Labour's cost of living baloney. Wages growth outpacing inflation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27406084
-
Looking forward to Yeovil, Mick?
-
Stop trying to change the subject. You're just like Ed Milliband - never wanting to discuss the good economic news.
-
I take it you're not going then?
-
I'm thinking of going.... went last year and was brilliant... even the stop at Burnham.
Anybody else thing of going?
Great day out.
-
More bad news for Labour. Unemployment continuing its dramatic fall. We've never had as many jobs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28325361
More bad news for Labour's cost of living baloney. Wages growth outpacing inflation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27406084
Quite literally.
Millions of people are having to do two jobs to scrape by. Also the employed figure is a lie, as childcare help and tax credits are weighted to encourage part time work , so you've got two or three people doing the job that one person used to get paid for.
Thus helping the gov to cook the books to make it look like we're all in gainful employment.
-
Average wages AGAIN rising far lower than inflation. In the last 12 months, salaries rose by 0.7% which is the lowest figure since records began. AND, these figures do not include the salaries of the army of self-employed (which went up by nearly half a million people last year). It is pretty much certain that if you include the self-employed, the salry increase would be even lower.
What we have is a nation re-adjusting itself to tell people to go out and sell bits of Chinese-made plastic shit to each other. Just last week I bumped into a lad who my company employed for a summer while he was a student. Excellent lad. Bright as a button. Hard working. He got a 1st class Engineering Masters degree from a Russell Group University. We didn't have a vacancy when he graduated, otherwise I'd have taken him like a shot. He's spent the last two years doing bar work because there have been no opportunities for him in engineering. He's now bitten the bullet and decided to emigrate to Canada, where he's got a job as a graduate engineer.
We have made a catastrophic error of judgement these last few years and we will pay for it for decades in the loss of talent like this. But ni mind, eh? We can all get f**king Bettaware rounds or spend our productive hours arbing. That'll soon sort the country out. None of this bullshit about designing computers or planes or cars or bridges. That's for other countries to do.
-
You really make my piss boil with your leftie rants about how things are so bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a shortage of engineers in this country. The lad you referred to could easily have got a job in the UK. I suspect though that he was a bit fussy about the type of engineering he was prepared to do like so many British graduates. They prefer to do bar work until that 'perfect' job comes along. They all think the world of work owes them a living and they are not prepared to just get a job and develop their career from there.
Please explain the comments from Mr Dyson in the link below. Why is he saying he could give jobs to 2000 engineers if they were out there? Please explain this comment from the article - 'He said Britain “produced 12,000 engineering graduates a year – and there are currently 54,000 vacancies. It’s predicted that in two years time there will be 200,000 vacancies'. This article was from nearly a year ago. Get a grip man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/10287555/Shortage-of-engineers-is-hurting-Britain-says-James-Dyson.html
So there are plenty of jobs for engineers if they want them. There aren't enough engineers ( a legacy from the previous Labour government who were only bothered about borrowing money to create public sector non jobs). Thankfully Dave and George have started to put this right.
-
This lad was a STRUCTURAL engineer you f***ing imbecile. Last time I checked, Dyson weren't looking for building designers to make f***ing vacuum cleaners.
Once again, you lumber into discussions that you know f*** all about, because you never leave the confines of your bedroom. Your pour out facile, imbecilic comments on complex and difficult problems. Tell you what. Shall I give you the lad's mobile number and you can call him and explain to him how a f***ing Bettaware salesman could put him right on what his professional aspirations should be?
No, actually, YOU give me your mobile number and I'll pass it onto him. Then he can call you and get the benefit of your experience.
-
This lad was a STRUCTURAL engineer you f**king imbecile. Last time I checked, Dyson weren't looking for building designers to make f**king vacuum cleaners.
Once again, you lumber into discussions that you know f**k all about, because you never leave the confines of your bedroom. Your pour out facile, imbecilic comments on complex and difficult problems. Tell you what. Shall I give you the lad's mobile number and you can call him and explain to him how a f**king Bettaware salesman could put him right on what his professional aspirations should be?
He's sucked you in BST, he dangled the bait a couple of times and eventually you took a bite, ignore the idiot
-
Filo
I know. Two months of managing to ignore him, but there are some imbecillic comments that just yank my chain.
-
Is that the best you can do? I get you bang to rights and all of a sudden you introduce the word 'STRUCTURAL' into the debate to try and get off the hook. Now correct me if I'm wrong but structural engineers don't design computers, planes or cars. Here's what you said in your original post -'none of this bullshit about designing computers or planes or cars. That's for other countries to do'.
I think it's reasonable to assume that you were talking about engineers as most people understand the word. A structural engineer has a completely different meaning and if that's what you were on about it is very remiss of you not to preface the word engineer with 'structural'.
However I don't believe you were on about 'structural' engineers. I've caught you out (yet again) and you have tried to wriggle your way out of the mess. You don't fool anyone.
In any case there are plenty of structural engineering jobs out there. A quick check on Google has one company advertising well over a thousand jobs. So stop trying to paint a picture that isn't right.
http://www.indeed.co.uk/Graduate-Structural-Engineer-jobs
Just issue an abject apology and we'll say no more about the matter.
-
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
-
IC1967. You should change your username to lord hawhaw.
-
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
Look. The lad's decided to go to Canada and no doubt his travel plans are well advanced. I don't want to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute. I would just ask you to mention to him that he has been educated at great expense to our country and Canada is going to get the benefit. Does he intend to reimburse us out of his Canadian wages?
If only he hadn't been as picky about what he was prepared to do in the UK. If only I'd got to him before you filling his head no doubt with doom and gloom about our great country's future.
-
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
Look. The lad's decided to go to Canada and no doubt his travel plans are well advanced. I don't want to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute.
Are you sure it's not because you have no idea what you're talking about?
-
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
Look. The lad's decided to go to Canada and no doubt his travel plans are well advanced. I don't want to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute.
Are you sure it's not because you have no idea what you're talking about?
I presume you are referring to BST. I totally agree. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that there are plenty of jobs out there for engineers of all kinds he starts rambling about making a phone call to a young lad that hasn't been given the expert guidance that I could have given him. Shame on you Billy for not convincing him to stay. You're the one that says we need engineers but when push comes to shove you quite happily wave him off to Canada.
Ah well. At least it frees up another space in our country for a Roma gypsy to come and fill.
-
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
Look. The lad's decided to go to Canada and no doubt his travel plans are well advanced. I don't want to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute.
Are you sure it's not because you have no idea what you're talking about?
I presume you are referring to BST. I totally agree. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that there are plenty of jobs out there for engineers of all kinds he starts rambling about making a phone call to a young lad that hasn't been given the expert guidance that I could have given him. Shame on you Billy for not convincing him to stay. You're the one that says we need engineers but when push comes to shove you quite happily wave him off to Canada.
Ah well. At least it frees up another space in our country for a Roma gypsy to come and fill.
No, I was referring to you. I'll take that as confirmation of what I already thought then.
-
Mick
Just f**k off you smug, imbecilic w**ker. You know NOTHING of this. Nothing whatsoever. In 2012 (the year this lad graduated) only 64% of civil/structural engineering graduates were able to find full time employment in the industry in the UK. 64%! Fewer than 2 in 3. Primarily because the construction industry contracted horrendously due to the extended recession and the cutbacks to public infrastructure spending.
And yes you HAVE touched a raw nerve. I am f**king angry that bright, hard working, intelligent lads like the one I am talking about have been lost to this country because of the imbecilic economic decisions supported by imbeciles like you.
-
Look. Just take a chill pill. I'm a bit confused. In the depths of a recession 2 out of 3 got a job. That was 2 years ago. Things are a lot better now but he's been doing bar work for the last 2 years. Why, when there have been plenty of jobs? Why wasn't he one of the 2 out of 3 two years ago when he had a better degree than probably more than 90% of those that did get a job?
It just doesn't add up, like a lot of what you say.
As far as I can see there was no need for him to leave the country. It's nothing to do with government decisions. The lad is obviously very picky about the job he wants and has waited 2 years until he's found one he's happy with. I'd just ask you to remind him that we the taxpayer have paid for most of his education and it would be nice if he reimbursed us for our trouble.
-
Mick
PM me your mobile number and you can remind him yourself. The opportunity presents itself to you to tell the lad where he has gone wrong.
-
Evasive as usual. I ask you questions, you completely ignore them (as usual). So I'll have one more go and this time I'll number the questions so you can refer to each number with your response so we can all see whether you've answered the question or been your usual evasive self. It really makes my piss boil that you do this when I on the other hand always answer every question thrown at me. Right, here goes (I'm not holding my breath).
1. When he had a better degree than more than 90% of his competition (and from a top university) why did he fail to get one of the jobs available?
2. Why has he not managed to pick up a job in the last 2 years when demand for structural engineers has outstripped supply?
3. Why have you blamed the cutbacks for his inability to get a job?
4. Why has he only been able to get bar work for the last 2 years when the economy has been powering ahead?
5. Did you not make him aware that there are many other jobs out there that he could have gone for other than 'structural engineer'? (Many graduates end up in jobs that are not that relevant to the degree they've got. A degree is not just about getting a job in the subject area of the degree).
6. Did you mention to him that we the taxpayer had largely paid for his education and that he was doing the dirty on us?
7. Does he intend to pay any of this money back to us?
8. Did you fill his head full of defeatist leftie claptrap that there were no jobs because of the evil government cutbacks in the early years of this parliament?
9. Why do you always avoid the questions I put to you and go off at a tangent to try to evade the issue?
Now I and all the other readers of this forum would like answers to these questions. I'll be totally amazed if we get any.
If you don't, then you will just confirm what we already think about you. You are a leftie nutjob that always tries to blame the coalition for all the problems in the world.
-
Mick
PM me your mobile number and you can ask him directly. Very easy. That should sort out questions 1,4-8.
2) Demand for structural engineers has NOT outstripped supply for the past two years. Demand for GRADUATE structural engineers has lagged way behind supply.
3) Even the Govt itself has admitted that cutbacks in public capital investment hits the industry. The OBR had highlighted the hit to the construction industry of the Austerity measures in 2010-13. And that is why this Austerity-wedded Govt finally (and quietly) turned the tap back on a year or so ago.
That issue is not even up for debate, apart from by argumentative w**kers who insist black is white.
9. See end of answer to 3.
-
What a very poor effort. Why am I not surprised. You have only 'answered' 3 out of the 9 questions (I use the term 'answered' very loosely).
Now, to your 'answers.'
2. Demand for structural engineers has outstripped supply. It depends on your definition of 'structural engineer'. My definition is obviously different from yours. So I will accept your answer in good faith.
3. You have not answered the question. We all accept that cutbacks make it more difficult to get a job. That is not the issue. You have blamed his inability to get a job totally on the cutbacks. Nothing to do with the lad himself. Surely it is reasonable to accept that part of the reason he didn't get a job has to do with the lad himself.
9. Again you have not answered the question.
So to summarise out of 9 questions you have only 'answered' 1. Even this 'answer' has no supporting evidence to back up your claim but as I am a magnanimous soul I will accept that question can now be put to bed. That leaves 8 questions outstanding.
Now, if you want to save any of the little face you have left on this forum I suggest you have another go. This is your last chance. If you don't then I'm afraid the verdict of the forum will be damning. Over to you.
-
Here we f**king go again. Welcome to Mick's one-dimensional world where everything is simple and straightforward. Life as read by textbook.
Why was that lad unable to get a structural engineering job despite having a first class degree? Because there was a collapse in the opportunities for graduate engineers. That means that there were fewer places available, with more people fighting for each one. Whether a particular individual gets a job is a stochastic rather than deterministic issue (go and f**king Google it), affected by what particular skill set the employer is looking for, the quality of the competition and a fair smattering of good luck. Being highly qualified does not automatically mean that you are a shoo-in for a job. (A director of a leading UK civil engineering contracting firm interviewed me for a job as a graduate engineer. He said that his policy when he got applications from graduates was usually to list the applications in rank order of degree grade, turn it upside down and take the top 20. In the company that I worked for in the 1990 recession, three graduate engineers with better degrees than mine were made redundant whilst I was kept on. Or then there's the mate of mine who was a partner of one of the UK's leading structural engineering firms - a company with a massive international profile, responsible for a string of high-profile projects that even someone who never leaves his bedroom like you might have heard of. He lost his job during the recession, because the company folded. Is that a reflection on his quality? Perhaps I should pass your mobile number onto him too and you can explain to him what he did wrong you f**king cretin.)
The point I was making (the f**king blindingly obvious point before you did you usual thing of making every f**king discussion about YOU) was that, as in any stochastic event, the fewer times you roll the dice, the fewer times any particular given outcome will emerge. So, if there are many, many fewer graduate opportunities because of a collapse in the industry, exacerbated by a savage cutback in Govt capital infrastructure investment, there will be fewer chances to roll the dice at interviews and more highly qualified people will be out of work. Simple common sense if you sit down and engage brain before treating us to your black/white deterministic view of the world.
Now. Do you really want to know the answers to the other questions? Because all you have to do is give me your number and I'll put you in touch with both Pat and Jon and you can ask them directly. Otherwise, shut the f**k up.
-
Very poor effort indeed. Absolutely no effort to even number your answers to the question. Right, I'll do my best to wade through your last load of waffle and see if indeed you have answered any of the questions.
1. You seem to be saying he was unlucky. Not a good enough answer I'm afraid. In this life you make your own luck. Please feel free to have another go at providing a proper answer.
2. Answer accepted.
3. Not answered. I detect you are back tracking a bit on your initial contention that it was all the fault of the government cutbacks. An apology would be appreciated.
4. Not answered in the slightest.
5. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume you didn't give him any advice. Shame on you.
6. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume you couldn't care less about the great expense he has put the taxpayer to.
7. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume it didn't cross your mind to ask the question as you couldn't care less (see previous response to question 6).
8. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume that you did fill his head with a load of defeatist leftie claptrap that made him feel he would never get a job and has resulted in the poor lad emigrating when there was no need for this.
9. Not answered in the slightest. Your responses have again shown you to be the most evasive person on the forum.
Now, I am going to give you yet another chance to answer the outstanding questions. You don't deserve it, but I am nothing if not magnanimous. Please don't spurn this opportunity. Please stop asking me to ring the poor lad. You should have (not 'of') put him right when you had the chance. If you didn't discuss the matter with him as in some of my questions then just say so. It's not hard.
Over to you.
-
If you're so confident you're right in what you're saying then why don't you tell them yourself? or is it that you've not got the balls and you're just a WUM keyboard warrior? :)
-
PS:
Latest opinion poll, Labour 7 points ahead according to You Gov. That's not the real lead of course. It's an outlier. Just like the ones that Mick flags up when we get outliers in the other direction showing the Tories in the lead. The real Lab lead is probably somewhere around 4-5 points. In other words, exactly where it was 12 months ago.
I suspect we'll have to wait for yet another outlier before Mick bothers to regale us with some figures. In the meantime, I'm assuming that he is frantically studying sampling theory, 95% confidence limits and typical margins of error in opinion polls, so as to make sure that he doesn't make an utter prick of himself next time he posts on this subject. But I'm probably wrong on that assumption.
Latest prediction from Steve Fisher's model by the way (not that i think it's worth a bucket of warm piss, but Mick did insist on bringing it up a few weeks back). There is now a higher balance of probability that Labour will be the largest party in Parliament after May 2015. Actually, there's no great surprise in this. Fisher's model is predictaed on the supposed "fact" that Labour's support gets weaker as we get closer to an Election. But it fails to account for the unique setting in the Election, which is that the LDs have ceased to exist as a credible party, and are not there as a repository of Lab protest votes in the way that they have been for the past generation. So, the underlying principle of the model is incorrect. And as a result, as Labour's support fails to collapse in the way Fisher expected it to, his prediction inexorably leads to a week-by-week improvement in Labour's outcome in 2015. Pretty f**king obvious to anyone who bothered to look into his algorithms.
(http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/index_files/image002.png)
-
RedJ
Look, I know you love Billy and worship at the feet of all his utterances, but the ship has sailed. There is no point in me speaking to the lad anymore. The damage has been done and he's off to Canada.
I merely want Billy to tell us what part he played in this sorry tale. Did he try to encourage the lad to stay in the UK and tell him that if he kept trying, eventually he'd get a decent job? Or did he, as I suspect, fill his head with a load of defeatist leftie claptrap that has ended up demoralising the lad and his departure to Canada.
-
Red J
I really don't get Mick. He's so determined to turn every thread into a "answer my questions or I'll thcream and thcream and thcream until I'm thick (sic)" rant. And he never believes me anyway. So when I offer him a direct approach to get his answers, you'd think he'd jump at it. But he doesn't even acknowledge the offer.
How utterly bizarre.
-
Mick.
If you'd bothered to read my original post, you'd have spotted that I "bumped into" the lad after having employed him some time ago. I haven't spoke to him since.
Anyway, he's leaving for Canada next week, but if you REALLY hurry and send than mobile number through, you can have a chat with him, explain to him carefully where he went wrong, and save him for the UK.
When you're ready.
-
There is no point in me speaking to the lad anymore. The damage has been done and he's off to Canada.
It's not like you to be all defeatist. Come on Mick, you of all people should know the true power of your pearls of wisdom. Come on, tell him where he's gone wrong and I'm sure he'll forever be in your debt. :)
-
Red J
I really don't get Mick. He's so determined to turn every thread into a "answer my questions or I'll thcream and thcream and thcream until I'm thick (sic)" rant. And he never believes me anyway. So when I offer him a direct approach to get his answers, you'd think he'd jump at it. But he doesn't even acknowledge the offer.
How utterly bizarre.
Excuse me. I have acknowledged the offer and also explained that it is one of your diversionary evasive tactics to avoid answering my questions. Why can't you be a bit more like me and answer everything that is thrown at them?
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 17, 2014, 01:08:57 PM
Come on then, dipshit. PM me your mobile number and I'll put you in touch with the lad so you can explain his mistakes directly to him.
Look. The lad's decided to go to Canada and no doubt his travel plans are well advanced. I don't want to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute. I would just ask you to mention to him that he has been educated at great expense to our country and Canada is going to get the benefit. Does he intend to reimburse us out of his Canadian wages?
If only he hadn't been as picky about what he was prepared to do in the UK. If only I'd got to him before you filling his head no doubt with doom and gloom about our great country's future.
-
Mick.
If you'd bothered to read my original post, you'd have spotted that I "bumped into" the lad after having employed him some time ago. I haven't spoke to him since.
Anyway, he's leaving for Canada next week, but if you REALLY hurry and send than mobile number through, you can have a chat with him, explain to him carefully where he went wrong, and save him for the UK.
When you're ready.
Already answered. As always I answer everything that is thrown at me (unlike some others around here I could mention).
-
Very poor effort indeed. Absolutely no effort to even number your answers to the question. Right, I'll do my best to wade through your last load of waffle and see if indeed you have answered any of the questions.
1. You seem to be saying he was unlucky. Not a good enough answer I'm afraid. In this life you make your own luck. Please feel free to have another go at providing a proper answer.
2. Answer accepted.
3. Not answered. I detect you are back tracking a bit on your initial contention that it was all the fault of the government cutbacks. An apology would be appreciated.
4. Not answered in the slightest.
5. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume you didn't give him any advice. Shame on you.
6. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume you couldn't care less about the great expense he has put the taxpayer to.
7. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume it didn't cross your mind to ask the question as you couldn't care less (see previous response to question 6).
8. Not answered in the slightest. I can only assume that you did fill his head with a load of defeatist leftie claptrap that made him feel he would never get a job and has resulted in the poor lad emigrating when there was no need for this.
9. Not answered in the slightest. Your responses have again shown you to be the most evasive person on the forum.
Now, I am going to give you yet another chance to answer the outstanding questions. You don't deserve it, but I am nothing if not magnanimous. Please don't spurn this opportunity. Please stop asking me to ring the poor lad. You should have (not 'of') put him right when you had the chance. If you didn't discuss the matter with him as in some of my questions then just say so. It's not hard.
Over to you.
Still waiting.
-
I work in Civils and there just hasn't been the work for the young graduates. Civils companies have filled their graduate posts with experienced enngineers who are desperate for a job that they are willing to take pay cut and go the the start of the ladder.
Alot of the UKs infrastructure needs renewing but Osbourne and Cameron have not had the foresight to get the economy rolling.
-
I work in Civils and there just hasn't been the work for the young graduates. Civils companies have filled their graduate posts with experienced enngineers who are desperate for a job that they are willing to take pay cut and go the the start of the ladder.
Alot of the UKs infrastructure needs renewing but Osbourne and Cameron have not had the foresight to get the economy rolling.
So how do you explain the fact 2/3rds of graduates in 2012 got jobs? Things are much better now so it would be reasonable to assume that more than 2/3rds of graduates are now able to get a job.
-
I am talking about the civils industry. Are you in this industry?
Alot of the UKs infrastructure needs renewing but Osbourne and Cameron have not had the foresight to get the economy rolling.
[/quote]
So how do you explain the fact 2/3rds of graduates in 2012 got jobs? Things are much better now so it would be reasonable to assume that more than 2/3rds of graduates are now able to get a job.
[/quote]
-
Average wages AGAIN rising far lower than inflation. In the last 12 months, salaries rose by 0.7% which is the lowest figure since records began. AND, these figures do not include the salaries of the army of self-employed (which went up by nearly half a million people last year). It is pretty much certain that if you include the self-employed, the salry increase would be even lower.
What we have is a nation re-adjusting itself to tell people to go out and sell bits of Chinese-made plastic shit to each other. Just last week I bumped into a lad who my company employed for a summer while he was a student. Excellent lad. Bright as a button. Hard working. He got a 1st class Engineering Masters degree from a Russell Group University. We didn't have a vacancy when he graduated, otherwise I'd have taken him like a shot. He's spent the last two years doing bar work because there have been no opportunities for him in engineering. He's now bitten the bullet and decided to emigrate to Canada, where he's got a job as a graduate engineer.
We have made a catastrophic error of judgement these last few years and we will pay for it for decades in the loss of talent like this. But ni mind, eh? We can all get f***ing Bettaware rounds or spend our productive hours arbing. That'll soon sort the country out. None of this bullshit about designing computers or planes or cars or bridges. That's for other countries to do.
Then you should have shuffled the positions around Billy ; there is always going to be a future position commensurate with his abilities if not with you then with the myriad of contacts you have in business. Never let a good story get in the way of more Labour peddling shite eh ?
You and I know that given the economic conditions and the soft underbelly of this Coalition party the Labour party should be some 6/7% points ahead in the polls at the very least.
I haven't even mentioned the rise of UKIP, the apparent demise of the Liberals and possibly the weakest PM in many years. It is ridiculous to defend the weak showing of the Labour Party without dismantling its policies and personnel to see just what is happening to what I've seen as the weakest opposition party in my lifetime.
Jeez if Scotland was taken out of the electoral equation..,....well the mind boggles.
-
Hoola
We couldn't "shuffle positions around". We're a micro-SME with very fine margins and very specific job roles - often project-specific. In this lad's case, we had a big tender in at the time that he was working with us over a summer. Had we won that tender, we'd have required two new graduates. We didn't win it, so the places evaporated. We can't "magic-up" a graduate position without the work. Which makes us just like the rest of the industry. That is why there has been a huge blood-letting of talent in the civil/structural industry over the past 6-8 years, because there simply hasn't been the work there.
The usual dipshit on here keeps commenting on the fact that ONLY 36% of civil/structural engineering graduates didn't get a job in the UK industry in 2012 as if that makes the job market somehow easy-peasy if you just try hard enough. The mind f**king boggles. That's 36% of our brightest and best coming out of University, full of hope, ability and energy, ready to do their bit to add to the country's infrastructure, and being unable to find places in the UK industry that they had trained for.
As Coventry. I know of one world-leading structural engineering company who put their staff onto 3 day weeks in order to prevent them having to make redundancies, such was the contraction in the industry. We're no talking about a set of backstreet barrow boys here. We're talking of a company whose projects are internationally recognisable in capital cities all over the world.
Don't demean the discussion by calling this "party politicking". The collapse started under Labour and Labour bear a big part of the blame for the crash. But we were recovering by 2010 in the textbook way. And then the collapse was unnecessarily extended under the Coalition, when they made the catastrophic decision to slash public capital investment in infrastructure in 2010, because it was the easiest way to get the headline deficit figure down quickly (NB: Just like I predicted on Election night in 2010 - I told you then that the voodoo economics of Austerity would lead to a calamity and that is precisely what has happened, despite Gideon's attempt to re-write history. He has presided over the longest depression in 140 years. And it was all unnecessary).
Gideon's approach was not to worry about cutbacks that decimated an industry that was hanging on by its fingernails. there was never any economic logic to his approach. he had defined himself as a warrior against the deficit and so the deficit had to be tackled by reducing Govt spending. Nevermind that it was idiotic economics (at a time when our houses, roads, schools and broadband system desperately need investment, interest rates are all-but zero and half a million construction workers are looking for jobs, it is economic idiocy to CUT infrastructure spending, but that's what Nick and Dave did.)
-
Well I'm sorry that you lost that tender . Its a t**t if you lose someone with such skills especially abroad and perhaps for ever. The erosion of highly skilled graduates especially in the field of medicine has been a national disgrace for many years ; governments of every hue have stood by and watched this happen This is not a racist comment but we train doctors and surgeons then allow them to seek employment elsewhere then we import the same types of highly trained professional from the Asian sub continent and eastern Europe who can hardly be understood by our citizens.
We do the same with Dentists , Structural Engineers etc etc.
I agree that this Government could / should have taken a different view on the direction n the way recovery could be achieved. Yes they have failed.
Now having agreed that there huge gaps in their fiscal policies . we now have to turn our attention to how that should be addressed (sorry the economy I mean , its late ).
One of our main weakness's at the moment is the lack of housing stock especially at the lower end of the market. There should be greater incentives for those companies in the Construction Industry and the means for those at the lower end of the market to afford these properties .
Its time to kick start these industries into action. To help certain areas to regenerate without relying on the possible long term future benefits that HS2 might bring to the industrial Midlands and north.
Where is Labour in all of this ? And why can't they destroy the Tories at the polls, at the pmq.s, in the street well just about everywhere ? Simply because they neither have credible policies of their own or if they have the ability to simply put them across to the general public.
The Labour party has had a whole Parliament to reinvent itself and has seemingly failed.
-
Don't demean the discussion by calling this "party politicking". The collapse started under Labour and Labour bear a big part of the blame for the crash. But we were recovering by 2010 in the textbook way. And then the collapse was unnecessarily extended under the Coalition, when they made the catastrophic decision to slash public capital investment in infrastructure in 2010, because it was the easiest way to get the headline deficit figure down quickly (NB: Just like I predicted on Election night in 2010 - I told you then that the voodoo economics of Austerity would lead to a calamity and that is precisely what has happened, despite Gideon's attempt to re-write history. He has presided over the longest depression in 140 years. And it was all unnecessary).
Gideon's approach was not to worry about cutbacks that decimated an industry that was hanging on by its fingernails. there was never any economic logic to his approach. he had defined himself as a warrior against the deficit and so the deficit had to be tackled by reducing Govt spending. Nevermind that it was idiotic economics (at a time when our houses, roads, schools and broadband system desperately need investment, interest rates are all-but zero and half a million construction workers are looking for jobs, it is economic idiocy to CUT infrastructure spending, but that's what Nick and Dave did.)
Hoola is right. You try and turn every discussion into a let's bash the coalition for all the problems in the economy and lets forget about the huge problems Labour left behind. At least you've admitted the cutback in infrastructure spending started under Labour (that makes a refreshing change to your blind loyalty to the party).
Now, lets examine the facts. You talk as if evil George and Dave cut back on infrastructure and this was economic madness. You forget to mention that had they not cut back we'd have had to continue borrowing like crazy even though Labour had well and truly maxed out the credit card already. You also conveniently (how surprising) fail to acknowledge that Labour if they had won, were going to do exactly the same thing.
I've found an interesting article that you should read. I'd take off those rose tinted specs if I were you so you can see a bit more clearly the reality of the situation as 2010 approached.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/public-spending-cuts-to-come
Here's part of the article that 'cuts' to the chase and blows BST's one sided coalition bashing out of the water as it shows Labour were going to do exactly the same (something BST likes to keep quiet). He likes everyone to think that if only Labour had won the election there wouldn't have been any infrastructure spending cuts and everything in the garden would have been rosy. What a load of leftie nutjob drivel.
Here is a brief history of the near future; one that politicians in all three parties would rather you did not read. From 2011 there were deeper cuts in public spending than any Britain had experienced since the IMF gave Denis Healey a kneecapping in 1976. Hospitals and schools were spared the axe, as was Sure Start and foreign aid. But that simply meant other areas had to make even deeper cuts. Spending on public infrastructure was cut by nearly 20% every year for three years between 2011-12 and 2013-14. There were silver linings – the chaps at the Ministry of Defence no longer got to play with new aircraft carriers, those daffy NHS IT projects were switched off with no prospect of a reboot – but they were outnumbered by the clouds. All those attempts to improve Britain's creaky public infrastructure – the roads and electric-rail projects and new social housing – were mothballed. Higher education was squeezed hard, and so was environment. Indeed, all other areas of government spending faced cuts of nearly 6% a year for three years – a total of £36bn. There were mass reductions in public-service staff, and strikes galore. And by the end of the parliament in 2014, all of Labour's increased spending on public services from 2001 to 2010 was completely reversed.
That was the vision of the future given by the Institute for Fiscal Studies yesterday, based on an analysis of Alistair Darling's pre-budget report. No wonder that the chancellor on Radio 4 yesterday morning tried to duck the issue of the cuts to come.
-
Hoola. Your getting the underlying economics and the practical politics mixed up mate.
The economics was always, and remains, very simple. There is a classic way of getting out of the catastrophe that we were in back in 2010 and it absolutely did not involve massive Govt spending cuts AT THAT TIME. The cuts would have had to come, but they should have come later. At the time, it was vital that Govt spending should have continued, as a safety net for the economy. In particular, the one and only thing you shouldn't cut (in fact you should expand it hugely) was infrastructure investment.
The economic logic behind what I have just said is pretty much unimpeachable. It is there in the first pages of any macro-economic textbook.
But the POLITICS was very different. Osborne is a brilliant politician, and he dominated the argument in 2009-10. He pushed a simple line that appeared to be straightforward common sense. He said that if we were badly in debt, we had to stop spending. That resonates with individuals. It's what individuals would do. It has no econic sense for Governments because if Govts stop spending when everyone else is stopping spending, you end up in a perma-slump. Which is precisely what happened. But never mind the illogical economics, Osborne won the political argument hands down.
Labour were (and still are) a shambles politically. Balls was the only one who really understood the economics and he wanted Labour to aggressively take on the Tories' "common sense" (sic) line. But he lost that argument inside the party. Darling insisted that Labour go some way to matching the Tories' Austerity plans.
The result has been politically disastrous for Labour. They've effectively handed the political win to Osborne. Big, big political mistake. But that doesn't change the economic logic. And at least there's one fair thing going to come out of the whole she-bang. The LDs totally reversed their economic policy in order to join the coalition. They suddenly became supporters of Austerity. Clegg said that he'd changed his mind in the last few days before the Election because...well because of Greece apparently. That how's that Clegg is either economically illiterate or a shameless liar because our situation was never anything remotely close to Greece's. Either way, he didn't think to tell the electorate that after they voted for him, he would support the opposite of what he'd said he would. If there's one good thing coming out of this nightmare, it's that Clegg and the LDs will be touted and humiliated in 2015.
-
Hoola
The Labour party has had a whole Parliament to reinvent itself and has seemingly failed.
If I may, I think you're being just a bit harsh here. You need to factor in just how devastatingly bad was Labour's result in 2010. In terms of vote share, Labour did worse in 2010 as Major did in 1997 and nearly as bad as Michael Foot did in 1983. In both of those cases, the loser wasn't at the races at the next GE and was out of power for nearly a generation.
In both those cases, the loser descended into internal fighting and was utterly irrelevant at the next election.
It's easy to overlook this (and since the media hate Miliband, they will give him no credit) but Labour has pulled itself round remarkably since 2010. To be going into the last lap ahead in pretty much every poll(*) and favourite to have the largest number of seats is a remarkable turn round.
(*) As with everything else he writes, you can ignore Mick's occasional posting on poll figures there is the odd poll that puts the Tories a point in front. That's just normal statistical sampling variation. In general, Labour is some way ahead.
There have been 26 polls this month the Tories were 1 point ahead in one poll. Labour has been 5,6 or 7 points ahead in 8 polls. On average, Labour's lead is 4-5%. Pretty much where it's been for the past 9 months.
-
Labour were (and still are) a shambles politically.
I can't get my breath. Billy has finally seen the light. It's taken me a long time but I think I'm getting somewhere with him now. I only need him to also admit that Labour are also a shambles economically as well and my work will be done.
Ed Milliband has admitted as much himself recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28381699
Here's the key part from the link:
Ed Miliband has said there will be no return to the tax and spend policies of past Labour governments.
The Labour leader told activists at the party's national policy forum that higher spending would not solve the UK's economic problems.
Milliband said Labour would offer a "binding commitment to balance the books".
"We will get the national debt falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament and we will deliver a surplus on the current budget," he said.
Mr Miliband said the solution to Britain's economic problems "cannot be our traditional answer of spending to fix the problem".
Unfortunately for Ed we've heard it all before. This time the electorate won't fall for it.
-
Enjoy the discussion boys. Off on holiday today and won't be posting much over the next 4 weeks.
-
4 weeks holiday!!! Anyone would think you worked in the public sector.
-
4 weeks holiday!!! Anyone would think you worked in the public sector.
I get 4 weeks holiday and guess what I work in the private sector :)
-
More bad news for Labour. Unemployment continuing its dramatic fall. We've never had as many jobs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28325361
More bad news for Labour's cost of living baloney. Wages growth outpacing inflation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27406084
Wages Rose at 1.7% compared with CPI inflation at 1.6% (what is RPI I wonder?). Anyway 0.1% is well within the range of statistical error.
Wages without bonuses, ie. Excluding high earners in finance and the corporate sector only grew at 1.3%.
It points to the great majority not feeling any better off yet.
Add to that the recent upward pressure on crude oil price thanks to crisis in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria/Iraq et al and we are nailed on for more economic contraction in six to twelve months time.
It will make for a very interesting election.
-
I'm pretty sure this is just one of his holiday periods. He gets a lot more than 4 weeks hence the public sector reference.
-
Unemployment continues its steep fall. Well done Dave and George. You've proved beyond doubt that you know what you're doing. Labour's predictions are looking more laughable as each month goes by.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28768552
-
It's all over for Labour. The Tories have now caught them up. I fully expect them to steadily pull away in the coming months and to win the general election easily. Get in.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3433/Labour-and-Conservatives-neck-and-neck-while-Boris-Johnson-has-biggest-impact-on-potential-Conservative-vote-share-over-other-possible-challengers.aspx
-
Wages are still falling.
It's a recovery of sorts but how many people are feeling the benefit?
-
Wages are still falling because during Labour's time in office we were paying ourselves too much. There is still a way to go before we find our true level.
-
In the end, what we pay ourselves depends on how productive we are, per capita. If our productivity rises, we can pay ourselves higher wages. If it falls (or fails to increase with prices going up), we get poorer.
Think of it this way - increases in productivity means increases in living standards, because there's no way to get richer other than producing more for every hour you work.
So, have a look at productivity. Over the very long term, from 1960, till the Great Recession of 2008-14, we had a very stable growth in productivity. We had some recessions that caused momentary problems, but we came out of them. So, we all got richer over that period.
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/15rz4gp.jpg)
Some dipshits claim that Labour then wrecked the economy. They say that Labour fundamentally mis-managed the economy so badly, that we paid ourselves too much before the Great Recession, and it's only natural that we should be f***ed now. But productivity under Labour from 1997-2008 went on pretty much as before. The economy was doing what it has done for the whole of our lifetimes. If the economy was f**ked in the early 00s, it was only doing what it had been doing under Maggie in the 1980s.
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/15pmpeo.jpg)
So, why are we not getting richer now? What has happened to productivity since 2008?
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/4k8sjt.jpg)
Well, there was a collapse at the start of the Great Recession. That's to be expected when you have an economic shock as big as the one we had in 2008. But by early 2010, our productivity was growing rapidly again. If it had continued like that, we'd be a f*** sight richer now than we are. But it didn't. Our productivity stalled. And we're now all working harder to be a bit poorer than we were before. And bell-ends who don;t think about it tell us that this is a natural state of affairs.
We've now had four years of flat or falling productivity. And THAT is why we are poorer now than we used to be. It is an unprecedented event. But it was entirely predictable when the people in charge chucked away the economic text books and started making policy on the hoof back in 2010. And then they tell us that they have succeeded because we now have 3 million more people in employment making no more than we did 6 years ago.
And some folk are so irredeemably stupid that they believe it.
-
Why is productivity low, not only here but in other western countries?
It can't all be George Osbourne can it?
I think it might be because on the margins high fuel prices have discouraged employers from investing in automation, where as low wages have encouraged some to continue employing people in less productive labour intensive work.
That chart shows government has been ineffectual with regards productivity. The underlying trend has remained constant no matter who has been in power. Neither red or blue have been able to improve it or ruin it until 2008. And now suddenly, something quite fundamental has changed, I don't believe it is the policies of the current Tory government.
-
RD
I agree that fuel costs relative to manpower costs are an important determinant of productivity.
But fuel prices didn't suddenly become such a dominant factor in 2008!
What has happened since 2008 is a dreadfully weak recovery across the Western world (Simon Wren Lewis suggests that in the UK this has been the weakest recovery from recession since the South Sea Bubble in the 18th century!)
Look at productivity for the UK, USA and Euro Zone. All three regions saw a collapse in productivity in 2008. All three saw a strong rebound in 2009 and early 2010 as Governments stimulated demand just like the textbooks say they should. All three then saw a collapse in productivity growth from early 2010.
What happened in early 2010? The Austerity mania took hold and all three regions saw their growth collapse. Voodoo economics with no theoretical or empirical foundation took hold. It was dressed up as "common sense" and it took people in, but it was a catastrophic mistake.
Simple application of Occam's Razor for me. We've unnecessarily extended a period of low growth and crucially, low wage growth. Firms don't want to invest in high cost, high productivity equipment because they are unsure about the future growth prospects. If they do expand, it's safer for them to do so by taking on low wage, expendable labour. But this is an appallingly bad long-term position for all of us for the future.
The architects of Austerity throughout the West have delayed the recovery and have set us on a trajectory for permanently depressed productivity and wealth. We'll pay for this for the rest of our lives. And they have the gall to call this "success". It is reminiscent of the Roman poet who excoriated his leaders' approach to dealing with their enemies by destroying their economies "They make a desert and call it 'peace'". Our leaders have permanently weakened our economies and call it "vindication".
-
I seem to remember fuel prices at the pump rising inexorably higher just before the crash. It was getting above £1.40 a litre of petrol.
Since then it's stabilised but at a high level. Crude has remain stubbornly above $100 a barrel, various economic commentators have been expecting it to drop to $80 at least but it doesn't.
There hasn't been one major oil find in the last three years that can produce oil at less than $80 a barrel.
Historically a barrel of oil has been around about the $30 mark, adjusted for inflation.
I suppose it could be bad economic policy everywhere at once but I still tend to think we're at the leading edge of an energy crisis.
-
Look it's very simple. By the time Labour left office, every household in the country was paying around £2,000 per year just to pay the interest on the national debt. BST wanted us to carry on increasing the national debt to 'spend' our way out of trouble. The problem with this solution is that this would then have increased the amount of interest each household had to pay on the national debt.
I don't know about you, but I am not happy paying that amount in interest every year. Just imagine if Labour had managed the economy properly and hadn't wildly overspent. That £2,000 per household every year would have added a lot of buying power to the economy and boosted productivity no end.
As one of the richest economies in the world we shouldn't be borrowing money just to allow politicians to try and buy our votes. We should be one of the economies that lends money.
As for throwing away the economic text books. BST fails (as he always does) to explain that this spending he is so fond of by governments should come from money that has been put away in the 'good times'. As we all know, Labour didn't put any money away in the 'good times'. So how on Earth could the Tories embark on a Keynesian text book spending splurge when the money wasn't there?
The situation they found themselves in required new thinking. Thankfully George was the right man in the right place at the right time. BST could do with reading up on Hayek. He makes Keynes look like a complete fool.
-
That chart shows government has been ineffectual with regards productivity. The underlying trend has remained constant no matter who has been in power. Neither red or blue have been able to improve it or ruin it until 2008. And now suddenly, something quite fundamental has changed, I don't believe it is the policies of the current Tory government.
Wise words. People wildly overestimate the effect of government policies on the economy. At best they make very small differences to the long term trend.
I for one would rather have a lot more people in work with low productivity than millions more on the dole with high productivity. BST wants high productivity now. He would. He's alright as he is in work. What about those out of work? All I ask is that BST considers these poor unfortunate souls instead of only thinking about what's best for himself.
Given time, productivity will rise and we will have a win win situation, no unemployment and high productivity. BST seems to want high unemployment and high productivity. I know which I prefer.
-
How much greater is the National Debt now? How much has this government added to the debt pile? They still haven't managed to eliminate the defecit.
When push comes to shove they basically apply the same medicine.
-
When the Tories came into power the National Debt was £0.76 trillion. It currently stands at £1.36 trillion. By the time of the next election it will have almost doubled.
Billy wanted it to have been even higher! The Tories have not cut anything like as deep and far as they should have done. The fact that the National Debt has almost doubled in such a short time shows how much of a mess Labour left the economy in.
The Tories have been lambasted for savage cuts and implementing an austerity programme. The size of the National Debt shows clearly that we have not had an austerity programme. Neither have other countries.
BST and his followers really need to read the following article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/05/26/austerity-to-blame-but-wheres-the-austerity/
-
We're running something like a 6% defecit to get 3% growth. If we had to stick to EU rules we'd be running a 3% defecit and have no growth, the same as most of Europe.
It's a strange 'recovery' this. Little sign of real growth and falling wages. But lots of poorly paid, part time, zero hour contract work.
-
RD
The oil price increased steadily through the 00s. Inflation adjusted Brent crude was around $25 a barrel in 1997. By 2007 it was $70. But there was no sign of a commensurate drop in productivity in developed economies.
You say it "could" be bad economic policy everywhere at once. That is precisely the point. There WAS bad policy across Europe and the USA all at once from 2010 onwards. That is exactly what happened when Austerity mania kicked in and it is exactly at that time that productivity growth veered away from its long term trend. (PS: look what the continued Austerity obsession in the Euro Zone is still doing...)
Look at a developed economy that DIDN'T engage in sudden Austerity. Australia's fiscal tightening was far less severe than that in Europe, USA or UK from 2010. Their productivity growth has been stronger than any of those in the last 4 years, but they still exist in the same oil price environment as the rest of us.
-
I'm not sure quite how it works with oil but there does seem to be tipping points. It's generally accepted that $110 pb is about the level you expect to see demand destruction occurring (at least that is the level where people start driving less), $130+ seems to be the level deemed that a developed economy can no longer function properly. I have no idea why those two levels should be significant.
Australia is an interesting case, might it partly have fared better because it still has vast natural resources and was able to continue exporting throughout the crisis?
I'm not saying you don't make a good point BST, you could well be right. It's just this 'recovery' is so extraordinary and I can't help but feel something else is going on. Perhaps it's a double whammy?
Your chart doesn't show it but I'm sure I've read the falling productivity in developed nations has been a concern for sometime before the crash in 2008? They reckon we reached peak oil sometime around 2002 I think, whether there is a correlation I don't know.
-
There has not been austerity!!! You obviously are economically illiterate and spout cobblers despite me producing overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Change the record and come into the real world.
-
RD
I'm sure that the increase in oil costs is a factor. It must be. But it's the timing that does it for me. It's the fact that we have seen a collapse in productivity that EXACTLY matches the onset of Austerity in early 2010 across ALL the countries who embraced Austerity.
I know we have different opinions about oil though. I have considerable faith in the ability of capitalism to re-invent itself and incentivise new approaches when old ones hit the buffers. There's a convincing argument that one if the major reasons why the West won the Cold War was that the western economies reacted to the oil shocks of the 70s by developing far more fuel efficient processes (more efficient cars and planes for example) whilst Russia's command economy didn't change (and briefly took a bonus from the high oil and gas prices).
I generally take Malthusian predictions about the effect of a resource running out with a pinch of salt. Those predictions have been made regularly for 250 years and they've never yet been right. When the commercial pressure becomes too great, the capitalist system incentivises the next paradigm shift, whatever that might be. I suspect it'll happen this time.
Whether it is led by the West when it happens is another question altogether. We've consciously chosen to make ourselves poorer by the economic policies we've adopted over the last half decade. In the UK and EZ, GDP per capita is now about 15% lower than it would have been if it had continued to grow like it did from 1950-2007. And it compounds of course, because GDP is an annual rate. It is truly scary how much development we have wasted and it is even scarier that there is no sign of us bucking out of it yet. GDP is increasing but GDP per capita, like productivity, is utterly stagnant. That's wasted output, entrepreneurialism, innovation. Many more years of this and we have a very worrying future to look forward to. If we get trapped in a low-productivity, low-wage, low per capita growth scenario, we may well not break out of it.
Somewhere in the world, capitalism will flourish and take on the next generation's challenges. But it's not guaranteed to be here.
-
Low productivity, low wage, Low growth and ever growing debt. It can't carry on like this, either it finally starts to get better or we really will have severe problems.
I hate to be too gloomy but we're leaving it late to find a replacement energy sources. I can't help thinking we should be investing heavily in nuclear power now. Yesterday. I also think we should be following the Germans in developing new clean coal power stations. Oil resources we know are beginning to dwindle but coal is still relatively plentiful. I think we should invest heavily in electrified public transport services, high speed rail, all rail needs to be electrified and we need more tram and metro systems. There seems to be some progress being made with solar, not so useful for us in the UK maybe. Really we should be doing all we can to preserve the oil for areas where it is essential. Agriculture. We could all do a lot to be much more efficient, built in obsolescence in products infuriates me.
However all this kind of planning would require people to accept and believe there is a problem and so far there is little sign of it. In my experience very few people are prepared to even consider the possibility. How many politicians understand the oil is starting to run out? Or at least understand that energy is going to remain expensive and understand what it entails?
Maybe we will have to face the shock of another economic contraction to shift us out of our complacency?
-
Get in. Yougov have the Yes campaign ahead in the Scotch Independence referendum. This is the first time a major polling organisation has put the Yes campaign ahead. Given that the same polling organisation had the No campaign ahead by 22 points only a month ago the out come of the referendum is now blindingly obvious. The Scotch are going to vote for independence.
Labour are going to lose so many Scotch MP's that there is now no possibility whatsoever of them winning the general election.
I am so happy.
-
You may very well be happy but your state of happiness - like the result of the vote for scottish independence - will have no effect whatsover on the consituencies for the next general election. Even if Scotland votes to become independent it wont happen until after the general election so at this moment in time Scotland will elect MP's for Westminster.
I thought a man of your great intellect and depth of reading would have known that.....
-
Get a grip man. You don't seriously expect the general election to go ahead as if nothing had happened? I expect the general election will be delayed so we can make sure that any Scottish Labour MP's that would have (not of) been voted in don't get the chance to influence English affairs at Westminster.
-
The GE will still go ahead in May 2015, but you would have a short-lived parliament and government, both of which will probably have to be dissolved once independence actually happened in 2016.
I think you (IC1967) should be careful what you wish for. Scottish independence will lead to lower living standards for all of us, and quite probably another economic recession. The Better Together campaign has been a disaster, fronted by Mr Charisma-Bypass himself, though it says much for the "pulling power" of the present Labour leadership that the NO camp's lead has evaporated ever since they stepped up their campaigning in Scotland!
The only hope for the NO camp is that some Scots may currently be planning to vote YES to make a political point against Westminster parties or to gain more concessions from the rest of the UK. If they don't actually want independence they may drift to the NO side. I suppose the other possibility is a Kinnock-style outbreak of Hubris from Salmond and co.
-
Scotch independence will be a massive political earthquake. The general election will definitely be affected. Even if it is not delayed, then there is more than a good chance that Scotch constituencies will not be allowed to vote for an MP. No way will the general election go ahead as planned. There is no point in a short term parliament.
Whatever decision is arrived at, Labour will be very badly affected.
I know if I was Scotch i would certainly want independence. Also Scotch people are so left wing it is untrue. Why on earth would they want the Tory party running their affairs?
Any short term problems independence causes England will be far outweighed by the benefits of not having the threat of a future Labour government for many years. They will only become electable again if they move well over to the right. Socialism is dead in England and the sooner Labour realises it the better.
-
Well, well, well. Who'd have thought it?
http://electionsetc.com/2014/09/12/forecast-update-12-september-2014/#more-446
PS:
Latest opinion poll, Labour 7 points ahead according to You Gov. That's not the real lead of course. It's an outlier. Just like the ones that Mick flags up when we get outliers in the other direction showing the Tories in the lead. The real Lab lead is probably somewhere around 4-5 points. In other words, exactly where it was 12 months ago.
I suspect we'll have to wait for yet another outlier before Mick bothers to regale us with some figures. In the meantime, I'm assuming that he is frantically studying sampling theory, 95% confidence limits and typical margins of error in opinion polls, so as to make sure that he doesn't make an utter prick of himself next time he posts on this subject. But I'm probably wrong on that assumption.
Latest prediction from Steve Fisher's model by the way (not that i think it's worth a bucket of warm piss, but Mick did insist on bringing it up a few weeks back). There is now a higher balance of probability that Labour will be the largest party in Parliament after May 2015. Actually, there's no great surprise in this. Fisher's model is predictaed on the supposed "fact" that Labour's support gets weaker as we get closer to an Election. But it fails to account for the unique setting in the Election, which is that the LDs have ceased to exist as a credible party, and are not there as a repository of Lab protest votes in the way that they have been for the past generation. So, the underlying principle of the model is incorrect. And as a result, as Labour's support fails to collapse in the way Fisher expected it to, his prediction inexorably leads to a week-by-week improvement in Labour's outcome in 2015. Pretty f***ing obvious to anyone who bothered to look into his algorithms.
(http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/index_files/image002.png)
-
Look, you fail to realise the blindingly, bleeding obvious. Most of us UKippers will vote Tory when push comes to shove unless there is a good chance of us actually winning the seat, like in Ed Milliband's constituency for example. This will help the Tories no end and will severely damage Labour's chances. Add into the equation that the Scotch are going to vote for independence thereby losing Labour about 40 seats and there is no way on this Earth that Labour are going to win the election.
-
The best chance the Tories have is if Scotland votes for independence.
Otherwise. No chance. All the polls say so.
-
RD
Even Fisher is saying it:
"...yet another week has gone by without the Tories improving. Our model expects the Tories to make up ground and Labour to lose it, because that’s what the historical tendencies suggest. Every week that doesn’t happen, the forecast moves slightly away from the Tories and towards Labour."
Which is exactly what I was saying would happen 2 months ago.
As regards Scotland, there's some folk getting giddy because the polls changed direction, but there'll be some red faces around when the vote is won by "No" by 10% on Thursday.
The polls changed because, in the second debate (and I use the word lightly) Salmond bullied Darling into the admission (sic) that Scotland could keep the Pound after independence. That was a masterstroke of politics, because it seemed to neutralise the issue that the SNP had seen as the biggest stick that the No campaign had. So they went on a media offensive saying, "It's OK folks. Darling says we can keep the Pound. End of macro-economic uncertainty and worries."
Within days, the polls lurched towards YES. Predominantly among the poor and the young. They liked the idea that an independent Scotland would be more left leaning (no education fees, no prescription charges, no nasty nukes) but they had been scared about what the currency would be. Now here was Salmond trumpeting that they could keep the Pound[1].
The polls moved immediately. There was a 5-10% swing to YES.
And now, the consequences have started. Businesses and economists have woken up and explained that a Scotland that was reliant on another country for its currency, but promising to turn on the tap of Govt spending would be a catastrophe in the making. The IFS have pointed out that Scotland on the Pound would have FAR worse Austerity than the UK is currently planning. Businesses are openly saying that they are off oot the door if it's YES. And the move towards YES in the polls has hit the buffers.
When folk go into the poll booths next week, they know that a YES is a permanent choice. If they have got it wrong, there's no way back. A sufficient number of them will shite it at that thought and vote NO.
[1] Course, this is the Alex Salmond who wanted Scotland to join the Euro 10 years back. And who was praising Ireland and Iceland as role models for an independent Scotland just before The Crash. Give him his due. He's got some brass neck taking stances like that, making himself look a f**king dick, then coming back again. Remind you of anyone?
-
And yet.
I can't help supporting Scottish independence.
It would do something.
It would say centralisation toward London isn't inevitable.
It would say what about us and that would echo in Northern England.
It would be an almighty f*** you to the establishment.
I can't help but support them.
-
RD
And that's what the SNP are playing on.
And it's all piss and wind b*llocks. Braveheart b*llocks.
If Scotland goes independent and yet keeps the pound, they have the worst of all worlds. If the Euro crisis has told us anything, it's that smaller countries in monetary unions CANNOT have fiscal independence. They have to follow the fiscal policy of the major partners. Or they get f**ked by the bond markets.
Look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland. They were all f**ked over by the bond markets beciase they ran their economy out of sync with the central core.
If Scotland does that, it will be heading towards bankruptcy before you can say "hoots mon". So it has to follow London's policy. But it now has no MPs at Westminster, so it has not influence over London's policy.
As I say, the very worst of all worlds. Responsibility without influence.And THAT is what the SNP are peddling to the poor f**kers north of the border. Without telling them that that's what they are voting for. Because they are so virulently anti-English, and so wrapped up in their Hollywood idea of Braveheart Scotland, they cannot see f**king sense.
But common sense will prevail. Enough people will shite it come Thursday morning.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301287
Dirty Labour...lol
-
This IMO will be Labour's undoing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301289
They oppose the cuts, slam them all the way through until it gets to policy time "oh erm, actually we won't reverse them if we win and will keep cutting".
That gives the Tories more chance IMO, it blows labour's arguments out of the water and will cost them appeal to some who see them as an alternative to cuts, if they aren't that, then just what are they?
-
BFYP
These issues are not set in stone for all eternity.
Balls was saying back in 2010 that cuts THEN were economically stupid. It was ALWAYS accepted that cuts would be necessary once the economy finally started growing. (Don't take my word, go and check what he said.)
There is no inconsistency whatsoever here. None at all.
-
Really BST? Do you think the core labour voters will appreciate that? Do you think the unions who are so opposed to cuts will appreciate that?
The past is the past, but for a party that has prided itself on being anti cuts, cost of living blah blah, to essentially say what they are doesn't seem consistent to me at all.
-
I haven't laughed so much for ages. Get in. Yesterday in his last keynote conference speech before the general election, red Ed forgot to mention the economy, immigration and welfare!!! You couldn't make it up. The 3 biggest issues in voters minds and he forgets! His face was an absolute picture as he left the conference hall as he realised his monumental gaffe. This just shows what a loser he is and how irrelevant the economy, immigration and welfare are to him.
Do you lefties really want such an incompetent fool as the next prime minister? All he seemed bothered about was banging on about spending even more money on the NHS to bribe the electorate with money we haven't got. Well I've got news for him. The NHS gets more than enough money already. It is unbelievably inefficient and wasteful. He would do better promising to sort this problem out than just chucking more money away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29335450
-
Get in. Labour and the Tories are now neck and neck. This poll was done over the weekend. Wait until we see the ones after Dave's excellent speech yesterday.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/
-
In truth the one thing this shows is just how poor Labour really is..I actually agree that the tory's didn't cut deep enough but they inherited a runaway train and the fact that despite having to hurt people were they feel it most, people still cant turn towards labour a real bad sign for there chances..They chose the wrong brother of that I have no doubt..I think the torys have done a good job in the circumstances and when I listen to the shadow councillor he quite frankly scares me with his plans..Frankly I wouldn't let him run a sweet shop never mind the countrys finances..
-
What do you make of the recent run of YouGov polls over the past week.
Friday: Lab 37, Con 31
Sunday: Lab 36 Con 31
Tuesday: Lab 36 Con 31
Wednesday: Lab 36 Con 31
Thursday: Lab 38 Con 31
Mick. Do you know why you annoy me so much. It's not the thickness. If it were just that, I'd ignore you. It is your cavalier way with truth and facts. You are a Kitson. You post lies, half-truths and selected facts to paint a view of the world as you would like it to be. You are like the very, very worst of politicians or jounralists and I f**king despise that approach to life.
The facts on this particular matter are that, over the past month, there have been around 40 opinion polls. In two of them, Labour and the Tories were tied. In one, the Tories were 1% ahead. In the other 37 or so, Labour had a lead of between 1-8%. The average position is a Labour lead of around 3-5%. Which is more or less the same as it was a year ago.
Now, in any opinion polls, there is a margin of error, because no polling of a small sample perfectly picks up exactly what the entire country thinks. The bigger the size of the poll, the smaller the margin of error should be. For example, in You Gov polls, with about 1800-2000 people sampled, they reckon that they at 95% certain that their figures are within +/3% of the actual average values throughout the country. Ashcroft's polls are smaller and they have a bigger +/-% spread. But let's take +/-3% as a general guide.
If the ACTUAL position is that Labour are 3-5% ahead on average, we should expect that some polls will give Labour an 8% lead, and some will put the two parties at neck-and-neck. And individual poll saying that Labour is 8% ahead does not, in itself, change the underlying actual picture. It's just a bit of noise superimposed on the actual situation. Ditto for a poll saying that the two parties are neck and neck.
Now, I KNOW that you know this. You are not so irredeemably thick as you make out. But you present this information as though it is definitive and as though it confirms that you are right.
I appreciate that you have a clinging need to be right about something, once in your life, since every f**king prediction you have ever made has been wrong. But this is not the way to do it.
-
WC
It shows nothing of the sort. Your response is precisely why I get so f**king angry at Mick. One poll on its own means the square root of cuck all.
Looking at polling averages, Labour have maintained a lead above the Tories for nearly 4 years. Its been as high as 10-12%. It's been as low as 1%. Where it is now is pretty much where it has been for the past 12 months. (It's actually a bit higher than it was 6 months ago and maybe a point lower than it was 12 months ago.)
-
I'm not talking about the poll Billy that is irrelevant..But even in Labour heartlands there is a general perception that Labour are not coming over as well as they should be..They should be doing a lot lot better than they are..Ed is a weak leader who doesn't connect with many of his own voters never mind floating ones..Whatever the politics that's a point you cant argue against surely???
-
WC.
I can't possibly disagree with that.
What I've been saying for 4 years now, though, is that there are remarkable parallels between EM and Thatcher, as Leader of the Opposition.
Both were seen as weirdos. Strange voice and mannerisms.
Both were up against weak Governments and weak economies and neither had the runaway poll lead that people said they ought to get.
Both were quietly pushing a line that the current economic system wasn't working and it was time for change (Thatcher saying it was time to rein the Unions in, EM saying it's time to make capitalism pay for the ordinary workers, not the high rollers.)
Neither really won over the country and the sceptics
Both were fighting against an incumbent PM who was far more popular and simply looked the part.
You don't have to be slick and polished to win a General Election. You don't have to totally convince everyone that you have the right ideas. You have to get just enough votes to have a chance to put your policies into action. I still think Miliband will do it. And then we'll see.
-
Well I certainly hope they don't but we will always disagree on that..lol Wouldn't you be tempted to have a blood letting now..New leader and just as important new shadow chancellor..Millibands last performance where he left out various important figures surely cant sit well with the partys faithfull.People have now forgotten what impact he was trying to get across..Ed balls comes over even worse..As a tory myself I hope those two stay as it will be our best chance of re-election which was always a tough ask after the much needed but unpopular austerity policys..but I'm sure you don't agree..lol
-
WC
As someone once said, I disagree with everything you say, but I respect your views.
Getting rid of EM now would be madness. Labour are ahead in the polls. Line they've been for 4 years. The Tories are fighting on two fronts. T&S time for Labour to hold their nerve, not give the Tories breathing space.
As for Austerity being much needed... Well that was what Osborne convinced everyone. But it's voodoo economics. Always was. It was brilliant politics but it's been utterly disastrous for the economy. It turned a very bad situation into the worst recovery since the South Sea Bubble. And he claims it is a success. Bizarre what politicians and can get away with.
-
Bst,as you seem to speak a lot of sense on politics recently labour and conservative and said what they will do if they win the election,now it's only recently I've started taking a interest in politics but it seems to me labour want to spend lots of money and not really say where it's coming from,they say they want to tax the rich more but surely if they tax them to much they will just take there money elsewhere and cost money and jobs rather than make money? Where the conservatives seem to be saying yes there will be more cuts and being honest about it, am I reading it wrong or just being slow?
-
Bst,as you seem to speak a lot of sense on politics recently labour and conservative and said what they will do if they win the election,now it's only recently I've started taking a interest in politics but it seems to me labour want to spend lots of money and not really say where it's coming from,they say they want to tax the rich more but surely if they tax them to much they will just take there money elsewhere and cost money and jobs rather than make money? Where the conservatives seem to be saying yes there will be more cuts and being honest about it, am I reading it wrong or just being slow?
You've got it bang on apart from the bit about BST speaking a lot of sense on politics.
-
Bpool
Labour DOES fully cost its proposals.
That's not me saying that by the way. It's the UK's leading macroeconomic expert saying it. Prof Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University, who is incredulous at Cameron's announcement yesterday.
See Wren-Lewis's blog here and his comment at 14:40
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-uncosted-tax-cuts-are-apparently.html?m=1
Ed Balls has repeatedly asked Osborne to allow the independent OBR to independently run an independent analysis of Labour's tax and spend policies for the 2015 election. Balls wants an independent assessment of whether Labour's plans are fully costed and if they add up.
Osborne has refused to allow this. I wonder why?
-
Thank you bst will have a look when get in
-
Bpool
Labour DOES fully cost its proposals.
That's not me saying that by the way. It's the UK's leading macroeconomic expert saying it. Prof Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University, who is incredulous at Cameron's announcement yesterday.
See Wren-Lewis's blog here and his comment at 14:40
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-uncosted-tax-cuts-are-apparently.html?m=1
Ed Balls has repeatedly asked Osborne to allow the independent OBR to independently run an independent analysis of Labour's tax and spend policies for the 2015 election. Balls wants an independent assessment of whether Labour's plans are fully costed and if they add up.
Osborne has refused to allow this. I wonder why?
Hahaha. Where have they costed the deficit reduction they have promised? Another massive lie.
-
Get in. It was only a matter of time. The Tories are now 2 points ahead of Labour. Latest Yougov poll shows Tories on 36% and Labour on 34%. That's the last 2 Yougov polls showing a Tory lead. I'm so happy.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Get in. Even more good news. UKIP have a 9 point lead in the Rochester by-election. UKIP are on the march.
What to conclude from the above 2 polls? The right is well and truly on the march. No more of this wishy washy leftie nonsense.
-
What to conclude from the above 2 polls? The right is well and truly on the march. No more of this wishy washy leftie nonsense.
Won't do "the right" any good if UKIP and the Tories split the right wing vote down the middle, though, will it?
-
So the week after their final coference before the election the Tories have come up with a barnstorming 2% lead...... you shove your money on there Michael, just like you did in the Scotch Independence Vote....
-
So the week after their final coference before the election the Tories have come up with a barnstorming 2% lead...... you shove your money on there Michael, just like you did in the Scotch Independence Vote....
I've already had a large bet ages ago when the odds were much better than they are now. Don't forget that Labour have just had their conference as well so the 2% is a genuine lead.
-
What were the odds again, and do you have a copy of your betting slip that we can see before the general election? :whistle:
-
I've decided it would be vulgar to show my betting slip and the huge amount of money I stand to win. I don't want to make people jealous.
-
I've decided it would be vulgar to show my betting slip and the huge amount of money I stand to win. I don't want to make people jealous.
IC1967; the joke that keeps on giving :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Get in. It was only a matter of time. The Tories are now 2 points ahead of Labour. Latest Yougov poll shows Tories on 36% and Labour on 34%. That's the last 2 Yougov polls showing a Tory lead. I'm so happy.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Get in. Even more good news. UKIP have a 9 point lead in the Rochester by-election. UKIP are on the march.
What to conclude from the above 2 polls? The right is well and truly on the march. No more of this wishy washy leftie nonsense.
Only one poll matters and that is in May 2015!
-
I've decided it would be vulgar to show my betting slip and the huge amount of money I stand to win. I don't want to make people jealous.
PMSL...you're so full of shit!
-
Get in. Another poll tonight from Lord Ashcroft showing a 2% lead for the Tories.
-
And the two Populous polls in the past 3 days that have had Labour 6 and 7 points ahead?
Only reading evidence that supports your world view does not make that evidence correct you cretin.
-
I'm not impressed with the Populous methodology. Their polls are at a massive variance to all the other polls so can be discounted. Yougov's last 2 polls have show the Tories in front for the first time since 2012. The trend is unmistakable.
-
Alright cretin.
When, over the past 4 years, have Populus polls been "at massive variance to" (sic) all the other polls?
Take your time.
-
Populus relies predominantly on phoning people. It is well known that the more intelligent amongst us (non Labour voters) have call blocking techniques employed so are not as easy to reach as your typical Labour voter. This means they are contacting more Labour voters and therefore show them to be doing better than they actually are, hence the large variance with other polls.
Yougov have a much more thorough, professional approach, hence a far more accurate representation of voting intentions.
http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/methodology/
-
I think it's fair to say the lead labour had is gone and at best you'd say they're level the two big parties.
There is more to be optimistic about if you favour the Tories, largely due to what I've said for the past 2-3 years - people can't see an Ed and Ed government, they're just not popular and that harms Labour at a time when they should be able to offer easy popular policies. I thought they'd go down the wrong route of big spending etc and win. They've gone what is the right way really of not doing that but it's not the popular way or the Left way really and that will harm them.
I also think UKIP will take a fair more of the usual labour fove than many think. They have a lot of policies that appeal to the working classes in places like Doncaster and I think they could harm the Labour vote. Of course it all comes down to the marginals.
-
For Labour to be at best level at this stage is pathetic. They've got no chance of winning the election. Ed Milliband blew whatever chance they had with that useless speech at the party conference. Ever since then all kinds of people have been taking the piss out of him. This will continue up until election day. On the other hand Dave gave a brilliant speech. The contrast between the 2 leaders was there for all to see. Lots of labour big wigs are now openly criticising Ed after the recent polls showing the Tories in the lead. This will only get worse as time goes on.
A giveaway budget in March, another 7 months of improving economic news spells an easy victory for the Tories. I'm so happy.
There is still time to make some money on the outcome. The 2 to 1 I advised not that many months ago has gone but you can still get evens.
-
BFYP
It's actually impossible to say what's happening with the polls at the moment. There have been too few since the Tory conference to tell whether the movement seen in the YouGov polls is genuine movement or simply a co-incidental run of margins of error at the extremes. Statistically speaking, the recent three YG polls are entirely consistent with an underlying position of Lab 35-36%, Con32-33% which is where they were BEFORE the conferences and where they have been for months.
Those underlying figures would also fit with the two recent Populus polls (Lab 37%, Con 30-31%).
The Ashcroft polls have a much smaller sample and therefore a higher margin of error. There have also been some very strange variations in previous Ashcroft polls, with wild variations from one to another.
That's the thing with polling - there is a natural, statistical margin of error around the actual value. Only a fool draws conclusions from one or two polls. Only a congenital idiot (not you I'm aiming this at by the way) ignores polls that are giving very different results from others.
When other polling companies are out, and more YG polls are out, we'll have a better idea about the actual position.
-
Bpool
Labour DOES fully cost its proposals.
That's not me saying that by the way. It's the UK's leading macroeconomic expert saying it. Prof Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University, who is incredulous at Cameron's announcement yesterday.
See Wren-Lewis's blog here and his comment at 14:40
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-uncosted-tax-cuts-are-apparently.html?m=1
Ed Balls has repeatedly asked Osborne to allow the independent OBR to independently run an independent analysis of Labour's tax and spend policies for the 2015 election. Balls wants an independent assessment of whether Labour's plans are fully costed and if they add up.
Osborne has refused to allow this. I wonder why?
Hahaha. Where have they costed the deficit reduction they have promised? Another massive lie.
We are still waiting for your answer to yet another monumental lie.
All we know so far is that he will hold child benefit increases for the first 2 years at 1% saving £400m. He's going to cut minister's pay by 5% saving £1m per annum. He's going to remove the winter fuel allowance from higher rate taxpayers. This won't save anything as the cost of doing it will be the same as any money saved. He's also going to increase the top rate of tax to 50%. This will actually lose money as it is well known that once you go over 45% people start to take measures to avoid tax.
So that's it. An extremely tiny fraction of the deficit. Not worth bothering with. No wonder he lacks any credibility. He also plans to exempt capital spending from his 'savage' cuts to allow him to carry on borrowing. What a plonker.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53220450-41af-11e4-b98f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3FS62iGkd
-
Mick
Go and read what I wrote. It wasn't MY opinion. An Oxford professor of macro-economics states that Labor have always costed their proposals since the time of John Smith in 1992.
Ed Balls has repeatedly asked Osborne to allow the OBR to check Labour's (and other parties') figures PRECISELY so that they can't be used as a political football in the election campaign. Osborne has repeatedly refused to allow this PRECISELY because he wants to peddle the lie that Labour's numbers don't add up, and because he wants to announce headline-grabbing but totally uncosted tax cuts.
I expect that Labour will do what it did before the last election, which is to use the independent IFS to cost its proposals. But that won't stop d**kheads claiming that they don't add up.
-
Mick
Go and read what I wrote. It wasn't MY opinion. An Oxford professor of macro-economics states that Labor have always costed their proposals since the time of John Smith in 1992.
Ed Balls has repeatedly asked Osborne to allow the OBR to check Labour's (and other parties') figures PRECISELY so that they can't be used as a political football in the election campaign. Osborne has repeatedly refused to allow this PRECISELY because he wants to peddle the lie that Labour's numbers don't add up, and because he wants to announce headline-grabbing but totally uncosted tax cuts.
I expect that Labour will do what it did before the last election, which is to use the independent IFS to cost its proposals. But that won't stop d**kheads claiming that they don't add up.
You should have said 'spending' proposals. For Labour to have any credibility they have to say what their proposals are for eliminating the deficit and reducing the national debt. There is absolutely no point in saying how you are going to fund spending on one hand without saying how you are going to cut public spending. I've listed the measures he's stated to reduce the deficit and they aren't worth the paper they are written on. He thinks we are all stupid and unfortunately most Labour voters fall for his spin because they can't do basic maths. There is absolutely no point in Milliband saying he's going to spend £2bn on the health service funded by a mansion tax when the deficit is still way out of control.
The OBR isn't set up to do what Balls wants. More spin.
-
Mick
You regale us with your cretinous inability to see sense so often, that I really shouldn't be surprised, but I regularly am. For someone to expend so much time and effort with so little thought applied is quite spectacularly depressing.
Labour's ENTIRE package was audited by the IFS last time. That includes full fiscal projections. (You know. Like the ones that Gideon set out last time, that stated that he would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. How the f**k he has the gall to criticise others I've no idea when his projections have proved to be out by a cumulative amount that is WAY over £100bn.)
Anyway, I expect that Labour's fiscal plans will have to be audited by the IFS this time, given that Gideon refuses to allow the OBR to do the job. And I also expect that d**kheads will continue to ignore this and believe what they want. You are doing a sterling job of proving that prediction already.
-
What is cretinous is the way you try to con people into thinking that Labour's plans for the next election are fiscally credible. During his keynote speech he tried to con the gullible into thinking that his 'crackdown' on child benefit and other half measures were going to get us on the path to removing the deficit and repaying the national debt. As I've already shown he is barely scratching the surface. If he isn't going to tell us how he's going to tackle the deficit at his last major speech before the election then when is he going to tell us?
So I'd thank you to stop trying to con people into thinking Labour have come up with a credible plan to tackle the deficit. They haven't. We all know the reason. Balls doesn't want to tell the public the truth about the further savage cuts and tax rises to come.
At least the Tories have said there will be no tax rises (indeed there will be cuts). They are going to hammer the poor and cut public spending savagely. Balls should admit he's going to savagely cut public spending and put up taxes (and not just for the wealthy). If he's not going to cut the welfare bill then tax rises are his only option.
-
Could I ask u both a question billy and mick,your both obviously very passionate about this,what I'm finding is if you vote labour or conservative no 1 ever has anything good to say about the other party and also nothing bad to say about thier own party so my question is could either of you do that? Feel free of course to ignore my question I'm just intrigued?
-
BPool
Politics is about what your core beliefs are. It's about your world view. It's about your moral stance.
That's the reason I get passionate about it. I was born into a deeply political family. My grandad did 52 years at the pit. He was on the picket line in the General Strike in 1926, as a 14 year old, fighting against a Tory Government that imposed vicious austerity on the working class to help pay the bills of the First World War. He did an 8 hour shift, then did 2 hours in the NUM union box, helping lads who were being done over by the management get what they deserved. He lived and breathed politics, I've never met a better role model in my life. My own passion for politics comes from that example. He was a man who sweat blood to provide for his family and better himself. But he never once thought that bettering himself meant pulling the ladder up behind him.
He believed in a collective approach. That we're better when everyone is better. That if I am well off but you are poor, it diminishes my own existence.
That is what underpins my political beliefs. I've been incredibly fortunate to have him as a model. His hard work helped to set up my dad, and through him, for me to be the first person in my family to go to University, get a PhD and become the director of a successful company.
I'd be better off supporting the Tories. But that would mean buying into an ideology that believes that we're all individuals, and our responsibility is to get on as best we can, look after our immediate friends and family and leave everyone else to look after theirs.
That's the crucial difference between Right and Left. The Right believe that we're all individuals who look after ourselves. The Left believe that we need to sacrifice a bit of our individual side to support everyone else. That is why Labour generally want higher taxes and the Tories want lower ones.
Both approaches have their merits. Both have their problems.
I lean to the Left for a very simple reason. I've been lucky to have the background that I've had. But that's not down to ME. It's down to luck. I could have been born to an alcoholic child beater who didn't have a book in the house and never took me to school. That wouldn't have been my fault. So, if I've been successful, I feel that I have a responsibility to put something back in. It's not all been down to me, so the rewards shouldn't all come to me. They should be shared out. So I'm happy to pay taxes that go into the general pot. That pay for decent schools, decent houses, decent chances for people who haven't had the luck to be able to pay for them themselves.
Simple really.
PS: That's why I f**king well explode when I see Cameron putting on his simpering face and announcing that the next Tory Government will reduces taxes in a way that helps the low paid, when the truth is that they'd give me a tax cut of £2000 when they'd give to someone with 2 kids earning £300/week a tax cut of £500, then remove £485 in benefits.
It'd be grand for me. But it is f**king disgusting morality.
-
Thanks for that billy,is there anywhere I can look on the internet to get a completely unbiased opinion on the finances of both parties
-
Phew.
Politics and unbiased?
You'll be lucky.
The simple situation is that the Tories think that we should cut the deficit as rapidly as possible, whereas Labour think it should be cut more slowly (ignore the people who say that Labour doesn't care about the deficit - that's politicking).
On the surface, the Tory approach seems more sensible. If you're in debt, you want to get out of debt as rapidly as possible. So you cut your expenditure. But doing that with a nation's finances has consequences. Because the Government spending underpins a lot (and I mean A LOT) of economic activity. So if you cut Government spending, you put people out of work. Then they have less money. So they buy less things. So the people who they used to buy from might lose their jobs. So the Govt gets less tax. So the Govt has less money to pay its bills, so the debt doesn't get reduced as quickly as you hoped.
And in the meantime, we all get poorer.
That is EXACTLY what Labour in 2010 were predicting would happen if the Tory deficit reduction plans were put into practice. That's pretty much exactly what happened from 2010-2013, when the Govt eased up on the cuts and the economy started growing.
The Tories would say that Labour's plans were to keep borrowing and spending and that eventually, we'd come to a point where no-one would lend to us anymore because we'd hit the buffers. Cameron had a genius phrase when he said that we'd "max'd out our credit card". No sensible economist could read that without laughing, because a country isn't like an individual, but it sounds good and it chimes with people.
The truth is that there's no independent, unbiased analysis available. Some economists say that the debt and deficit are irrelevant as long as they are not wildly out of control (and for comparison, our current Govt debt isn't remotely as bad as Greece, Italy or even Japan. Or even our own debt at the end of WWII, which was REALLY scary.) Others say that at a certain level of debt, very bad things start to happen.
But the simple answer is that the Tories would cut VERY hard and get the debt down quickly, arguing that we need to do that for future prosperity and accepting (although not publicly) that this means pain today. Labour would cut less hard and get the debt down more slowly, accepting the risks for the future, but balancing that with a stronger economy today.
PS:
LAST election, the nearest thing you'd find to an independent analysis of each parties' spending, tax and borrowing plans was the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
I can't find the original report easily, but here's a report in the Guardian about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/28/general-election-2010-spending-cuts-ifs
But it's not simple. There's no "One side is right, the other side is wrong" result. That's why politics is so f***ing messy. My take is to look at who will win and who will lose from each side's proposals.
-
Again thanks billy for the effort replying,eventually i will make a descion and let u no lol,1 final question if u don't mind where do ukip come into this if anywhere? I no they won't win but they seem to have wind in there sails
-
Could I ask u both a question billy and IC1967,your both obviously very passionate about this,what I'm finding is if you vote labour or conservative no 1 ever has anything good to say about the other party and also nothing bad to say about thier own party so my question is could either of you do that? Feel free of course to ignore my question I'm just intrigued?
I'll spare you the family history but would just say I come from a typical Labour background. I can say plenty bad about the Tories, it's just that I consider them to be the least worst option available to us. For example they are over stuffed with rich ex public schoolboys who haven't got a clue about normal life for the normal working man. They are more likely than Labour to support our totally unfair aristocratic led class system. They are quite happy for the bulk of the wealth of the country to reside in the hands of the few. There's plenty more I could say about what I don't like about them. The only good thing I could say about Labour is that their hearts are in the right place but their heads are shoved so far up their arses it is untrue.
The fundamental fact is though that for all their faults, the Tories nearly always do a much better job of managing the economy. Because of this there is more money to go around to fund public services such as the NHS. There is one fundamental measure of how successful governments are and it is this. How did unemployment fare during their term in office? Do you know that under every Labour government, unemployment was higher at the end of their term in power than it was at the start of their term in power? This is conclusive evidence that they don't know how to manage the economy and for all their good intentions they always leave public services and people's standards of living in a mess.
There are other reasons why the Tories are the better option. They at least try and get the country to live within its means. Labour think its OK to live beyond our means and fund this by borrowing monumental amounts of money. Do you know that thanks to all this borrowing we now spend more on paying the interest on our debts than we do on schools? Labour like to put up taxes (under Gordon Brown they were brilliantly sneeky at this). Tories like to cut taxes.
I am of the belief that money is better in the hands of the individual than in the hands of government. You only have to look at all the incredible waste of taxpayers' money that goes on whichever party is in power. The more money the individual keeps then the harder they are likely to work and so a virtuous circle is established whereby more tax is collected. Labour like to over tax the rich. Its a good soundbite. They do this despite overwhelming evidence that once you do this the rich find tax avoiding measures or leave the country which damages the country and job prospects of everyone and results in less tax being collected from the rich.
At the end of the day both parties have huge faults. I let my head rule my heart and side with the Tories because they have unequivocally shown they are much better at managing the economy. Just remember one thing that proves this beyond all doubt. EVERY LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN UNEMPLOYMENT RISE AT THE END OF THEIR TERM IN OFFICE. If they had a clue about what they were doing with the economy this would not be the case. If we don't have a strong economy then all aspects of our quality of life start to go down the toilet. So my advice would be to hold your nose and vote Tory. In marginal seats vote tactically to keep Labour out. In strong Labour seats vote UKIP to send a message.
UKIP come into it as they want us out of Europe. I believe we would be much better off out of Europe in a type of EFTA trading deal. UKIP and the Tories are prepared to let us have a referendum. Labour aren't. Another black mark against them. They think they know better than the general public.
-
Thanks for that mick much appreciated
-
And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/
-
And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/
I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.
-
And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/
I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.
ZERO HOUR CONTRACTS!
People forced to take these contracts, leaving them in real terms less than the minimum wage!
-
The usual straw man argument from Mick on unemployment.
The measure of unemployment at the end of a period is meaningless in itself. It says nothing other than what unemployment was at that point in time. It's more instructive to see what happened to unemployment over a duration.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-unemployment-18701999.html?m=1
Consider the past 100 years. Countries typically have high unemployment at the end of a major war as they go through the trauma of switching from a militarised workforce to a civil one. After WWI, we had horrific unemployment as the Govts (mainly Old Liberal and Tory) slashed spending (Google the Geddes Axe). That gave us a generation of extreme poverty. After WWII we had a remarkable experience of low unemployment and high growth, underpinned by a new way of running the country, where we taxed heavily and redistributed wealth to ensure that we really WERE all in it together.
That lasted until the mid 70s. From then, there was a worldwide move away from the state control of the economy towards a freer one, with lower taxes and people encouraged to keep more of their money. Look at what happened to unemployment over the next 20 years. We had an near-unprecedentedly sustained period of dreadfully high unemployment. Areas like Donny took the brunt of that.
Most of that occurred under the Tories. It's fine to say that unemployment was only a bit higher at the end of their term in 1997 than it was when they started in 1979. But that ignores the fact that for every one of those 18 years, it was WAY higher than when they came to office. That's not some abstract issue. Those unemployed people represent wasted potential and wasted lives.
What Mick wants you to believe is that it's the end condition that matters. That's like looking at someone's speed at the end of a long race and deciding on that measure alone who is the better runner.
Actually, we're going through a mini version of that right now. We have had 3 years of unnecessarily high unemployment and low growth since 2010. Things then improved from 2013, and we're expected to agree that this means that the right policies have been used. It's the race analogy again. If you're in a marathon and you jog for 20 miles then sprint for the final 6, it doesn't make you a strong runner. If you run hard and well for 20 miles then slow down in the final 6, it doesn't make you a bad runner.
-
And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/
I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.
ZERO HOUR CONTRACTS!
People forced to take these contracts, leaving them in real terms less than the minimum wage!
I hope you are not suggesting that the huge increase in employment is mostly down to zero hour contracts. That would be totally absurd. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), based on a poll of 1,000 workers, reported in August 2013 that only 3-4% of the workforce, work under the terms of a zero-hour contract. It is also a legal requirement that the minimum wage should be paid. Of course some employers will break the law and pay less.
There are pros and cons to zero hour contracts. The main pro is that it offers both workers and employers the flexibility to work only the hours that either party requires. The downside is that employers can exploit vulnerable workers which I agree does happen sometimes.
I believe there are more people in work than would otherwise be the case if it were not for zero hour contracts. On the whole they are a good thing. That's not to say some reform isn't needed.
According to research by the CIPD only 16% of workers on zero hours contracts felt they didn't get enough hours. So on balance I would say they are working pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-hour_contract
-
The usual straw man argument from Mick on unemployment.
The measure of unemployment at the end of a period is meaningless in itself. It says nothing other than what unemployment was at that point in time. It's more instructive to see what happened to unemployment over a duration.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-unemployment-18701999.html?m=1
Consider the past 100 years. Countries typically have high unemployment at the end of a major war as they go through the trauma of switching from a militarised workforce to a civil one. After WWI, we had horrific unemployment as the Govts (mainly Old Liberal and Tory) slashed spending (Google the Geddes Axe). That gave us a generation of extreme poverty. After WWII we had a remarkable experience of low unemployment and high growth, underpinned by a new way of running the country, where we taxed heavily and redistributed wealth to ensure that we really WERE all in it together.
That lasted until the mid 70s. From then, there was a worldwide move away from the state control of the economy towards a freer one, with lower taxes and people encouraged to keep more of their money. Look at what happened to unemployment over the next 20 years. We had an near-unprecedentedly sustained period of dreadfully high unemployment. Areas like Donny took the brunt of that.
Most of that occurred under the Tories. It's fine to say that unemployment was only a bit higher at the end of their term in 1997 than it was when they started in 1979. But that ignores the fact that for every one of those 18 years, it was WAY higher than when they came to office. That's not some abstract issue. Those unemployed people represent wasted potential and wasted lives.
What Mick wants you to believe is that it's the end condition that matters. That's like looking at someone's speed at the end of a long race and deciding on that measure alone who is the better runner.
Actually, we're going through a mini version of that right now. We have had 3 years of unnecessarily high unemployment and low growth since 2010. Things then improved from 2013, and we're expected to agree that this means that the right policies have been used. It's the race analogy again. If you're in a marathon and you jog for 20 miles then sprint for the final 6, it doesn't make you a strong runner. If you run hard and well for 20 miles then slow down in the final 6, it doesn't make you a bad runner.
Look. It's very simple. Whenever Labour leave office unemployment is always higher than when they take office. It has happened every single time. This is not a coincidence. How anyone can try and argue that this doesn't prove they always mismanage the economy is unbelievable. The Tories always have to sort out the problems left behind by Labour. Always. It takes time to get things sorted out. Given the last big mess left behind by Labour (they really took the biscuit this time), it is remarkable we are doing so well. This is a testament to the Tories ability to manage the economy properly.
Only a fool would risk all that by putting Labour back in power.
-
Once again, you can take the word of a Bettaware salesman, or you can ask the head macroeconomic professor at Oxford University. As it happens, he was discussing the legacy left by Labour and the record of the Tories just yesterday.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-mythical-debt-crisis.html?m=1
And before our Bettaware salesman starts moaning about this being another lefty, Prof Wren-Lewis is on record as having been critical of Brown's record as Chancellor. He's no Labour-lover. But he's apoplectic about Osborne's record.
-
Once again, you can take the word of a Bettaware salesman, or you can ask the head macroeconomic professor at Oxford University. As it happens, he was discussing the legacy left by Labour and the record of the Tories just yesterday.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-mythical-debt-crisis.html?m=1
And before our Bettaware salesman starts moaning about this being another lefty, Prof Wren-Lewis is on record as having been critical of Brown's record as Chancellor. He's no Labour-lover. But he's apoplectic about Osborne's record.
You are trying to use diversionary tactics again because you can't defend the indefensible. The main thrust of my point of view is that Labour always increases unemployment. Always. Therefore they are incompetent at running the economy. The link you've posted does not discuss this issue so why are you posting it?
Guess when unemployment started rising last time. You'd be forgiven for thinking it was as a result of the financial crisis that Labour blame on the bankers. You probably think it must have started going up in 2008 when the financial crisis hit. You'd be wrong. True to their previous record, Labour started mismanaging the economy well before this. Unemployment actually started going up in 2005. Yes that's right, 3 years before the financial crisis. This is despite them increasing public sector employment massively on borrowed money. Labour increased public sector employment by nearly one million. This cost a fortune and we are still paying the bill. Despite this, unemployment was still higher when they left office than it was when they started.
It is impossible for anyone to defend Labour's record on unemployment. It is impossible therefore not to conclude that Labour are financially incompetent and should be kept away from power indefinitely.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860
-
Mick
As ever, your inability to follow a train of logic is a wonder to behold.
Consider the following scenario. A benevolent and wise leader rules a country and ensures that the economy works so well that there is zero unemployment. Then war is declared on his country and an enemy carpet bombs, destroying all economic activity. There is 100% unemployment. The ruler dies a week later.
By your logic, the fact that there was 100% unemployment on the day of his death "proves" that he was incompetent.
-
What is it that you don't understand? Unemployment hasn't just gone up the odd time when Labour have been in power. It's happened every single time. It even happened last time when they created nearly one million non jobs in the public sector. A truly appalling record. There is a pattern of behaviour here. It's easy to see.
I have concluded that you must be insane. Have you heard of this definition?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.
Giving power to Labour over and over again and not expecting unemployment to go up is insane.
-
f***ing hell Mick, it's hard work again.
I assume you DO know that unemployment has also been higher at the end of every Tory Govt since WWII than it was when they came to power?
You DID know that before you started this pointless discussion didn't you?
Does that mean anything about the Tories' economic competence? Of course not. A snapshot of what unemployment levels were on two particular days tells you nothing at all.
What matters is what happened in between and what external events affected things.
In 1979, the Tories came to power with unemployment at 5.4%. It had been falling steadily for 2 years, but it was still at historically high levels. The Tories had a brilliant election poster with a huge dole queue under the banner "Labour isn't working". Genius.
What happened then? The Tories were in power for 216 months. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of those months, unemployment was higher than it was when they took office. It reached 14% within 3.5 years of them taking power.
Do I blame them entirely for that? No I don't. That would be stupid. There were two deep worldwide recessions during their time in power. Unemployment was high in every major industrialised country. But I DO blame them for allowing our unemployment to be among the highest in the developed world for 18 years. That was a result of their deliberate policies.
Labour came to power in 1997 with unemployment at 7.2%. It had been falling steadily for 4 years from the horrific levels of 1993 after the 90-92 recession. The Tories deserve a lot of credit for engineering that fall under Ken Clarke's sensible economic policy (a refreshing change from the mad experimental phase under Maggie in the 80s). Under Labour, unemployment continued to fall until 2001, then it levelled out at 5-5.7% until 2008. For 11 years, we unemployment that EVERY SINGLE DAY was lower than it was on any single day under the previous Tory Govt.
There was then the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s. Unemployment rose pretty much everywhere in the Western world. In the USA it rose to 10%. In France to 9.5%. In Canada to 8.7%. In Italy to 9%. In Spain to 18%. In fairness, it didn't increase by much in Germany, but unemployment was already above 8% and it went up to about 9%.
In the UK, unemployment rose to 8%. So, under Labour, in the worst recession in 80 years, unemployment was a little over half what it was under the Tories in 1982.
Do I think Labour were totally blameless? No of course not. Do I think the Tories were entirely to blame for 1982? No of course not.
Do I think people who latch onto one statistic and build an entire thesis out of it are intellectually bankrupt d**kheads? Of course I do.
-
You, statistics and damned lies. The phrase rolls seamlessly off the tongue. Lets look at the most recent history of unemployment shall we. The current rate is 6.2% which is lower than when the coalition came to power and it is still falling. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
While we're at it did you know that every time Labour has left office the deficit and national debt have always been higher than when they took office? More damning evidence of their financial incompetence.
-
Mick
You are utterly beyond belief. Point out a SINGLE lie in that post of mine.
You, on the other hand, dissemble and spout shit as easily as you breathe.
Debt. Taking the absolute level of debt as a measure, it has gone up under EVERY single Govt since the War. But taking the absolute level is stupid, because it takes no account of inflation or of our national income.
Using inflation-adjusted figures and putting the debt into equivalent of 2005 prices, the following happened to our Govt debt under Labour
1945-51: fell from £685bn to £605bn.
1964-70: fell from £465bn to £365bn
1974-1979: rose from £308bn to £311bn.
1997-2010: rose from £440bn to £730bn.
Under the Tories
1951-64: Fell from £605bn to £465bn
1970-74: Fell from £365bn to £308bn
1979-97: Rose from £311bn to £440bn
See the pattern? Debt fell dramatically during the post-War Keynesian period. And it has risen remorselessly and dramatically during the period when it was supposed to be controlled by market forces. Under BOTH Labour and the Tories.
I'm happy to discuss any of this. But you are not interested in that. You spout lies and assume that everyone who reads them is as thick as you and will accept them. You are contemptible. Your approach is not about establishing truth. It's about being a Kitson.
-
Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want. You are an expert at this. I don't care if you believe me. I know my facts.
I have more than proved my case. Take my advice and let it go. This can't be good for your blood pressure.
-
Mick
You know the square root of f*** all. You prove it regularly. Then you limp off out of a discussion when you've been made to look daft.
Tune in next week for the next episode of Slap Mick Down. On a theme of his choice.
-
Hahaha. You do make me laugh.
-
Right. You've asked for it. Here is a list of Tory governments from 1922 up to 1990 listing the yearly average of unemployment.
1922-1924 14.3% down to 10.3% (a fall of 3%)
1924-1929 10.3% up to 10.4% (a rise of 0.1%)
1951-1964 1.3% up to 1.7% (a rise of 0.4%)
1970-1974 2.7% down to 2.6% (a fall of 0.1%)
1979-1990 5.7% up to 5.8% (a rise of 0.1%)
Now by any stretch of the imagination that is a pretty impressive record. The worst that has happened is that unemployment rose by 0.4% from 1951 to 1964. Not a large rise over such a long period. In every other period it has fallen or only gone up by 0.1%. Note, it fell from 1970-1974 putting the lie to Billy's assertion that every Tory government has seen a rise since WWII. The rise of 0.1% from 1924-1929 and 1979-1990 is so small as to be statistically insignificant. As I said earlier, unemployment will also be much lower at the end of this government's term in office than it was when they started out.
All in all a much better record than Labour's.
Now. Let's look at Labour's record over the same period.
1929-1931 10.4% up to 21.3% (a rise of 10.9%)
1945-1951 1.3% up to 1.4% (a rise of 0.1%)
1964-1970 1.7% up to 2.7% (a rise of 1%)
1974 - !979 2.6% up to 5.7% (a rise of 3.1%)
All in all a piss poor record, one that they carried on with up until 2010. So a back of the fag packet calculation shows that overall the figures give the Tories a mean figure of
-2.5% and Labour a figure of +15.1%. Conclusive proof that the Tories have a much better record on unemployment than Labour.
I rest my case. Game, set and match.
-
Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.
Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!
Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!
-
Oh....wait.......
Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want......
...and not reference to Filo's post either but to IC's
-
Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.
Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!
Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!
The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!
This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.
I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.
-
Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.
Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!
Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!
The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!
This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.
I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.
b*llocks!
How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!
-
Oh....wait.......
Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want......
...and not reference to Filo's post either but to IC's
I'm not a big fan of using statistics but when Billy tells blatant lies and then accuses me of being the liar then I have to respond. He's lost every argument he's ever had with me and is desperate to win one. He will employ any means, fair or foul. He tries his best to belittle me and calls me all kinds of names. It's a good job I've got a really thick skin. When he loses the argument he then deploys condescension and tries to bully me into submission and gets extremely frustrated when it doesn't work.
I am seriously worried for the man. I bet his blood pressure is through the roof and his teeth will be a right mess as he grinds away in his sleep. It's time for him to admit he has met his match. It's pointless him trying to defeat me. I always win. The reason is that I am not a hardcore leftie that thinks every other point of view is wrong before I get involved in a debate. I always consider all the points of view before deciding I was right all along.
I am the voice of reason and it is plain for all to see.
-
Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.
Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!
Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!
The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!
This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.
I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.
b*llocks!
How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!
I could also ask how can they get a part time job when they are a full time carer? If they want to care for their loved one then that is very admirable. They should not be rewarded for this on borrowed money for which the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. Let's not forget the person that is being cared for also gets a lot of money off the taxpayer.
We should have a better care system so people don't need to become carers. I'd be all for giving care workers a huge pay rise. They do one of the more difficult jobs out there and are paid a pittance. I'd pay them at least £20 per hour.
-
Mick
1) Your unemployment rate numbers are wrong.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-trends--discontinued-/january-1996/unemployment-since-1881.pdf
2) it doesn't matter what the rates were at the start and end of a Govt you terminal cretin. YOU have put up that metric to try to prove a point. But it's imbecilic. It doesn't take into account the intervening period and the effect of external shocks beyond any Govt's control.
You have a childlike craving for simple, one dimensional solutions to highly complex problems.
-
My figures are correct. Anyone can use the link you've posted and see that this is the case.
You say 'it doesn't matter what the rates were at the start and end of a Govt you terminal cretin'.
Moving the goalposts again are we now? I beg to differ. I think the unemployment rate is an excellent indicator of how well a government has managed the economy. I can't think of a better one.
The fairest way to measure how successful a government has been in this regard is to see what the rate was at the beginning of their term in office and what it was at the end. To get an accurate representation of the stats I've gone back over many decades. I can't be fairer than that.
OK there may well have been the odd external shock but that was the same for both parties. It is totally conclusive that the Tories have a brilliant record on unemployment and that Labour have a piss poor one.
I've totally proved my point and you have been rumbled. It is a fact that any government that keeps unemployment low or indeed gets it to fall is obviously excellent at running the economy. Any government that lets it rise every single time they are in office must be useless at running the economy. Now take a chill pill and calm down. I'm getting very concerned for your health.
Game, set and match.
-
]
Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.
Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!
Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!
The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!
This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.
I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.
b*llocks!
How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!
I could also ask how can they get a part time job when they are a full time carer? If they want to care for their loved one then that is very admirable. They should not be rewarded for this on borrowed money for which the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. Let's not forget the person that is being cared for also gets a lot of money off the taxpayer.
We should have a better care system so people don't need to become carers. I'd be all for giving care workers a huge pay rise. They do one of the more difficult jobs out there and are paid a pittance. I'd pay them at least £20 per hour.
You haven't got a clue what you are on about yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Yes I have. I have recent experience where a family member had a terminal condition and I couldn't believe the money that was thrown at the problem. Carer's allowance, working tax credits, child tax credit's, housing benefit, disability allowance (highest rate), industrial injuries benefit. That's just off the top of my head. They also got free care in a home for regular periods for respite and for when they eventually ended up in one before they died. The money coming in was unbelievable.
Trust me I am an expert in this field.
-
Yes I have. I have recent experience where a family member had a terminal condition and I couldn't believe the money that was thrown at the problem. Carer's allowance, working tax credits, child tax credit's, housing benefit, disability allowance (highest rate), industrial injuries benefit. That's just off the top of my head. They also got free care in a home for regular periods for respite and for when they eventually ended up in one before they died. The money coming in was unbelievable.
Trust me I am an expert in this field.
IIB, affects your child tax and working tax credits as well as housing benefits, they will not have claimed all those at the same time, unless it was done illegally!
-
Put it this way. Over the course of a few years they managed to stash away over £30k. I was totally shocked at how much money they had coming in.
-
30,000 stashed away and free care in a care home as well as claiming all those benefits some of which can't be claimed together, strikes me there's some benefit fraud going on there.
Trust me you haven't a clue
-
You know, the really endearing thing is that Mick, the man who is wrong on every number he ever posts, expects us to believe this £30,000 figure.
Mick the man who claims he made a £40k profit on the Scottish referendum.
Mick the man who once claimed that our debt was £6trillion higher than it actually is, and after a week of defending that, eventually said that the numbers didn't matter anyway.
Mick the man who posts incorrect unemployment numbers, then insists that his numbers are right even after I post a link to an Office of National Statistics article giving the official numbers.
And he still thinks we will listen to his latest invented number.
-
30,000 stashed away and free care in a care home as well as claiming all those benefits some of which can't be claimed together, strikes me there's some benefit fraud going on there.
Trust me you haven't a clue
Hahaha. Whichever way you look at it they were getting far too much money off us taxpayers. No wonder the country is drowning in debt.
-
You know, the really endearing thing is that Mick, the man who is wrong on every number he ever posts, expects us to believe this £30,000 figure
Mick the man who posts incorrect unemployment numbers, then insists that his numbers are right even after I post a link to an Office of National Statistics article giving the official numbers.
Yet more blatant lies. Anyone that doubts my figures are more than welcome to check them with the link you've posted. The only way any of the figures will be wrong is if I've made a genuine mistake. This just doesn't happen but I suppose there is a first time for everything.
-
If you issue an abject apology for all your errors i'm sure all will forgive you.
-
If you issue an abject apology for all your errors i'm sure all will forgive you.
I apologise abjectly for all the errors I've made in the past (even though I can't think of any).
-
Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books
-
Mick
I pointed out that unemployment had risen under every single Tory Govt since the War. You said it hadn't because it had fallen under the 1970-74 Govt.
The 1970 Election was in June 1970. The first 1974 election was in Feb 1974.
Go and check the numbers yourself. I can't be arsed to do it for you - you've exhausted my patience.
I'll repeat by the way, that this doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant snapshot which fails to take account of the issues of the time.
The 1929-31 Labour Govt had to deal with the worldwide collapse due to the Wall Street Crash. The Wall Street Crash was not the fault of the Labour Govt. They could not do anything to prevent that, and their response was hamstrung by the fact that Churchill as Tory Chancellor had taken us onto the Gold Standard at a ruinous rate a few years earlier. (Keynes predicted what the outcome would be in his propehtic pamphlet "The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill".)
The 1945 Labour Govt had to deal with the demobilisation after WWII and the resulting re-organisation of our economy from a wartime to a peacetime setting. That was not Labour's fault. In that light, the fact the unemployment was exceptionally low from 1945-51 (apart from a spike in the severe winter on 1947) is a near miracle> Compare and contrast with the unemployment that we experienced in the 6 years after WWI.
The incoming 1974 Labour Govt had to deal with the recession brought on by the Middle East oil shock of Autumn 1973 and the fallout from the disastrous Barber Boom under the Tory Govt that let inflation off the leash. Neither of those were Labour's fault, although the resulting unemployment under Labour was undoubtedly exacerbated by the cuts that Labour imposed following the IMF bailout (which wasn't necessary) in 76.
The Tory Govt of 1979-97 had to deal with the second oil shock of 1979, which led to a global recession and a subsequent global recession in 1990. Both of those inevitably led to increases in unemployment and were not something that Thatcher could have influenced. Although the resulting unemployment was undoubtedly increased greatly by the mad pro-cyclical fiscal experiment of 1981 which exacerbated our recession, and by the inflation that we had in the run-up to the 1990 recession caused by the Lawson-boom.
The Labour Govt of 1997-2010 had to deal with e global recession in 2001 (which the UK avoided and which did not lead to any increase in unemployment in the UK, then the horrific worldwide collapse of 2010. Neither of those were caused by the Labour Govt. Fascinatingly, even after the 2008 recession, unemployment was lower than in any other major Western country.
As I say, there are deep and complex reasons behind a country's economic performance. You, having the childlike approach that you have, want to boil everything down to a couple of numbers that allow you to say "Game, set and match". Just like a child who can't cope with a complex world would do.
-
Mick
I pointed out that unemployment had risen under every single Tory Govt since the War. You said it hadn't because it had fallen under the 1970-74 Govt.
The 1970 Election was in June 1970. The first 1974 election was in Feb 1974.
Go and check the numbers yourself. I can't be arsed to do it for you - you've exhausted my patience.
I'll repeat by the way, that this doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant snapshot which fails to take account of the issues of the time.
The 1929-31 Labour Govt had to deal with the worldwide collapse due to the Wall Street Crash. The Wall Street Crash was not the fault of the Labour Govt. They could not do anything to prevent that, and their response was hamstrung by the fact that Churchill as Tory Chancellor had taken us onto the Gold Standard at a ruinous rate a few years earlier. (Keynes predicted what the outcome would be in his propehtic pamphlet "The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill".)
The 1945 Labour Govt had to deal with the demobilisation after WWII and the resulting re-organisation of our economy from a wartime to a peacetime setting. That was not Labour's fault. In that light, the fact the unemployment was exceptionally low from 1945-51 (apart from a spike in the severe winter on 1947) is a near miracle> Compare and contrast with the unemployment that we experienced in the 6 years after WWI.
The incoming 1974 Labour Govt had to deal with the recession brought on by the Middle East oil shock of Autumn 1973 and the fallout from the disastrous Barber Boom under the Tory Govt that let inflation off the leash. Neither of those were Labour's fault, although the resulting unemployment under Labour was undoubtedly exacerbated by the cuts that Labour imposed following the IMF bailout (which wasn't necessary) in 76.
The Tory Govt of 1979-97 had to deal with the second oil shock of 1979, which led to a global recession and a subsequent global recession in 1990. Both of those inevitably led to increases in unemployment and were not something that Thatcher could have influenced. Although the resulting unemployment was undoubtedly increased greatly by the mad pro-cyclical fiscal experiment of 1981 which exacerbated our recession, and by the inflation that we had in the run-up to the 1990 recession caused by the Lawson-boom.
The Labour Govt of 1997-2010 had to deal with e global recession in 2001 (which the UK avoided and which did not lead to any increase in unemployment in the UK, then the horrific worldwide collapse of 2010. Neither of those were caused by the Labour Govt. Fascinatingly, even after the 2008 recession, unemployment was lower than in any other major Western country.
As I say, there are deep and complex reasons behind a country's economic performance. You, having the childlike approach that you have, want to boil everything down to a couple of numbers that allow you to say "Game, set and match". Just like a child who can't cope with a complex world would do.
Spare us the history lesson. Once again you've been selective about which stats you want to use and also about what time period you want to use. You claim with a straight face that a 0.1% increase which happened under the Tories twice is a rise. Talk about clutching at straws.
Look it's very simple. The Tories are brilliant at keeping unemployment down and Labour at rubbish at it.
Get over it. Just put it down as another argument you've lost against me.
-
Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books
When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.
-
Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books
When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.
You could always do the 'right thing' and report them to the benefits agency :)
-
Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books
When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.
So basically when you mentioned Child, working tax credits and housing benefit you were lying!
-
Mick.
I've been selective about nothing. I have used the precise figures from the month of each general election.
In my job, I have to be precise about numbers. Otherwise people die. So I get shirty about d**kheads who play fast and loose with numbers to make a point.
I should ignore you because you are contemptible and not really worth bothering with. But you irk me because you are representative of people in political arguments who spout believable shit and sometimes convince people that they are right. Like the politician you support, that odious liar Farrage. You're two peas from the same lying pod.
-
No mention of the polls Mick?
I wonder why...
-
Happy to oblige. I predict UKIP will get their first MP and come a close second to Labour in the early hours.
-
You have been very selective in what you have said about the Tories record on unemployment. Firstly you only want to discuss after WWII. Not a surprise as before this period Labour are shown in their worst light and the Tories in their best light.
You claim that the Tories have seen unemployment rise every time they've formed a government. You are really taking the biscuit with that ludicrous statement. It fell once and only rose by 0.1% twice. Their worst performance was a 0.3% rise. A performance hardly worthy of your damning statement.
Now get over it. You've lost the debate. It's time for you to move on. Get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about it.
-
Mick
Go and get f**ked. When I have discussed in the past the lessons from the economic catastrophe that was the Great Depression, you said that they were so far in the past that they were irrelevant. Tonight you said "spare us the history lesson". Despite it being YOU who raised the issue about past unemployment in the first f**king place.
You are like a random argument machine. Fortunately, I'm in China next week drumming up business for the UK and I understand that the Chinese Govt have a d**khead filter on the internet, so I won't be able to read your witless prattling for a whole week.
-
Enjoy yourself while you're there. You should feel quite at home.
-
Poor for Labour and the Tories last night - UKIP are certainly changing things like it or not.
-
Struggling to see where this "poor for Labour" narrative is coming from.
Labour won the seat. They increased their vote share. The turnout was tiny and it is quite clear what happens in this sort of situation - the supporters of the comfortable incumbent don't get out in force in a by-election. Those who are driven to support an insurgent get out in force. It's happened regularly for decades. With the LDs. With the SDP before them. Now it's happening with UKIP.
Yesterday's turnout in Heywood & Middleton was nearly 20,000 down on the 2010 general election. Those who stayed at home will, by and large, not be UKIP voters. UKIP are on a roll and people who support them were enthused to go and vote. Most of them will be complacent or disillusioned Labour supporters.
In a general election, far more of those who stayed at home yesterday will get out and vote. Labour will win that seat by 8-15000 in the general election.
It's also notable that the Tory and LD vote collapsed in Heywood. Seems clear that the UKIP surge was predominantly down to them taking votes off the Tories and LDs.
The Clacton by election is a different kettle of fish. There the turnout wasn't down by nearly so much. And the vote for Tory, Labour and LD utterly collapsed.
The message is quite clear. In certain places (like Clacton) UKIP can take votes off all the parties. I suspect we'll see that these seats are mainly ones where Labour has little chance and UKIP can really hurt the Tories by taking votes off both them and the other parties.
In the North, in urban seats, it will be impossible for UKIP to break through just by tasking votes off Con & LD. They need to take a lot of Labour votes too. There is no sign of them doing that last night.
-
Hahahahahahahaha. Unbelievably complacent.
-
Make no mistake. UKIP would have won Heywood if they'd put in the campaigning effort. They are kicking themselves because they thought they had no chance and didn't put much effort in. Labour threw the kitchen sink at it. Labour are finished in the North.
-
Yes Mick
UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.
-
Yes Mick
UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.
Before Mick gives his prediction, can we have definitive boundries for the "North" so that mick can't bluster when his predictions fail
-
And a proper screenshot of his betting slip so when he wins he can pay the taxpayer back for his family's misdemeanours
-
Yes Mick
UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.
The bandwagon is rolling and picking up speed. I predict at least 20 seats in the North including red Ed's.
-
Yes Mick
UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.
The bandwagon is rolling and picking up speed. I predict at least 20 seats in the North including red Ed's.
Can we have some odds on that?
-
Let's get this right. You're predicting that UKIP will win 20 LABOUR seats in the North of England, including Ed Miliband's? Is that right?
If I were a bookie, I'd give you 100/1 against that happening. money for old rope.
-
Let's get this right. You're predicting that UKIP will win 20 LABOUR seats in the North of England, including Ed Miliband's? Is that right?
If I were a bookie, I'd give you 100/1 against that happening. money for old rope.
I agree. I'm going to make loads of money. What you unprofessional gamblers don't realise is that I'll lay the bet off at much lower odds nearer the general election and make a huge profit profit whether I'm right or wrong. I've currently been offered 250/1. I'd stick to the day job if I were you Billy, you'd make a crap bookie.
You watch the odds shorten when Reckless wins Rochester and there are mass defections from the Tories and Labour to UKIP.
When UKIP win Rochester that is going to be a total game changer. Politics as we knew it will be totally changed. Get in.
-
What you unprofessional gamblers don't realise is that I'll lay the bet off at much lower odds nearer the general election and make a huge profit profit whether I'm right or wrong.
I'd love to know what odds you think you'll get that UKIP won't win 20 seats.
-
So let's get this right. You're PREDICTING that there will be 20 UKIP gains from Labour in the North, including Ed Miliband's seat, AND that there will be mass defections of Labour MPs to UKIP before May 2015?
Remind me. What was the last prediction you got right?
-
Billy, you missed that he is basing that prediction on the re-election of a sitting MP in a safe seat in the South East, not the most reliable of indicators I would have thought.
-
Billy, you missed that he is basing that prediction on the re-election of a sitting MP in a safe seat in the South East, not the most reliable of indicators I would have thought.
The complacency around here is breathtaking. Billy's analysis of the Heywood result was totally hilarious. No wonder UKIP are doing well when hardcore lefties are so deluded. Rochester will not be easy for UKIP to win. If they do win it the political landscape will be changed forever. You can tear up any complacent preconceptions if this happens. UKIP winning will be the biggest event in politics for decades. It's that big.
-
Remind me, wasn't it after Orpington that the Liberals came out exactly the same rhetoric..? :silly:
-
Was that a "yes" or a "no" Mick. The Micktionary is defeating my feeble brain again.
-
Was that a "yes" or a "no" Mick. The Micktionary is defeating my feeble brain again.
You're brain is indeed feeble if you can't work out what I was saying. Do us all a favour and have a good look around China when you're there. This is the utopia you crave for the UK. Hopefully you'll see the error of your ways and come back as a right winger. If not, then do us all a favour and don't come back. I'm sure you'd be very happy there. Their ideology is very akin to your own.
-
Mick
The supreme irony is, you will never know just how big a d**khead you are when you say that. If you had any idea what I do...
I'll give you a clue though. I'm not going there to sell them bits of plastic tat or teach them how to play Smoke on the Water.
-
By going there you condone their repressive regime. By trading with them you give them the impression that the way they treat their population is acceptable. Shame on you. You pretend to be a leftie but along you are a communist sympathiser. You wouldn't catch me going to China and condoning the way they treat their people. With you though its all about can you make some money out of them and human rights goes straight out of the window. You'll be trading with Russia next.
-
By going there you condone their repressive regime. By trading with them you give them the impression that the way they treat their population is acceptable. Shame on you. You pretend to be a leftie but along you are a communist sympathiser. You wouldn't catch me going to China and condoning the way they treat their people. With you though its all about can you make some money out of them and human rights goes straight out of the window. You'll be trading with Russia next.
So which of the Betterware range do you refuse to peddle on principle then?
-
Get in. Latest Survation poll puts Tories and Labour both on 31% but get this ,they've got UKIP on 25%!!! This is the most they've ever been. Just wait to see this go higher when they win the Rochester and Stroud by-election in 2 weeks.
UKIP are on the march and there's no stopping us now. I forecast an In/Out referendum on Europe within 12 months with a vote to leave being the outcome. I'm so happy.
-
Get in. Latest Survation poll puts Tories and Labour both on 31% but get this ,they've got UKIP on 25%!!! This is the most they've ever been. Just wait to see this go higher when they win the Rochester and Stroud by-election in 2 weeks.
UKIP are on the march and there's no stopping us now. I forecast an In/Out referendum on Europe within 12 months with a vote to leave being the outcome. I'm so happy.
So you've listened to Mr Farrage on the radio this morning saying they would form a coalition with the conservatives on condition there was an immediate referendum on In/Out of Europe.
-
Get in. Latest Survation poll puts Tories and Labour both on 31% but get this ,they've got UKIP on 25%!!! This is the most they've ever been. Just wait to see this go higher when they win the Rochester and Stroud by-election in 2 weeks.
UKIP are on the march and there's no stopping us now. I forecast an In/Out referendum on Europe within 12 months with a vote to leave being the outcome. I'm so happy.
So you've listened to Mr Farrage on the radio this morning saying they would form a coalition with the conservatives on condition there was an immediate referendum on In/Out of Europe.
It's been obvious to anyone that has read my previous posts that this is what I've thought for a long time. Nige would even from a coalition with red Ed if he got a referendum.
-
What, when you change your mind to suit whatever crap you've decided to cut and paste that you think sounds like a good idea at the time
-
What, when you change your mind to suit whatever crap you've decided to cut and paste that you think sounds like a good idea at the time
Excuse me but I've been very consistent in my views. I've even said Nige would do a deal with the devil if it got him his In/Out referendum.
-
Yes dipshit. You've also been consistent in claiming that UKIP are a single issue party. Whereas Farage has now openly stated his ambition for UKIP to hold the balance of power after May, and to support such other policies as they pick and choose.
Another Mick prediction bites the dust.
-
Get it right chaps, Mick has consistently said that UKIP would not be a significant force at the next election - so now the opposite is looking likely he has changed his mind.
-
Yes dipshit. You've also been consistent in claiming that UKIP are a single issue party. Whereas Farage has now openly stated his ambition for UKIP to hold the balance of power after May, and to support such other policies as they pick and choose.
Another Mick prediction bites the dust.
UKIP is a single issue party. Unfortunately you and the political elite haven't yet twigged this. The incompetence of Labour and Tory politicians is breathtaking. Both parties are still scratching their heads as to how to deal with them. I've got the answer for them and it is very simple. Offer the public an In/Out referendum as soon as possible and the UKIP 'threat' will go away (that's if Labour and the Tories have learnt their lesson not to get so detached from reality in the future).
The longer a referendum is denied then the stronger UKIP will get even to the point that they may well start to get involved in other issues. If this happens then the political elite will only have themselves to blame. A referendum years ago would have finished UKIP off. If they've got MP's then of course they will vote on other issues. The main point being that they won't be the ones putting forward legislation. So like I've said before you can completely disregard their manifesto. I won't be bothering to read it because none of it will ever be put into practice.
-
More bad news for Labour. Unemployment is now down below 2 million. Who'd have thought it. Certainly not Labour when they were calling for a Plan B. More proof that the Tories are brilliant at creating employment and Labour are shocking at it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831
-
Well, it isn't looking good for the chinless wonders at the moment is it. Freud slipping up and saying out loud what they all think at Tory HQ..
They seem to forget that all the worthless ones have families and friends. If you don't believe me this article is from way back in 2011.....
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/17/tory-philip-davies-disabled-people-work
-
Have a guess whose son that t**t is.
PS. Isn't it telling just how glib Cameron's response to Freud was. "This is not the opinion of anyone in Government."
Yeah. Except it IS Freud's opinion and he IS a Govt minister. I accept that politicians dissemble, but this isn't dissembling. It's a straight lie. And a f**king transparent one at that. Cameron the PR man clearly doesn't rate the intellect of the British public if that's the kind of response he chucks up.
-
Ohh... Little apples, teeny tiny trees hey.
-
Hahaha. You lefties never fail to disappoint. Political correctness trumps everything with you lot. You have taken what both Tories have said and come up with a preposterous view of how the Tories view the disabled.
You would rather 'some' disabled not 'all' as you would try and have everyone believe should be paid the minimum wage or not work at all. Both Tories are of the view that there are 'some' disabled people that will never get a job if an employer has to pay them the minimum wage. There are 'some' of these disabled people that would like a job not for the money but for the associated benefits such as self esteem that comes with working. These people are so disabled that they will never get a job if they are competing with more abled bodied people. What is it that you lefties don't understand about this?
Both Tories were saying that if these people wanted to work for less than the minimum wage they should be allowed to. You would deny them this freedom just for the sake of political correctness. You would rather these people never worked and carried on living their lives with low self esteem. You really make my piss boil. In fact its steaming.
To try and paint a picture of the Tories as wanting to pay all the disabled less than the minimum wage is a gross distortion of the facts. You are a total disgrace for promulgating this view. You have taken what they have both said and totally distorted the facts.
I agree that Freud used the wrong choice of words but anyone that listened to the exchange in its proper context would not have come up with the b*llocks you lefties have. He was acknowledging that there are 'some' disabled people that will never work if an employer has to pay them the minimum wage. All he was trying to do was give these people a chance of work if thats what they wanted. He wanted to think about the issue and I got the impression he was going to see if there was a way these people could maybe be taken on at £2 an hour and have it topped up by benefits. What the hell is wrong with this?
I am so angry with the way the politically correct lobby has portrayed this issue. I am not surprised that the usual suspects have jumped on the issue and totally misrepresented the situation. You are the ones that should be vilified. Putting political correctness above the well being of the disabled is really scraping the barrel and you should be totally ashamed of yourselves.
-
Hahaha. You lefties never fail to disappoint. Political correctness trumps everything with you lot. You have taken what both Tories have said and come up with a preposterous view of how the Tories view the disabled.
You would rather 'some' disabled not 'all' as you would try and have everyone believe should be paid the minimum wage or not work at all. Both Tories are of the view that there are 'some' disabled people that will never get a job if an employer has to pay them the minimum wage. There are 'some' of these disabled people that would like a job not for the money but for the associated benefits such as self esteem that comes with working. These people are so disabled that they will never get a job if they are competing with more abled bodied people. What is it that you lefties don't understand about this?
Both Tories were saying that if these people wanted to work for less than the minimum wage they should be allowed to. You would deny them this freedom just for the sake of political correctness. You would rather these people never worked and carried on living their lives with low self esteem. You really make my piss boil. In fact its steaming.
To try and paint a picture of the Tories as wanting to pay all the disabled less than the minimum wage is a gross distortion of the facts. You are a total disgrace for promulgating this view. You have taken what they have both said and totally distorted the facts.
I agree that Freud used the wrong choice of words but anyone that listened to the exchange in its proper context would not have come up with the b*llocks you lefties have. He was acknowledging that there are 'some' disabled people that will never work if an employer has to pay them the minimum wage. All he was trying to do was give these people a chance of work if thats what they wanted. He wanted to think about the issue and I got the impression he was going to see if there was a way these people could maybe be taken on at £2 an hour and have it topped up by benefits. What the hell is wrong with this?
I am so angry with the way the politically correct lobby has portrayed this issue. I am not surprised that the usual suspects have jumped on the issue and totally misrepresented the situation. You are the ones that should be vilified. Putting political correctness above the well being of the disabled is really scraping the barrel and you should be totally ashamed of yourselves.
I'd say using your deceased disabled Son to score political points is scraping the barrell , as Cameron did when this story broke, it's not the first time he's done it either!
-
I'd say using your deceased disabled Son to score political points is scraping the barrell , as Cameron did when this story broke, it's not the first time he's done it either!
At Prime Minister's question time yesterday Dave was angry at the way Milliband was portraying the issue. On this occasion I don't think he was using his family to score political points however I accept he has done so in the past and shouldn't have. Yesterday I think he was genuinely furious with Milliband for misrepresenting what happened for cheap political gain. Milliband was twisting things to try and make the gullible general public believe that the Tories secretly have an evil plan to pay 'all' disabled people less than the minimum wage.
If I'd been Dave I'd have walked over to Milliband and decked the idiot. In the circumstances, Dave was very restrained.
-
Was he still furious when he lied through his teeth on the subject? Maybe that explains it.
-
Was he still furious when he lied through his teeth on the subject? Maybe that explains it.
You really are a piece of work. I didn't think your reputation could sink any lower but somehow you have managed it. It is you sir that is the liar. Dave did not lie. Milliband did.
Here's what Milliband said:
'To be clear Mr Speaker about what the welfare reform minister said, but it's very serious, he didn't just say that disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage. He went further and he said, and I quote, he was looking at, and I quote whether there's something we could do if someone wants to work for £2 an hour. Mr Speaker, surely someone holding those views can't possibly stay in his government.'
Here's what Dave said:
'Those are not the views of the government, they are not the views of anyone in the government.'
The bit in bold is the blatant lie. The unpaid minister categorically didn't say that. He was referring to a small minority of disabled people that couldn't get a job because employers considered them not worth the minimum wage. Milliband spun it as though the unpaid minister was talking about all disabled people. Totally disgraceful. No wonder Dave said what he did. He was being totally truthful. All the unpaid minister said was he was wondering whether there is something they could do (i.e. top up their wages through benefits to the minimum wage level) if someone (who wouldn't be able to get a job otherwise) wants to work for £2 an hour.
You, Milliband and your friends really are pathetic and you disgust all right minded people. To try to make capital out of the good intentions of this unpaid minister by lying about what he said is morally reprehensible in the extreme.
-
NO. I'm sorry mick but this one you have totally misjudged. this isn't about a few 'lefties' having a hissy fit. This is a large group of people already marginalised and treated shamefully by the government. people who are suffering great hardships. people forced to jump through hoops by Atos and are left terrified by each and every brown envelope that comes through the door.
People more over who are already made to feel second class. Now you have a man deep in the heart of some of the cruellest policies in years actually being recorded saying some people are worth less. Now that might only be semantics to you, but I can damn well assure you that to thousands up and down the country this is yet another jab in the ribs by the Tory jack boot.
But hey, don't let your rabid hatred of BST and people left leaning get in the way of what is the real truth will you.
If you still don't or won't see just how grievously harmful Freud's words are check out Twitter. For the last 25 hours the foul maggot of a man has been one of if not the top trend.
People ARE disgusted.
-
There are only 2 people on this thread that have misjudged the situation and totally misrepresented the context of what was said for their own political agenda. You both use any excuse to demonise the Tories and make things up if it helps your cause. Any right minded person can see he was clumsy in his choice of words but did not say what you, Billy and Milliband are trying to make out he said.
Shame on you for not apologising and sticking to your guns.
By the way I don't hate Billy. I quite like him actually. He is an interesting character if totally misguided. He has made me very angry on this issue though (as have you).
-
I'm a undecided at the moment but it is stupid to say it the Tories fault this idiot has said this,it seems a lot like point scoring really
-
Bpool
He's a Tory. He said it. I'm not really sure who else you are supposed to point the finger at.
-
Well done to the audience on Question Time last night for having a go at Labour MP Angela Eagle for misrepresenting what Freud said (just like Milliband, BST and Jucyberry). The audience were very angry with her for twisting what he said in a vain attempt to make political capital out of it. The audience saw straight through her and weren't slow to let her know. She is contemptible as is anyone else that puts political correctness and political point scoring above the needs of severely disabled people. You know who you are.
-
It's politics everything gets twisted. It's no different to Miliband and his many gaffs - people make mistakes. Labour fans will jump on this of course but the substance is it is not policy so not hugely an issue.
-
I don't usually get so angry about political posturing, but when blatant lies are told about what was said and the obvious intentions to try and help the most vulnerable in society then I have nothing but contempt for the people that indulge in it. We all indulge in political posturing to some extent but I can't think of a worse example where people would stoop so low. I am incredulous and will never forgive them. They will incur my wrath from now on.
-
Hang on.
What Freud said was this.
"Now, there is a small… there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they're not worth the full wage"
Of course that is not official Govt policy. But it is, let's say, a Freudian slip. Just like it was when the same man said that the massive increase in the number of people using food banks is because there is a strand of society who want something for nothing, rather than because of a rise in poverty.
It's an indication of the attitude of a Govt minister. And it's not only one. And THEN you factor in the fact that disabled people have been disproportionately hit by the Govt's changes to welfare and a different image emerges behind Cameron's compassionate Conservative mask.
Of course Cameron wants to distance himself from this. It goes against the whole compassionate Tory image that he wants to project. But whatever Cameton says, by refusing to sack Freud, he is openly supporting someone in Govt who holds these views. But then he would. Cameron brought Freud into his inner circle as an adviser and sorted out a peerage for him to get him into Government. Unless Cameron sticks his fingers in his ears when they meet, I assume that he was fully aware of Freud's opinions on the poor and disabled when he brought him into Govt.
It speaks volumes that Cameron won't sack Freud. He wants to show a compassionate face to soft-headed centrists, but he's also shitting himself that if he looks soft, he'll push even more of his Right wing "let business do why the f*** they want" brigade into UKIP's arms.
-
Oh I'm devastated, I've incurred the wrath of madmick. My life is over... NOT.
Mad mick who wilfully chooses to misinterpret everything anyone posts and then spins it to suit himself.
Well, I am not going to lose any sleep about that.
I do however worry about the good people on several forums that I speak to who are at their wits end because of the charming Freud and his cronies. I also worry about the families of the poor souls who have taken their own lives since this Omni shambles came into power.
The fact that he cannot see how destroying it can be for someone in a fragile state to be casually tagged as worth less I find very sad. We live in a country where mean judgemental opinions are nurtured and encouraged by spiteful propaganda programmes dressed up as entertainment. Where the disabled are resented for needing an 'extra' room and where many are going without basic food in order to pay for those rooms. People are being threatened with eviction. They are scared..
Why not stand up for them instead of a rich journalist/turned banker/turned puppet and mouthpiece?
It isn't about making political hay it is about the perception held.
It is mick that really has no idea.
-
You two are in a big hole so what do you both do? You keep on digging. The context of what Freud said was that there are some severely disabled people that cannot command the minimum wage. He said not worth the minimum wage. If he had said command instead of worth then there would have been none of this leftie political correctness gone mad posturing. It was a Freudian slip which any right minded person could see.
Anyone that has studied what he said knows he was wanting to consider how he could help these poor unfortunate souls. You two would rather they never worked. With you two unless they can command the minimum wage then they can stay on the scrap heap. You mean selfish so and so's. Political correctness and a chance to lie about the Tories is more important to you two than the needs of these people.
You really are the worst kind of human beings. You disgust me and are beneath contempt.
-
Mick
As you appear to have missed it, Lord Freud has published his apology where he now confirms that hat he said was a misunderstanding and that he agrees with Juicy and Billy all along
The former banker who also advised the previous Labour government, has been a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions since 2010, offered a "full and unreserved apology" in a statement on Wednesday.
"I was foolish to accept the premise of the question," he said.
"To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29641409
and you with your idea of paying people starvation wages are looking foolish once again.
-
He agrees with Billy and Jucy!!! You're as bad as them at putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5. He has had to come up with a form of words to satisfy the political correctness lobby. That is all.
Anyone can see what he said was taken totally out of context and twisted to suit the Labour agenda of trying to portray the Tories as the nasty party. I don't need to read any trumped up apology to know what he really meant when he first said it as doesn't any right minded person.
The people that should be apologising is Labour. They are the scum of the earth for portraying Freud and by implication the Tory party as wanting all the disabled to be paid £2 an hour.
Anyone else that jumps on this bandwagon is also the scum of the earth.
-
So when Freud says, ""To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.", you reckon that he doesn't really believe that and he came up with that form of words to satisfy the politically correct lobby?
In other words, you think he is brazenly lying for political gain.
Friends like you Mick! Mind, given your MO, I guess that you consider it a comment to call someone a liar.
-
So when Freud says, ""To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.", you reckon that he doesn't really believe that and he came up with that form of words to satisfy the politically correct lobby?
Why do you need everything clarifying? Of course he came up (or somebody else did for him) with that form of words to satisfy the likes of you and Jucy and the political correctness lobby. It's obvious that this is what I think you pedant.
-
In other words, you think he is brazenly lying for political gain.
You may say this as you like to twist everything to suit your leftie agenda. He has said it because the likes of you, Milliband, Jucy etc. have misrepresented him so he has been forced to do it to calm you idiots down. The only people lying about this is you, Jucy and Labour.
-
Friends like you Mick! Mind, given your MO, I guess that you consider it a comment to call someone a liar.
I'd be grateful if you could rephrase that statement. it is complete gibberish and makes no sense whatsoever. Just like all the other drivel you post.
-
Oh I'm devastated, I've incurred the wrath of madmick. My life is over... NOT.
Mad mick who wilfully chooses to misinterpret everything anyone posts and then spins it to suit himself.
Well, I am not going to lose any sleep about that.
I do however worry about the good people on several forums that I speak to who are at their wits end because of the charming Freud and his cronies. I also worry about the families of the poor souls who have taken their own lives since this Omni shambles came into power.
The fact that he cannot see how destroying it can be for someone in a fragile state to be casually tagged as worth less I find very sad. We live in a country where mean judgemental opinions are nurtured and encouraged by spiteful propaganda programmes dressed up as entertainment. Where the disabled are resented for needing an 'extra' room and where many are going without basic food in order to pay for those rooms. People are being threatened with eviction. They are scared..
Why not stand up for them instead of a rich journalist/turned banker/turned puppet and mouthpiece?
It isn't about making political hay it is about the perception held.
It is mick that really has no idea.
I AM standing up for the severely disabled that have no chance of work if they have to be paid the minimum wage. I don't know this minister from Adam and couldn't care less about him. I am passionate about the severely disabled that want to work but that can't because of the impediment of having to be paid the minimum wage.
It is you and Billy and Labour that aren't standing up for them. You would rather make political capital by twisting the meaning of what he said and in the meantime couldn't care less whether a solution can be found to the problem. Your solution is that unless they get paid the minimum wage they should not be allowed to work. Morally reprehensible in the extreme.
It is obvious that the minister has identified this as a problem and was prepared to think outside the box by maybe paying them £2 an hour and topping it up to the minimum wage through benefits. Thanks to the contemptible likes of you and Billy these poor souls now have much less chance of being able to find work because of your fake outcry about what he said. I hope you're both very pleased with yourselves.
-
Mick in moral high ground shocker. Mick, you don't really think that, it just makes you think you're fireproof that no-one should argue with you. What is morally reprehensible is you are sticking up for a disgrace to humanity that said it in the first place. In my eyes, that makes you as bad as him.
-
Mick in moral high ground shocker. Mick, you don't really think that, it just makes you think you're fireproof that no-one should argue with you. What is morally reprehensible is you are sticking up for a disgrace to humanity that said it in the first place. In my eyes, that makes you as bad as him.
You can join the Billy, Jucy, Milliband club as well. You lot are the disgrace to humanity for denying these people the opportunity to work.
-
Ooo Red. welcome to the dark side.. :kiss:
-
Ooo Red. welcome to the dark side.. :kiss:
Your lack of support of other forum members speaks volumes. I've got no mates on this forum but you and Billy have got dozens. They're not exactly rushing to stick up for you are they? Go figure.
-
Mick in moral high ground shocker. Mick, you don't really think that, it just makes you think you're fireproof that no-one should argue with you. What is morally reprehensible is you are sticking up for a disgrace to humanity that said it in the first place. In my eyes, that makes you as bad as him.
You can join the Billy, Jucy, Milliband club as well. You lot are the disgrace to humanity for denying these people the opportunity to work.
Shut up you daft kitson, you're making a bigger fool of yourself than normal. Go and peddle your drivel elsewhere.
-
Ooo Red. welcome to the dark side.. :kiss:
Your lack of support of other forum members speaks volumes. I've got no mates on this forum but you and Billy have got dozens. They're not exactly rushing to stick up for you are they? Go figure.
Really ? Go and re-read the other 320 posts on this thread and then come back with a detailed analysis of posts that agree with your point of view. Take your time, no hurry x
-
Ooo Red. welcome to the dark side.. :kiss:
Your lack of support of other forum members speaks volumes. I've got no mates on this forum but you and Billy have got dozens. They're not exactly rushing to stick up for you are they? Go figure.
Really ? Go and re-read the other 320 posts on this thread and then come back with a detailed analysis of posts that agree with your point of view. Take your time, no hurry x
Like I said I've got no mates on this forum so don't expect any support. The silent majority know I'm totally right on this issue. There was always going to be one or two that would crawl out of the woodwork to support their best mates. Just realise this. The silent majority will also now hold you in contempt. I just hope you are never severely disabled and refused the opportunity to work because a group of leftie nutjobs would rather keep you out of work because you're not 'worth' the minimum wage to an employer. God forbid that a Tory government would be allowed to let you work for £2 an hour and top up your wages to the national minimum wage so you could reclaim some self esteem.
-
I would have been just as sickened by the words if they had come out of the mouth of Milliband, Clegg or the man in the moon.
I could excuse Freud of clumsy wording if it wasn't for the fact that every time the man opens his mouth he seems to jump in to it feet first..
Greedy people visit food banks because it's free food not because they are desperate.
People with the least should take more risks as they have least to lose ..(Try telling that to anyone with little more than shirt buttons to their name.) and on and on..
I am at a loss over this paragraph, you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat.... I just hope you are never severely disabled and refused the opportunity to work because a group of leftie nutjobs would rather keep you out of work because you're not 'worth' the minimum wage to an employer. God forbid that a Tory government would be allowed to let you work for £2 an hour and top up your wages to the national minimum wage so you could reclaim some self esteem. Are you saying employers should be bribed? or that the severely disabled shouldn't work?
IF any one with a disability be it severe or not wants to work then they should be paid the same wage as other people doing the same job, anything else smacks almost of the awful free dinners tickets they used to dole out to poor kids at school.
But I tell you what, wait until Tuesday evening, if I remember I'll ask the other people at the carers group at Mind that I go to, I'll see what they make of it all.....
Oh and personally I think people don't comment on these threads because most people see the subject matter and length of thread and immediately get a case of the screaming abdabs...... Some of us unfortunately, BST, you and I can't seem to help ourselves.. it probably says more about us than them.
-
Have you seen the fat loss dance of you tube? I'm sure she was wearing leggings!
-
I would have been just as sickened by the words if they had come out of the mouth of Milliband, Clegg or the man in the moon.
I could excuse Freud of clumsy wording if it wasn't for the fact that every time the man opens his mouth he seems to jump in to it feet first..
Greedy people visit food banks because it's free food not because they are desperate.
People with the least should take more risks as they have least to lose ..(Try telling that to anyone with little more than shirt buttons to their name.) and on and on..
I am at a loss over this paragraph, you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat.... I just hope you are never severely disabled and refused the opportunity to work because a group of leftie nutjobs would rather keep you out of work because you're not 'worth' the minimum wage to an employer. God forbid that a Tory government would be allowed to let you work for £2 an hour and top up your wages to the national minimum wage so you could reclaim some self esteem. Are you saying employers should be bribed? or that the severely disabled shouldn't work?
IF any one with a disability be it severe or not wants to work then they should be paid the same wage as other people doing the same job, anything else smacks almost of the awful free dinners tickets they used to dole out to poor kids at school.
But I tell you what, wait until Tuesday evening, if I remember I'll ask the other people at the carers group at Mind that I go to, I'll see what they make of it all.....
Oh and personally I think people don't comment on these threads because most people see the subject matter and length of thread and immediately get a case of the screaming abdabs...... Some of us unfortunately, BST, you and I can't seem to help ourselves.. it probably says more about us than them.
Yes I am saying employers should be 'bribed' as you put it (a rather clumsy choice of words but we understand where you are coming from). I would have thought that was obvious. The difference between you and the minister (and me) is that you are quite happy for severely disabled people that cannot command the minimum wage to be left to rot on the scrapheap. Your pie in the sky political correctness condemns these poor unfortunate people to never working because they can never command the minimum wage because employers don't deem them 'worth' it.
I've got news for you. The world isn't perfect. It's very competitive. Employers want the best people they can get. If they don't do this they are at a competitive disadvantage to the competition and could possibly go out of business. It is in this environment that severely disabled people are competing with more able bodied people. In your world they are never going to get a job. You would let them rot. In my world they have a chance. Your fake outcry has made it much harder for them now. No party is going to entertain subsidising their wages now thanks to you and your moronic ideologues.
People aren't commenting on this thread because they don't want to be seen to be in the same camp as you and BST. Given the amount of animosity towards me and the way I've gone at you and BST the fact that hardly anyone is backing you should tell you something.
You say he said 'Greedy people visit food banks because it's free food not because they are desperate.' I'm not prepared to take what you say at face value given your track record. I can't find anywhere where he said this. I'd be grateful if you could post a link showing where he said this. If you don't, then I would at the very least expect an abject apology from you on this other example of misrepresentation.
-
A post of the big un wearing black?
-
You say he said 'Greedy people visit food banks because it's free food not because they are desperate.' I'm not prepared to take what you say at face value given your track record. I can't find anywhere where he said this. I'd be grateful if you could post a link showing where he said this. If you don't, then I would at the very least expect an abject apology from you on this other example of misrepresentation.
Right, you've had a week to get this sorted. Thats more than enough time. You have obviously lied and misrepresented Freud again. Get that abject apology sorted immediately and we'll say no more about it.
-
f**king hell Debs. You'd better get on with that abject apology. Otherwise he might say some more about it.
-
f***ing hell Debs. You'd better get on with that abject apology. Otherwise he might say some more about it.
How ironic. Someone who is a liar that regularly accuses me of lying making light of another liar not apologising. Typical.
-
We've had this on a depressingly regular basis Mick.
I've challenged you times many to find an example of ANY time that I have ever lied on here. You have never yet found one.
You have lied about everything from your name to your ability to predict National winners, to your photographic memory.
You are a pathological liar and you assume that everyone else must be too. But you have never found an example of me lying in here, despite your repeated assertions that I lie.
You are a truly odious little shit. Facts are inconvenient obstacles in any discussion with you.
-
Right. That's it. You have until the close of play today to issue an abject apology or tomorrow I will show where you've lied. You have been warned. Now just save yourself a load of grief and get that abject apology sorted pronto.
-
At last! He's going to show me where I've lied.
I'll save you the wait Mick. You can get on with it right now because you wouldn't get an apology from me if you waited till Doomsday.
On with it.
-
Was he still furious when he lied through his teeth on the subject? Maybe that explains it.
You really are a piece of work. I didn't think your reputation could sink any lower but somehow you have managed it. It is you sir that is the liar. Dave did not lie. Milliband did.
Here's what Milliband said:
'To be clear Mr Speaker about what the welfare reform minister said, but it's very serious, he didn't just say that disabled people aren't worth the minimum wage. He went further and he said, and I quote, he was looking at, and I quote whether there's something we could do if someone wants to work for £2 an hour. Mr Speaker, surely someone holding those views can't possibly stay in his government.'
Here's what Dave said:
'Those are not the views of the government, they are not the views of anyone in the government.'
The bit in bold is the blatant lie. The unpaid minister categorically didn't say that. He was referring to a small minority of disabled people that couldn't get a job because employers considered them not worth the minimum wage. Milliband spun it as though the unpaid minister was talking about all disabled people. Totally disgraceful. No wonder Dave said what he did. He was being totally truthful. All the unpaid minister said was he was wondering whether there is something they could do (i.e. top up their wages through benefits to the minimum wage level) if someone (who wouldn't be able to get a job otherwise) wants to work for £2 an hour.
You, Milliband and your friends really are pathetic and you disgust all right minded people. To try to make capital out of the good intentions of this unpaid minister by lying about what he said is morally reprehensible in the extreme.
That didn't take long. You lied about Dave telling a lie about the lie that Milliband spouted at PMQ's.
-
Mick
f**k me this is hard work.
I said that Cameron had said "Those are not the views of the government, they are not the views of anyone in the government."
"Those views" being the view that disabled people were not worth the minimum wage.
But they ARE the views of someone in Govt. They are the views of Lord Freud. Out of his own mouth. So Cameron was blatantly lying.
What the f**k has Miliband got to do with this. I never mentioned anything that Miliband said.
-
Mick
f*** me this is hard work.
I said that Cameron had said "Those are not the views of the government, they are not the views of anyone in the government."
"Those views" being the view that disabled people were not worth the minimum wage.
But they ARE the views of someone in Govt. They are the views of Lord Freud. Out of his own mouth. So Cameron was blatantly lying.
What the f*** has Miliband got to do with this. I never mentioned anything that Miliband said.
I've highlighted the bit in bold that is the lie you are responsible for. You lied and are still lying even now! The minister did not say that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage. He said that a small group of severely disabled are not worth the minimum wage. His choice of words could have been better as the way it appears as written, taken totally out of context does not represent what he obviously meant.
There you have it. Categoric evidence that you are a liar. You challenged me to find a lie. You are such a liar that you didn't realise there was a disgraceful lie in the thread where you issued the challenge. Unbelievable.
You then ask what has Milliband got to do with it. The alleged lie that you accused Dave of was in response to Milliband's lie so it has got everything to do with liar Milliband. It seems when you are a liar you can't differentiate who else is a liar and who is telling the truth.
Let me make it clear as your brain is obviously addled. You lied when you stated that Freud does believe that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage. He never said that. He only said it about a very small group of severely disabled people. You have lied in that you have said he said it about all disabled people.
What a liar you are.
Look. I'm making you look daft.Get that abject apology sorted and I won't expose anymore of your lies. You've got until close of play today.
-
f***ing hell Debs. You'd better get on with that abject apology. Otherwise he might say some more about it.
Just get on with it will you.
-
Hahaha. Labour in meltdown in Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29772670
-
Come on Billy. You claim you're not a liar. Show us all where I'm wrong.
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
actually Cameron changed the wording to suit
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
I don't call that an abject apology. You still try and twist what was said and give it totally the wrong meaning. This is not good enough. There will be more evidence tomorrow.
-
While I'm at it we're still waiting for an abject apology from your partner in crime Jucy. She's gone very quiet. I wonder why.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
Like I say, I answer all questions. I am IC1967.
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
actually Cameron changed the wording to suit
What are you on about? Cameron replied to the lie and misrepresentation of what was said by Milliband. It was Milliband that changed the wording to imply that Freud was talking about all disabled people when clearly he wasn't. Get a grip man.
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
actually Cameron changed the wording to suit
What are you on about? Cameron replied to the lie and misrepresentation of what was said by Milliband. It was Milliband that changed the wording to imply that Freud was talking about all disabled people when clearly he wasn't. Get a grip man.
Cameron changed the wording to imply Freud wasn't refering to all disabled people .. get a grip man :)
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
actually Cameron changed the wording to suit
What are you on about? Cameron replied to the lie and misrepresentation of what was said by Milliband. It was Milliband that changed the wording to imply that Freud was talking about all disabled people when clearly he wasn't. Get a grip man.
Cameron changed the wording to imply Freud wasn't refering to all disabled people .. get a grip man :)
So let's get this straight. You're saying Freud was referring to all disabled people. You've been reading too much Billy bullshit and taking it at face value. Don't you know he is a liar?
-
Ok. I'm happy to accept that there is a semantic argument to be made on this. That Cameron carefully chose words that can generously interpreted as meaning that no-one in Govt believes that ALL disabled people are not worth the minimum wage, whilst carefully avoiding the self-evident truth that one of his trusted lieutenants clearly thinks that SOME disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.
So, if I overstate the case when I called Cameron a barefaced liar, when what I should have called him was a miserable, deceiving dissembler then ok. If you want to take that as evidence that I deliberately and maliciously lied, that's fine by me.
Now. About your rap sheet.
We'll start with a simple one. Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
actually Cameron changed the wording to suit
What are you on about? Cameron replied to the lie and misrepresentation of what was said by Milliband. It was Milliband that changed the wording to imply that Freud was talking about all disabled people when clearly he wasn't. Get a grip man.
Cameron changed the wording to imply Freud wasn't refering to all disabled people .. get a grip man :)
So let's get this straight. You're saying Freud was referring to all disabled people. You've been reading too much Billy bullshit and taking it at face value. Don't you know he is a liar?
No fella its what Freud said
-
No he never. You will not be able to provide any proof that what you say is true because it isn't. Even Billy has admitted as much. You need to stop taking what your leftie friends say at face value. I will be here to expose you.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg? It's a very simple question. Yes or no answer.
I'll show you how easy it is:
Am I the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
Answer: No.
What could be easier?
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
No he never. You will not be able to provide any proof that what you say is true because it isn't. Even Billy has admitted as much. You need to stop taking what your leftie friends say at face value. I will be here to expose you.
ok and what about the other idiot who said virtually the same thing
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg? It's a very simple question. Yes or no answer.
I'll show you how easy it is:
Am I the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
Answer: No.
What could be easier?
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
How many times do you want me to answer? I'll give it one more go. I am IC1967!!!
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
No he never. You will not be able to provide any proof that what you say is true because it isn't. Even Billy has admitted as much. You need to stop taking what your leftie friends say at face value. I will be here to expose you.
ok and what about the other idiot who said virtually the same thing
Like I say, you shouldn't take what your leftie friends say at face value. Jucy has made this up as well. I'm still waiting for her to either prove her point or give us an abject apology. She's gone very quiet. I think we all know why.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
No he never. You will not be able to provide any proof that what you say is true because it isn't. Even Billy has admitted as much. You need to stop taking what your leftie friends say at face value. I will be here to expose you.
ok and what about the other idiot who said virtually the same thing
Like I say, you shouldn't take what your leftie friends say at face value. Jucy has made this up as well. I'm still waiting for her to either prove her point or give us an abject apology. She's gone very quiet. I think we all know why.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disabled-are-grateful-so-work-harder-says-tory-minister-9804276.html
anyway answer the question Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg? :)
-
No he never. You will not be able to provide any proof that what you say is true because it isn't. Even Billy has admitted as much. You need to stop taking what your leftie friends say at face value. I will be here to expose you.
ok and what about the other idiot who said virtually the same thing
Like I say, you shouldn't take what your leftie friends say at face value. Jucy has made this up as well. I'm still waiting for her to either prove her point or give us an abject apology. She's gone very quiet. I think we all know why.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disabled-are-grateful-so-work-harder-says-tory-minister-9804276.html
anyway answer the question Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg? :)
What was the point of you posting that link? Nowhere does it infer that a Tory thinks the disabled should all work for £2 an hour. Seriously, you lefties need to get a grip and try telling the truth for a change.
As to your question about my identity, I refer you to my previous (very recent) posts which answer this question.
-
You are not answering the question, yes you are IC1967 but are you also MadMick50 and mjdgreg single word answer please yes or no
Edited as I put a capital A in the word Mad which would give him an excuse to deny :)
-
Mick.
I still don't understand.
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
For the avoidance of any doubt and as I always answer every question (despite hardly any of mine getting answers) no matter how many times the same question gets answered I'll say it once again. I am IC1967.
-
It is an established fact that Labour were not grossly profligate before the Great Recession of 2008. Yes public spending went up under Labour from 1997-2008, but so did the economic performance of the country. By 2008, Labour were spending just about the same as a proportion of GDP as John Major was in 1997.
Another massive lie. Anyone with half a brain can see from the spending figures I produced on the 'Urgent Warning' thread that this statement is completely ludicrous and a gross distortion of the facts. You refer to John Major. Labour also referred to him in their 1997 manifesto. They said they were going to be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. The key phrase there is 'big spenders'. You have stated that Labour spent the same as John Major. Therefore they must have been 'big spenders'.
Instead of paying down the debt as they should have done during the so called good times they took out the nation's credit card and maxed it out. When the financial crisis hit we were so badly prepared due to Labour's profligacy we had the worst recession in living memory. These are the facts.
What a liar you are.
You are also a master at using figures to distort reality and to try to paint as rosy a picture as you can to push your leftie agenda. I've got news for you. Labour were responsible for the economy up until 2010 not 2008. If you were honest you'd use the figures up until then and not before.
What a misrepresenter of facts you are.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
I am IC1967.
-
This will keep going until you finally answer the question being asked, not the one you want to be asked.
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
Get in. Labour and the Tories are neck and neck in the latest polls. For labour to be in this position so far from the general election means they've no chance of winning. Her'e the latest from UKPolling Report.
Opinium’s fortnightly poll for the Observer tonight has topline figures of CON 33%(+5), LAB 33%(-2), LDEM 6%(-3), UKIP 18%(+1), GRN 4%(nc). This is the first time that Opinium haven’t shown Labour ahead since March 2012, before the Omnishambles budget.
Yesterday’s YouGov/Sun poll that also Labour and the Conservatives equal,
The telling observation is that this is the first time that Opinium haven’t shown Labour ahead since March 2012.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Labour are doomed. I'm so happy.
-
This will keep going until you finally answer the question being asked, not the one you want to be asked.
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
I am IC1967.
Now just admit you are a liar and get that abject apology sorted. Otherwise there'll be another lie exposed tomorrow. You have been warned.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
Billy stop being so silly. As well as having a trashed reputation and being exposed as the biggest liar, you are also well ahead in the stakes for being the most boring person on the forum. Get a grip man.
-
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
-
http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/freud-foodbanks-and-deliberate-ignorance/
r◾In July 2013 he denied Jobcentres gave out foodbank vouchers and explained that “…food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.” This means he thought that people were going to foodbanks not because they were hungry but because the food is free and people think they might as well go get it. A statement – much repeated – so ignorant of the experience of being unable to feed oneself or one’s family as to defy explanation. It also turns out that this is not the case. The Defra research that Lord Freud now refers to makes clear that foodbank expansion is not “supply led”. Interestingly this research was passed to the DWP in June 2013, a month before Lord Freud made his statement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-freud-past-gaffes-on-welfare-food-banks-and-bedroom-tax-revealed-9797082.html?origin=internalSearch
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-bid-cut-lifeline-profoundly-4477839
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lord-freud-wanting-the-disabled-to-be-paid-below-the-minimum-wage-is-a-new-low-for-tories-9796944.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/food-banks-lord-freud-blundering-3222149
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/03/food-banks-lord-freud_n_3538747.html
Ok Mick, unlike apparently you, I haven't got all day to sit around waiting to see what is posted next. It's been a busy crisis filled week and I have rather enjoyed watching you whittle away when I have popped on. In actual fact the more you toss out words like liar the less I feel like playing. There is one thing in life more than anything I cannot stand and that is a liar. I don't lie and I don't expect to see that word bandied around me..
Your total narrow minded, blinkered view stops you from seeing how things are for real people in the real world. People in despair, people suffering and people afraid of the way their lives are being pared to the bone. Freud like you it would seem has no understanding either. People don't use food banks because they are there and believe it or not they don't want to be patronised. Employers want the best person for the job offered, the wage therefore should be the same for a disabled person as an enabled one. This isn't being pedantic about a choice of words clumsily spoken, this is about the seeds planted into the general subconscious that colours the way a group of people are thought of.
I have yet to see a single disabled person waving a flag for Freud... Have you?
It is your pseudo offence that is distasteful If you were a mole there would be no grass in the garden at all.
-
Let me try a different tact guys.
IC1967, I appreciate that you are who you say you are.
Now, the question is do you as a person post using any other pseudonyms in any of the VSC forums.
If the answer is yes, please list all the other pseudonyms you post under.
If the answer is no, in my opinion you are lying.
Is that clear and concise enough for you ?
-
Let me try a different tact guys.
IC1967, I appreciate that you are who you say you are.
Now, the question is do you as a person post using any other pseudonyms in any of the VSC forums.
If the answer is yes, please list all the other pseudonyms you post under.
If the answer is no, in my opinion you are lying.
Is that clear and concise enough for you ?
A little amendment to that question, to avoid any wriggle out reply
Do you post or have you ever posted in the past using any other pseudonyms in any of the VSC forums?
P.S. Mick, when you post your answer, don't forget I know the answer already, and you know I know
-
Mick, I'd say you have just been "jucy'd".
:lol:
Which passive aggressive tactic are you going to emply now?
-
You say he said 'Greedy people visit food banks because it's free food not because they are desperate.' I'm not prepared to take what you say at face value given your track record. I can't find anywhere where he said this. I'd be grateful if you could post a link showing where he said this. If you don't, then I would at the very least expect an abject apology from you on this other example of misrepresentation.
Well that was a very poor attempt. I'm sorry but you are a liar. He didn't say what you say he said on the original incident or on the 'greedy ' comment. Therefore you have conclusively proved that you are a liar with a hard left agenda.
You also have a severe dose of political correctness. It is disgraceful to condemn the severely disabled to life without work. Of course some of these people need help to get work but you would rather they sat at home with low self esteem. Shameful.
Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll try and forgive you for your heartlessness.
-
I don't follow that answer Mick. So I'll ask again.
Are you the same person as MadMick50 and mjdgreg?
You tell us that you answer every question aimed at you. Well your behaviour today has been bizarre. It's like someone asks: "What is the capital of Paraguay?", you say "1066" and claim that you have answered the question. You have answered A question but not THE question posed.
Is there anyone there who can help you on this?
-
Mick. f**k off and do one. I've told you I do not appreciate being called a liar. It is very clear he believes greed not necessity motivates people towards food bank use.
I know Rob will moderate me but sometimes It has to be said, so go stick your better ware and your gold and your betting tips and opinions where the sun doesn't shine, which if not up your actual arse must be anywhere in close vicinity. I shan't be answering you again simply because I have come to the conclusion that you are an irredeemable cock.
-
The moral of the story is don't tell lies if you don't want to be called a liar. Simple.
-
IC1967.
You have visited this thread since I asked you my question earlier today. Seeing as you pride yourself on answering every question put to you, I was wondering when you were going to answer mine ? Thanks.
-
Mick, you irredeemable little shite. Debs has been bang on with what she said. You are doing your usual thing of retreating into an argument about precise definitions of words and accurate quoting, which is rich coming from someone like you who wouldn't recognise a fact if it smacked him in the mouth and called him a lying Kitson.
Debs quotes Freud accurately “…food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”
His inference here is clear. He is saying that he is not convinced that it is demand driving the increase in usage of good banks he thinks it is possible (probably likely, otherwise, why raise the f***ing point?) that it is supply of a free good that is attracting people to take the free good who could actually afford to feed themselves. What do you call people who lap up free stuff that they could actually afford to pay for? I call them "greedy".
Freud is a b*****d of the first order. He has no comprehension of the demeaning experience of dropping through the safety net to the point where you have to demean yourself and take free handouts of the cheapest, lowest quality food in order to feed yourself and your kids. He has so little comprehension of it, that he thinks the country is awash with hundreds of thousands of people who go and queue up to get these meagre low-quality rations for free. He thinks the country is awash with greedy t**ts like that.
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The fact that you, you miserable little Kitson, then concoct an argument to have a go a Debs who is taking the shitty end of this Govt's policies with dignity and good grace is the supreme irony. You can say what you want to me, but I'm not having you calling her a liar. She is worth 50 of you, you pathetic toe rag. You lie so freely and blatantly, you assume everyone else has the same moral standards. You have called it 100% wrong with Debs and shown yourself up for the ignorant bully that you are.
Do us all a favour. Take your obnoxious ideas and f*** off to somewhere where they are appreciated. With whichever of your personas you wish to take.
-
Mick. f*** off and do one. I've told you I do not appreciate being called a liar. It is very clear he believes greed not necessity motivates people towards food bank use.
I know Rob will moderate me but sometimes It has to be said, so go stick your better ware and your gold and your betting tips and opinions where the sun doesn't shine, which if not up your actual arse must be anywhere in close vicinity. I shan't be answering you again simply because I have come to the conclusion that you are an irredeemable cock.
Well said that lady
Now for your information Mick personally I am 56 years old I have never ever been out of work since I was 15 in the last 12 months I have had major spinal surgery, I cannot sit down, I cannot stand up for any real length of time, I cannot lift or bend particularly well I cannot walk too far, what job are you going to give me!!!!!!! I didn't cost the nhs jack all because I had private health cover and don't say well done for that I was lucky it was in my contract in fact I'm sure Jucy remembers when I had previous spinal surgery about 4/5 years ago all private the company I worked for valued me unfortunately their patience has basically run out for which I don't honestly blame them.
Mick do us all a favour piss off and take the nutty Lords and Ladies with you who think they know how real people have to live because they don't
and if you don't believe me ask Hoola who I met the other night to discuss our relevent back conditions and the various treatments that may or may not be available
-
Mick, you irredeemable little shite. Debs has been bang on with what she said. You are doing your usual thing of retreating into an argument about precise definitions of words and accurate quoting, which is rich coming from someone like you who wouldn't recognise a fact if it smacked him in the mouth and called him a lying Kitson.
Debs quotes Freud accurately “…food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”
His inference here is clear. He is saying that he is not convinced that it is demand driving the increase in usage of good banks he thinks it is possible (probably likely, otherwise, why raise the f***ing point?) that it is supply of a free good that is attracting people to take the free good who could actually afford to feed themselves. What do you call people who lap up free stuff that they could actually afford to pay for? I call them "greedy".
Freud is a b*****d of the first order. He has no comprehension of the demeaning experience of dropping through the safety net to the point where you have to demean yourself and take free handouts of the cheapest, lowest quality food in order to feed yourself and your kids. He has so little comprehension of it, that he thinks the country is awash with hundreds of thousands of people who go and queue up to get these meagre low-quality rations for free. He thinks the country is awash with greedy t**ts like that.
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The fact that you, you miserable little Kitson, then concoct an argument to have a go a Debs who is taking the shitty end of this Govt's policies with dignity and good grace is the supreme irony. You can say what you want to me, but I'm not having you calling her a liar. She is worth 50 of you, you pathetic toe rag. You lie so freely and blatantly, you assume everyone else has the same moral standards. You have called it 100% wrong with Debs and shown yourself up for the ignorant bully that you are.
Do us all a favour. Take your obnoxious ideas and f*** off to somewhere where they are appreciated. With whichever of your personas you wish to take.
You're treading a fine line BST, Mick hasn 't abused you with such expletives!
-
BST my friend, thank you. :kiss:
I try so hard not to lose patience with him, sometimes it's hard though.. Mick would make even Mother Theresa contemplate violence at times..
Daggers, I do remember it well. It was a horrible time for you, one I have a great empathy with as dad suffered so much too. :(
Too many people sit smugly on their laurels passing judgment but no one has a crystal ball, accidents, illness and disability can hit anyone at any time.. The line between Mick and Freud's worth less is a very fine one.
In reality the worthless are people like Freud and his contemptible associates with their pseudo understanding and going through the motions compassion.
-
Classic passive aggressive though filo. Surely that deserves the reply bst gave.
Personally I'd prefer to t a w t the bas**rd and I couldn't care less if I incurred a ban. Calling someone else a liar is worse than using industrial language in my book.
-
Filo
He hasn't, but he's been equally abusive. I've had enough of the t**t to be honest. I don't mind the Kitson abusing me, but I'm not going to have him having a pop at people like Debs.
-
This moral indignation is really making my piss boil. I have said previously that I don't know Freud from Adam and couldn't care less about the man or his views. What I do care about is the severely disabled and words being twisted to suit a hard left agenda.
Freud for all the faults he may or may not have did not say that all disabled people should be paid £2 an hour. Anyone that says he did is a liar plain and simple. You are also guilty of misrepresenting his views for political capital. You are also guilty of condemning severely disabled people to a life without work because you insist they must get the minimum wage from an employer. You won't let them work for £2 an hour if they want to and to have their wages topped up by benefits.
How you lefties can say that I am the one in the wrong on this issue is unbelievable and shows just how detached you are from the real world. I've pointed out where people have lied about this issue and it seems they and their mates don't like it. Tough. I won't be bullied into submission. I am the one in the right and you in the wrong are making yourselves look dafter and dafter with very comment you make.
It's a good job I'm not so sensitive to criticism. I wouldn't mind but when I criticise someone it is fully justified and is always backed up with irrefutable evidence. I get so much criticism it is laughable. Nearly all the criticism aimed at me is personal and can't be backed up with any logical argument. You lefties really need to take a look at yourselves and try not to be so virulently anti any view that is not hard left. You would find your blood pressure would go down and you would sleep better.
I also stand by my 'greedy' comments. He did not say what Jucy said he said. At best she could be accused of misrepresenting his views again but I prefer to say it as it is and call it what it is and that is another lie.
-
Mick you f***ing cretin. How many times?
I'll tell you why we are so sensitive about this. You are talking about people in my family and Debs's family. Unless you are as unfortunate as us, you have no f***ing idea what you are talking about. You wade into these discussions with no f***ing idea of the hurt you generate, you utter f**king Kitson.
NO-ONE said that Freud said ALL disabled people should be paid £2 an hour. You are doing it again! Set up a straw man and attack that. It's what toss pots have done throughout history when they can't argue on the substantive issue.
I see that you are STILL calling Debs a liar. Do you want to meet up in public and discuss this issue? That's not a physical threat but it is an intellectual one. Let's meet up and discuss this issue in detail. One to one. Are you game?
-
Mick I asked you a question in my post as you answer all questions answer it please or didn't you bother reading it
-
Is there not a forum rule that stops this kind of WUMing or trolling?
It's pathetic
-
Mick. f*** off and do one. I've told you I do not appreciate being called a liar. It is very clear he believes greed not necessity motivates people towards food bank use.
I know Rob will moderate me but sometimes It has to be said, so go stick your better ware and your gold and your betting tips and opinions where the sun doesn't shine, which if not up your actual arse must be anywhere in close vicinity. I shan't be answering you again simply because I have come to the conclusion that you are an irredeemable cock.
Well said that lady
Now for your information Mick personally I am 56 years old I have never ever been out of work since I was 15 in the last 12 months I have had major spinal surgery, I cannot sit down, I cannot stand up for any real length of time, I cannot lift or bend particularly well I cannot walk too far, what job are you going to give me!!!!!!! I didn't cost the nhs jack all because I had private health cover and don't say well done for that I was lucky it was in my contract in fact I'm sure Jucy remembers when I had previous spinal surgery about 4/5 years ago all private the company I worked for valued me unfortunately their patience has basically run out for which I don't honestly blame them.
Mick do us all a favour piss off and take the nutty Lords and Ladies with you who think they know how real people have to live because they don't
and if you don't believe me ask Hoola who I met the other night to discuss our relevent back conditions and the various treatments that may or may not be available
I presume you are asking me what job I'm going to give you. Why you are asking me this question I don't know. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a job but an employer felt that he could get somebody better I'd be quite happy for you to say to said employer that you would be happy to work for £2 an hour and for the state to top your wages up to the minimum wage. This would be on the proviso that this is what you wanted. You would in no way be forced to take a job. This is what Freud was saying.
You wouldn't think so though would you looking at the way Billy and Jucy have lied about what he said and totally misrepresented him.
-
Is there not a forum rule that stops this kind of WUMing or trolling?
It's pathetic
Standing up for the severely disabled and pointing out where people are lessening their chances of work through political correctness and lies and misrepresentation is not WUMing or trolling. Get a grip man.
-
Mick
I see you are avoiding the question as ever. I'll state it more simply do that you can't avoid it.
I have a very personal stake in the disability argument. It hits home very close to me and the people I love.
So I'll say it again. I'm happy to meet with you in person to discuss this. Are you game?
-
IC1967.
For the third time, can you please answer my question. I wouldn't want you to ruin your 100% answer rate. Thanks.
-
Mick
I see you are avoiding the question as ever. I'll state it more simply do that you can't avoid it.
I have a very personal stake in the disability argument. It hits home very close to me and the people I love.
So I'll say it again. I'm happy to meet with you in person to discuss this. Are you game?
I'd quite happily meet you to discuss the issue but feel it would be a complete waste of my time. You are clearly so entrenched in your hard left views that you refuse to see any other point of view. The only discussion worth having with you is one where the other person agrees with everything you say. Well that person isn't me.
I'll say it again. This moral indignation is really making my piss boil. My point of view is obvious on this issue and I am losing count of the times I've explained it. What is is that you lefties don't understand? You are trying to twist things yet again and trying to make out that I'm having a go at the disabled.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately because I have defended and agreed with the views of Freud on paying the severely disabled £2 an hour and topping it up with benefits to the minimum wage, but only if the severely disabled person wanted to take part in this arrangement I am vilified. Unbelievable.
So I'll ask all you lefties to calm down and carefully and slowly read what I've said. You won't find anything that is having a go at the disabled. In fact all you'll find is the complete opposite. Now all those of you that have had a go at me and misrepresented my views I would respectfully ask that you all issue an immediate abject apology. I promise it will be accepted with good grace and we'll put this sorry example of lefties twisting things again behind us.
-
Mick, the number of times your piss boils makes me wonder if you should consider seeing a doctor. My guess would be cystitis
-
Go on then. If you'd happily meet, let's have a time, date and place. Balls's in your court.
-
Go on then. If you'd happily meet, let's have a time, date and place. Balls's in your court.
You just can't stop twisting things can you. I'll repeat it again and this time I'd appreciate it if you could take the necessary time for the information to penetrate your brain so you can understand what I'm saying, 'I'd quite happily meet you to discuss the issue but feel it would be a complete waste of my time. You are clearly so entrenched in your hard left views that you refuse to see any other point of view. The only discussion worth having with you is one where the other person agrees with everything you say. Well that person isn't me.'
My time is valuable to me. I haven't got where I've got today by wasting time in pointless meetings with the likes of you.
-
So. To be clear. I've offered to meet you to discuss these issues face to face and you're too busy to take that up?
You have enough time to write 4000+ posts on here under your various guises, but you don't have 30 minutes to meet someone face to face, look into their eyes and repeat some of your opinions?
Is that right?
-
So. To be clear. I've offered to meet you to discuss these issues face to face and you're too busy to take that up?
You have enough time to write 4000+ posts on here under your various guises, but you don't have 30 minutes to meet someone face to face, look into their eyes and repeat some of your opinions?
Is that right?
Given the amount of time it is taking you to understand what I've said I doubt very much whether 30 minutes would be anywhere near enough. You have proved you are incapable of taking in simple information many time in the past. For example how many times did I have to tell you I was IC1967? Now given that your brain is hardwired into only thinking that a hard left perspective is the only possible view to hold then I feel a meeting would as I'v esaid twice already be a complete waste of time.
Please feel free to question or challenge my views on this forum as I will respond in great detail and answer any question you would like to ask. I only ask that you wait for a response as I will have to fit it into my busy schedule but I will do my best to give a prompt answer (unlike some others around here I could mention).
-
IC1967.
For the third time, can you please answer my question. I wouldn't want you to ruin your 100% answer rate. Thanks.
I am IC1967.
-
Let me try a different tact guys.
IC1967, I appreciate that you are who you say you are.
Now, the question is do you as a person post using any other pseudonyms in any of the VSC forums.
If the answer is yes, please list all the other pseudonyms you post under.
If the answer is no, in my opinion you are lying.
Is that clear and concise enough for you ?
I don't post using any other pseudonyms in any of the VSC forums.
Yes that is clear and concise enough for me.
100% record still intact (this statement excludes silly questions).
-
Ok, so we'll add "coward" to "liar".
A further question for you.
Have you ever posted under the pseudonyms Madmick50 and mjdgreg?
-
Filo
He hasn't, but he's been equally abusive. I've had enough of the t**t to be honest. I don't mind the Kitson abusing me, but I'm not going to have him having a pop at people like Debs.
Another massive lie! I've been equally abusive! I can't get my breath! I am a paragon of virtue compared to you. The worst thing I've ever called you is a liar. I've backed this up and proved it to be the case.
I won't print what you've called me as I don't have such a well developed potty mouth.
Now, being a magnanimous sort of person, I'll give you yet another chance to issue an abject apology. Get it sorted by close of play today or there will be another lie exposed tomorrow.
-
Ok, so we'll add "coward" to "liar".
A further question for you.
Have you ever posted under the pseudonyms Madmick50 and mjdgreg?
I'll have you know I consider myself to be extremely brave and courageous (and modest). I don't know anyone else that would have the courage and bravery to step into the hard left lion's den that is the VSC Off Topic Forum to put forward a predominantly right wing point of view for such a sustained period despite coming under the kind of abuse that would lead a lesser man to crumble.
Now there may be those of you out there that worry about the level of abuse I receive, (to Filo's credit he has stepped in more than once to try and tone it down a bit). However what I would say to anyone out there is don't worry about upsetting me. It is water off a duck's back and only serves to make me stronger. Throw what you want at me. I can take it (unlike some others around here that I could mention).
As for your question I will answer it by saying it falls into the 'silly' category.
100% record still intact.
-
Mick, you irredeemable little shite. Debs has been bang on with what she said. You are doing your usual thing of retreating into an argument about precise definitions of words and accurate quoting, which is rich coming from someone like you who wouldn't recognise a fact if it smacked him in the mouth and called him a lying Kitson.
Debs quotes Freud accurately “…food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”
His inference here is clear. He is saying that he is not convinced that it is demand driving the increase in usage of good banks he thinks it is possible (probably likely, otherwise, why raise the f***ing point?) that it is supply of a free good that is attracting people to take the free good who could actually afford to feed themselves. What do you call people who lap up free stuff that they could actually afford to pay for? I call them "greedy".
Freud is a b*****d of the first order. He has no comprehension of the demeaning experience of dropping through the safety net to the point where you have to demean yourself and take free handouts of the cheapest, lowest quality food in order to feed yourself and your kids. He has so little comprehension of it, that he thinks the country is awash with hundreds of thousands of people who go and queue up to get these meagre low-quality rations for free. He thinks the country is awash with greedy t**ts like that.
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The fact that you, you miserable little Kitson, then concoct an argument to have a go a Debs who is taking the shitty end of this Govt's policies with dignity and good grace is the supreme irony. You can say what you want to me, but I'm not having you calling her a liar. She is worth 50 of you, you pathetic toe rag. You lie so freely and blatantly, you assume everyone else has the same moral standards. You have called it 100% wrong with Debs and shown yourself up for the ignorant bully that you are.
Do us all a favour. Take your obnoxious ideas and f*** off to somewhere where they are appreciated. With whichever of your personas you wish to take.
Right I've given you another chance and you've turned it down. Time for another lie to be exposed. There are a few in the drivel above but I'll just concentrate on one particularly ridiculous example (for now).
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The first part of that statement is breathtaking. You not me are the one putting a spin on what he said!!! It is you that has a totally corrupt moral code. He never mentioned the word greedy. He never said the disabled should be paid £2 an hour. You still try to spin it that he did. Now for another massive lie. You say 'the fact that I support him says even more'. I've already stated more than once that I don't know the man from Adam and couldn't care less about him and his views. The people I support are the severely disabled that can't get a job because they can't command the minimum wage from an employer. For you to try and spin it that I support Freud is a blatant lie.
It seems to me that you lefties are trying to turn this debate into one about the overall record of Freud and the Tories on their handling of the disabled. That is not what this particular debate was about. I'm quite happy to have a debate on this issue but for you to try and misrepresent what he and I have said and to imply that this is the debate we're having all along is disgraceful.
You liar. Now get that abject apology sorted by close of play or there will be further lies exposed.
-
Mick, you irredeemable little shite. Debs has been bang on with what she said. You are doing your usual thing of retreating into an argument about precise definitions of words and accurate quoting, which is rich coming from someone like you who wouldn't recognise a fact if it smacked him in the mouth and called him a lying Kitson.
Debs quotes Freud accurately “…food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”
His inference here is clear. He is saying that he is not convinced that it is demand driving the increase in usage of good banks he thinks it is possible (probably likely, otherwise, why raise the f***ing point?) that it is supply of a free good that is attracting people to take the free good who could actually afford to feed themselves. What do you call people who lap up free stuff that they could actually afford to pay for? I call them "greedy".
Freud is a b*****d of the first order. He has no comprehension of the demeaning experience of dropping through the safety net to the point where you have to demean yourself and take free handouts of the cheapest, lowest quality food in order to feed yourself and your kids. He has so little comprehension of it, that he thinks the country is awash with hundreds of thousands of people who go and queue up to get these meagre low-quality rations for free. He thinks the country is awash with greedy t**ts like that.
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The fact that you, you miserable little Kitson, then concoct an argument to have a go a Debs who is taking the shitty end of this Govt's policies with dignity and good grace is the supreme irony. You can say what you want to me, but I'm not having you calling her a liar. She is worth 50 of you, you pathetic toe rag. You lie so freely and blatantly, you assume everyone else has the same moral standards. You have called it 100% wrong with Debs and shown yourself up for the ignorant bully that you are.
Do us all a favour. Take your obnoxious ideas and f*** off to somewhere where they are appreciated. With whichever of your personas you wish to take.
Right I've given you another chance and you've turned it down. Time for another lie to be exposed. There are a few in the drivel above but I'll just concentrate on one particularly ridiculous example (for now).
I always find that the spin people put on arguments says something about their own moral code. The fact that he thinks the country is full of greedy amoral t**ts says it all. The fact that you support him says even more.
The first part of that statement is breathtaking. You not me are the one putting a spin on what he said!!! It is you that has a totally corrupt moral code. He never mentioned the word greedy. He never said the disabled should be paid £2 an hour. You still try to spin it that he did. Now for another massive lie. You say 'the fact that I support him says even more'. I've already stated more than once that I don't know the man from Adam and couldn't care less about him and his views. The people I support are the severely disabled that can't get a job because they can't command the minimum wage from an employer. For you to try and spin it that I support Freud is a blatant lie.
It seems to me that you lefties are trying to turn this debate into one about the overall record of Freud and the Tories on their handling of the disabled. That is not what this particular debate was about. I'm quite happy to have a debate on this issue but for you to try and misrepresent what he and I have said and to imply that this is the debate we're having all along is disgraceful.
You liar. Now get that abject apology sorted by close of play or there will be further lies exposed.
OK, BST has had a warning for his use of language towards you, Now you are getting a warning for your blatant wumming and trying to incite BST
Pack it in the pair of you!
-
I apologise abjectly if it has come across that I was wumming and inciting BST. That was not my intention. I was merely trying to stand up for the severely disabled. I agree to a truce with BST and will not post any more of his lies as a sign of my good intentions.
I also apologise abjectly to Jucyberry for upsetting her. She is obviously a very nice person and I regret the hurt I have caused her. It won't happen again.
-
Thank you for that Mick. I appreciate it. Let's let bygones be bygones. :) .
-
Kiss and make up ? No tongues though ;-)
-
Blimey Mick has someone hacked your account!
-
I apologise abjectly if it has come across that I was wumming and inciting BST. That was not my intention. I was merely trying to stand up for the severely disabled. I agree to a truce with BST and will not post any more of his lies as a sign of my good intentions.
I also apologise abjectly to Jucyberry for upsetting her. She is obviously a very nice person and I regret the hurt I have caused her. It won't happen again.
You are a man in desperate need of a hobby.
Have you tried taking up the guitar?
-
I don't mind giving lessons 50 quid an hour its irrelevant that I retired 20 years ago I could relearn enough in a couple of weeks.....................and yes if you don't remember Mick I was a professional and made a good living ;)
-
Any comment on the latest opinion poll?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27330849
-
So. To be clear. I've offered to meet you to discuss these issues face to face and you're too busy to take that up?
You have enough time to write 4000+ posts on here under your various guises, but you don't have 30 minutes to meet someone face to face, look into their eyes and repeat some of your opinions?
Is that right?
The childish rhetoric of someone whose soundly lost an argument.
That's playground stuff old lad.
-
So. To be clear. I've offered to meet you to discuss these issues face to face and you're too busy to take that up?
You have enough time to write 4000+ posts on here under your various guises, but you don't have 30 minutes to meet someone face to face, look into their eyes and repeat some of your opinions?
Is that right?
The childish rhetoric of someone whose soundly lost an argument.
That's playground stuff old lad.
While we're on about childish rhetoric, remember this from an hour or so ago, glass houses and all that!
f**k him, Kitson.
As a Donny lad he should be ashamed. f**king insult. Where's is backbone to show loyalty to him hometown.
From now on, I propose we actually call him Jamie McDonald, as an eternal insult.
t**t.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=250052.0
-
Get in. Unemployment down yet again. Average earnings rising faster than inflation. Another 5 months of unbridled good economic news will certainly ensure Labour don't win the election. I'm so happy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30512657
-
Best have a bet on it then.
Oh I forgot. You already have.
-
Best have a bet on it then.
Oh I forgot. You already have.
I got 2/1. The best you can get now is even money. Hopefully some of you took my advice and are going to make a nice killing like me.
-
I don;t give a shit what price you claim to have with the bookies. You have a bet with me.
-
I don;t give a shit what price you claim to have with the bookies. You have a bet with me.
No I don't. If I remember rightly all you were going to do was rearrange some of your charitable givings if you lost. Under those circumstances if I remember rightly I called the bet off as you clearly weren't betting. Look, I wouldn't push it if I were you. You would clearly lose. Things looked much more favourable for you when you mooted the idea of a bet. They are looking very bad for you now so just put it down to having a narrow escape.
-
Get in. Tories 3 points ahead in latest poll.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3495/Vote-shares-for-main-parties-unchanged-but-Green-vote-hits-record-high.aspx
-
So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.
-
So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.
The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.
-
So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.
The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.
Another day, another lie.
Is there EVER a day goes by when you don't lie you contemptible fool?
You know damn well that this is untrue. There have been nearly 40 opinion polls in the past month. The Tories have been ahead in precisely six of them. This is the only one of those six to give them a lead as high as 3%.
Why do you do it Mick? Is it some sort of self-destructive mental deficiency that gives you an urge to lie constantly?
-
I was referring to the IPSOS MORI poll. The previous one a month ago showed a 3 point lead. The latest one shows a 3 point lead. Hence my point the the lead is consistent.
You are talking about other polls. I was only talking about IPSOS MORI.
I happen to think IPSOS MORI is the definitive polling organisation. You may disagree. That is your choice.
Now, stop getting your knickers in a twist and please try to refrain from the abusive language and let's engage in a sensible debate. It is a fact that 2 years ago, Labour were over 40% in the polls and the Tories were miles behind.
Even using your preferred polls the gap has virtually closed. There is 5 months to go to the general election. The fact that the most reputable poll is consistently showing the Tories 3 points ahead with 5 months to go spells electoral disaster for Labour.
That is the point I'm making and it is obvious that you can see the writing on the wall for Labour and this is making you very angry.
Get over it. If Labour got in things wouldn't be that different. They have signed up to austerity in case you hadn't noticed. 2 years of Labour and they'd never get elected again. Just be glad that the Tories are going to win and Labour can regroup and have a chance at the next election.
-
Mick.
You are priceless. I've no idea whether you actually believe the stream of bullshit that you right, but assuming for a moment that you don't, you do a fantastic job of highlighting the unmitigated idiocy of someone whose education stopped before they got to the point where they were taught how complicated the real world is.
IPSOS is your preferred polling organisation eh?
Why is that? Is because of the way that they carefully weight their poll panel? Is it their use of newspaper readership as a metric in choosing and weighting their results? Is it their method of reallocating Don't Know results by previous voting record at the last general election?
Or is it because they've had a couple of polls that tell you what you want to hear in a mass of ones saying the precise opposite? Like the You Gov one last night giving Labour a 5% lead.
You are oblivious to polling theory. You're unaware of margins of error and confidence intervals. You take two results from a sea of data and say that those are showing a "consistent" story.
Go away you clown. I've got a busy day ahead of me doing seriously important work and I can't be distracted trying to finish off your education. My only purpose of EVER replying to you is the fear that some gullible fool might actually believe you.
-
Anyone who believes opionion polls right now needs their head checking. The pattern will change and they are quite volatile. With more parties in the mix there will be a big difference between votes and seats and nobody knows how that will work out, though I fear it will help Labour.
There is the possibility of Labour winning but perhaps with less votes than the Tories. I didn't like the AV proposal from a few years back, but more and more as the political landscape changes you have to say that something different probably is needed. I doubt anyone wants to do that though, it is an awkward situation. There's also that possibility of UKIP getting lots of votes and miminal seats, I think that could cause an awful lot of criticsm from the general public.
-
Anyone who believes opionion polls right now needs their head checking. The pattern will change and they are quite volatile. With more parties in the mix there will be a big difference between votes and seats and nobody knows how that will work out, though I fear it will help Labour.
There is the possibility of Labour winning but perhaps with less votes than the Tories. I didn't like the AV proposal from a few years back, but more and more as the political landscape changes you have to say that something different probably is needed. I doubt anyone wants to do that though, it is an awkward situation. There's also that possibility of UKIP getting lots of votes and miminal seats, I think that could cause an awful lot of criticsm from the general public.
That's what happened to the Liberals for years, then also the SDP, and nothing changed. Because no government who has just been elected under a particular electoral system is going to change it and shoot themselves in the foot.
-
OK, you don't like the look of the IPSOS MORI polls. I can understand that. It makes bad viewing for you. So lets take a more general look at the polls over the last 2 and half years. Taking an average of all the polls Labour were on 44% and the Tories were on 31%. The worst scenario now is that the parties are now neck and neck. So if for the sake of argument we say both parties are now on 32% then that is a gain of 1 point for the Tories and and a huge loss of 12 points for Labour. So the logical thing to do would be to follow the continuation of this trend and we can see that in 5 months time the Tories will be well ahead of Labour.
Where has the Labour vote gone you may be asking yourself. To UKIP of course. 2 and a half years ago they were getting 8%. They are now getting around the 19% mark. The Libdems and others have remained pretty much the same at 9% and 8% respectively.
So in summary, the Tories have remained pretty stable in their share of the vote and Labour have seen a massive loss of support. UKIP have more than doubled their share. So contrary to popular belief it is Labour that have been badly damaged by UKIP not the Tories.
Now if we allow for tactical voting the picture is even worse for Labour. I suspect in the seats where the Tories and UKIP are fighting it out many UKIP supporters will vote for whichever party they think will keep Labour out. I suspect many Tories will vote UKIP in the seats where Labour and UKIP are fighting it out as they know this will be the best chance of keeping Labour out.
I don't think the Labour electorate are that sophisticated and won't vote tactically. They'll still vote labour no matter what and make it easy for UKIP and the Tories to win seats they wouldn't have if Labour voters used their vote in the most tactically efficient manner.
So to summarise, tactical voting will decide the election. UKIP and Tory voters are far more tactically aware than Labour voters. This spells doom for Labour and success for the Tories and UKIP.
-
Obfuscation again.
YOU said that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead. They aren't. That was a lie.
When that lie is exposed, you start pontificating about trends. You make it all about YOU again. Your ability to discern trends and make predictions from those (stop smirking at the back; actually, no - have a big f**king belly laugh.)
6 months ago you were creaming your pants over Stephen Fisher's predictions from his analysis of the trends. He was saying that IF trends in the run-up to the Election followed previous paths, the Tories were likely to win a majority. You were crowing about it. I patiently explained why his analysis was flawed in the current political environment. I explained why I didn't expect the Tories to close the gap at all, although Lab could leak support away to other parties.
I wonder why now, you give us YOUR assess my of the trends, rather than Fisher's. Oh aye! Now I remember.
http://electionsetc.com/2014/12/19/forecast-update-19-december-2014/
"With just 20 weeks to polling day and still lagging two points behind Labour, the Tories are running our of time to turn things around. Our model now puts their chances of securing a majority at just 16% – the lowest since we starting forecasting last year."
There you go. That's an Oxford academic explaining that, even using his model, the analysis of the current trends is that Labour will be the largest party in May.
But here's a thing. His predictions have gradually given Labour a larger and larger number of seats as we've got closer to the Election.
Back in August, he was predicting that the Tories would be ten seats ahead of Lab in May. By October, he was predicting a tie. Now he's predicting Lab to be 10 seats ahead.
Why? Precisely because the changes in support have NOT followed the pattern that they do in the run-up to most elections. Which Fisher is now, tacitly, admitting.
Funny how you never mention him these days.
Actually, not funny. Typical of you. Because you mendaciously pick and choose evidence that supports what you WANT to be true, and you assiduously ignore everything else. It is that approach that disgusts and riles me. It's an MO that needs slapping down any time anyone comes across it.
Now f**k off and let me get back to work.
-
Trends,Forcasts,Polls are all short term,there could be a 100 things happen between now and the elections that can have a impact on the political divide...That said I have my fingers,toes and everything else crossed that Labour don't get a majority...Although with such a weak leader and frankly incompetent shadow chancellor i doubt very very much that they will....
-
Obfuscation again.
YOU said that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead. They aren't. That was a lie.
When that lie is exposed, you start pontificating about trends. You make it all about YOU again. Your ability to discern trends and make predictions from those (stop smirking at the back; actually, no - have a big f***ing belly laugh.)
6 months ago you were creaming your pants over Stephen Fisher's predictions from his analysis of the trends. He was saying that IF trends in the run-up to the Election followed previous paths, the Tories were likely to win a majority. You were crowing about it. I patiently explained why his analysis was flawed in the current political environment. I explained why I didn't expect the Tories to close the gap at all, although Lab could leak support away to other parties.
I wonder why now, you give us YOUR assess my of the trends, rather than Fisher's. Oh aye! Now I remember.
http://electionsetc.com/2014/12/19/forecast-update-19-december-2014/
"With just 20 weeks to polling day and still lagging two points behind Labour, the Tories are running our of time to turn things around. Our model now puts their chances of securing a majority at just 16% – the lowest since we starting forecasting last year."
There you go. That's an Oxford academic explaining that, even using his model, the analysis of the current trends is that Labour will be the largest party in May.
But here's a thing. His predictions have gradually given Labour a larger and larger number of seats as we've got closer to the Election.
Back in August, he was predicting that the Tories would be ten seats ahead of Lab in May. By October, he was predicting a tie. Now he's predicting Lab to be 10 seats ahead.
Why? Precisely because the changes in support have NOT followed the pattern that they do in the run-up to most elections. Which Fisher is now, tacitly, admitting.
Funny how you never mention him these days.
Actually, not funny. Typical of you. Because you mendaciously pick and choose evidence that supports what you WANT to be true, and you assiduously ignore everything else. It is that approach that disgusts and riles me. It's an MO that needs slapping down any time anyone comes across it.
Now f*** off and let me get back to work.
Here's what I actually said, 'The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead'. This was in the context of the last 2 IPSOS MORI polls. This is the truth and not a lie.
Now you obviously weren't happy with me using the latest polls so I decided to give you the bigger picture from the last 2 and a half years. You're still not happy!
You are trying to say that I am lying that the Tories have got a 3 point lead. I'm not lying. I've produced the most current evidence to prove this point. I've also said the 3 point lead is purely what IPSOS MORI are saying. It is my opinion that they've got it bang on. You don't have to agree with me. I don't mind.
I was even magnanimous enough to state that overall, the other polls have got both parties neck and neck. What more do you want from me?
Anyway, anyone with half a brain can see the trend. Labour are losing support and the Tories and UKIP are gaining support. This spells disaster for Labour, especially given the unbridled good economic news we're going to be getting over the next 5 months.
Now, take a chill pill, relax and just accept defeat. You'll feel so much better for it.
-
Mick
1) You originally said that the Tories have a consistent 3 point lead. When brought up on that claim, you said that it was consistent from 2 polls, spread one month apart by one polling company. Your original comment was, in the most generous interpretation, lacking in a bit of detail. It's actually an attempt to deceive.
2) You state that IPSOS-MORI are your preferred polling company. You don't explain what it is about their approach that gives you such confidence in them. Or why you never mentioned that they were your preferred one over the past 3 years when they were regularly giving Labour bigger than average leads. You've chosen them because they tell you what you want to believe to be correct.
3) You then go on to give us YOUR opinion about the trends over the last 2 years. When I point you in the direction of the Oxford academic that YOU yourself were quoting 6 months ago, who is now saying that the trends are NOT going strongly enough to give the Tories a victory, you simply ignore that. Par for the course.
4) You say that the other polling companies have Labour and the Tories neck and neck. Another lie. Over the last 3 months, the other polls have had Labour consistently 2-ish% ahead on average. They vary from poll to poll, because that is what happens with polls. A tiny number have the Tories 1% ahead or level. A tiny number have Labour 5-7% ahead. But the overwhelming majority and the average have Labour 1.5-2.5% ahead. That is not neck and neck. That is Labour majority territory (and before you start yelping about your assessment of trends, go and read Stephen Fisher's latest post).
Same old same old. Every boring time.
-
Mick
1) You originally said that the Tories have a consistent 3 point lead. When brought up on that claim, you said that it was consistent from 2 polls, spread one month apart by one polling company. Your original comment was, in the most generous interpretation, lacking in a bit of detail. It's actually an attempt to deceive.
2) You state that IPSOS-MORI are your preferred polling company. You don't explain what it is about their approach that gives you such confidence in them. Or why you never mentioned that they were your preferred one over the past 3 years when they were regularly giving Labour bigger than average leads. You've chosen them because they tell you what you want to believe to be correct.
3) You then go on to give us YOUR opinion about the trends over the last 2 years. When I point you in the direction of the Oxford academic that YOU yourself were quoting 6 months ago, who is now saying that the trends are NOT going strongly enough to give the Tories a victory, you simply ignore that. Par for the course.
4) You say that the other polling companies have Labour and the Tories neck and neck. Another lie. Over the last 3 months, the other polls have had Labour consistently 2-ish% ahead on average. They vary from poll to poll, because that is what happens with polls. A tiny number have the Tories 1% ahead or level. A tiny number have Labour 5-7% ahead. But the overwhelming majority and the average have Labour 1.5-2.5% ahead. That is not neck and neck. That is Labour majority territory (and before you start yelping about your assessment of trends, go and read Stephen Fisher's latest post).
Same old same old. Every boring time.
Here's what I actually said, 'The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.'
The key word is 'now'. I have taken the meaning of now to be a period of one month. Perfectly reasonable. Now things can change. I accept that. But the latest poll has shown a consistent 3 point lead. I've taken 'consistent' to mean over a period of one month where there has been more than one poll. Both polls showed the same result. Therefore it was 'consistent'. I hope that clarifies this matter for you.
I tried to deceive no-one. Do you really think people are so stupid as to blindly take at face value what I post? It is so easy for people to check what I post that I'd have to be incredibly stupid to try and deceive people in the way you claim. I may be a lot of things but I am not incredibly stupid. I wish I could say the same about you.
I prefer IPSOS MORI. Why do you think I have to justify that? If we all had to justify everything we posted we wouldn't be able to see the wood for the trees. I really do think you have this problem. You get so bogged down in the minutiae of an issue that you really struggle to see the wood for the trees. Luckily for you I am a big picture sort of person and can help to point you in the right direction.
As far as the Oxford academic goes, he is just one source of information. I hear what he says and after giving consideration to his views decide I was right all along.
As far as neck and neck goes I'll have to disagree with you on your version of what the phrase means. The parties are very close together now and in my world that means they are neck and neck. I also factor in the long term trend of Labour losing support. Something you don't like to do. Going from 44% to low 30's in 2 and a half years in my book means that they are at best neck and neck. It won't be long before they will be comfortably behind. I'm being very generous saying they are neck and neck. You are extrapolating a Labour majority on your figures today. Well I've got news for you. The general election is 5 months away. The trend is against you. You most definitely won't be in Labour majority territory then.
Relax, accept defeat and lets move on. You are starting to bore people.
-
Mick.
I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.
For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.
So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.
Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.
Done. Finished. Goodbye.
-
Mick.
I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.
For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.
So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.
Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.
Done. Finished. Goodbye.
Like I say, you can't see the wood for the trees. Your last post is a classic example of you getting bogged down in the minutiae of a debate. I accept there are variances in polls and the data does not 100% represent what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow. However as I am a big picture sort of person, I can see what is happening. I can then make an informed judgement of what will happen in 5 months. You base all your prognostications on the general election happening tomorrow. Not a good idea.
The Labour lead has fallen over the last few months. Being a bit economical with the truth there aren't we? Taking your statement literally anyone would think Labour have held a steady lead for years and it has only just started to fall over the last few months. It's fallen over the last 2 and a half years from 44% to around 32% now.
-
Mick.
I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.
For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.
So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.
Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.
Done. Finished. Goodbye.
Like I say, you can't see the wood for the trees. Your last post is a classic example of you getting bogged down in the minutiae of a debate. I accept there are variances in polls and the data does not 100% represent what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow. However as I am a big picture sort of person, I can see what is happening. I can then make an informed judgement of what will happen in 5 months. You base all your prognostications on the general election happening tomorrow. Not a good idea.
The Labour lead has fallen over the last few months. Being a bit economical with the truth there aren't we? Taking your statement literally anyone would think Labour have held a steady lead for years and it has only just started to fall over the last few months. It's fallen over the last 2 and a half years from 44% to around 32% now.
Funny, that. The question your favourite pollsters ask to compile the figures that you're happy to wave about is 'who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow'. Work that one out, folks.
-
Polls mean very little, it's like holding a betting slip, and just because you think say Donny Rovers will win the league, it doesn't make it necessarily so.
The Tories are out to cripple the poor by any means possible, how many food banks and soup kitchens have opened since they came in to power?.
Labour know the mistakes they made under different leadership, under Ed Miliband the country will be ran by a Decent family man, who doesn't make promises he can't keep.
People take him not commenting on everything as having no ideas, i take it that he doesn't have all the information, so doesn't promise to fix everything if he is put in power, as it isn't possible, under any government there will be hard times, but under Labour they will cut things in a slower more manageable way.
The Conservatives have stunted progress.
Where do I start. Polls do mean quite a lot actually. They give us a good idea of how the political landscape is shaping up. Labour at 44% 2 and a half years ago and now in the low 30's tells us quite a lot. UKIP's support more than doubling over this period also tells us quite a lot.
You say the Tories are out to cripple the poor by any means possible. Typical leftie class war drivel. There is one thing that cripples the poor and that is something Labour are very good at providing. Unemployment. Every Labour government in history has always left unemployment higher at the end of their term in office than it was when they took over. It has happened very single time. Labour are the party that cripple the poor. Contrast that with the coalition's current record.
Despite taking over an absolute basket case of an economy from Labour they have created more jobs than the rest of the EU put together. The Tories create wealth. Labour destroy it and create poverty.
Labour know their mistakes! Then why do they always repeat them? They always borrow too much and spend too much. They never learn.
Ed Milliband a decent family man! Then why didn't he have a clue as to what the average family shop costs. He is so out of touch with life for decent families it is untrue. He doesn't make promises he can't keep! Listen, he's a politician. They all make promises they can't keep to fool the gullible into voting for them. Let's take immigration. He promises to control it by making benefits harder to claim. Massive lie. Making benefits harder to claim will not control immigration. All it will do is reduce it by an extremely tiny amount that will make virtually no difference. Labour opened the floodgates. They most definitely have not learned lessons from past mistakes.
People take him not commenting on everything as not having a clue more like. They take it that he wants to avoid discussing difficult issues. They take it that he would rather avoid problems and hope they will go away on their own without him having to tackle them head on. Not the qualities you want in a leader.
Labour will cut things in a very similar way to the Tories if by some fluke they get into power. Don't be fooled into thinking they won't. We are so heavily in debt that they have no choice. They claim they will do it more slowly. Hogwash. If they are going to get rid of the deficit in the next parliament then they will be doing just the same as the Tories. The difference is that under Labour things would be worse because they are not as good at creating employment as the Tories so they wouldn't have as much money coming in. The cuts will still have to be made but would feel a lot worse under Labour because of their lamentable unemployment record.
The Tories far from stunting progress have done the exact opposite! We are the fastest growing major economy! Our unemployment situation is brilliant compared to the rest of the EU! I could go on.
Now take some advice. Take those rose tinted spectacles off and get rid of your class prejudices and examine the facts. Labour are a disaster for the country. Vote UKIP or Tory and let's get this country sorted (when I say vote UKIP or Tory I mean vote for whichever party has the best chance of keeping Labour out).
-
Aye, aye. I guess he got Ideas Constipation during that sabbatical. Looks like the mind bomb had gone off. Like an explosion in a pub bore factory.
-
We're all in this together the Tories told us, thats how we'll reduce the defecit Gideon said.
I think this chap got an exemption
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrison
And that defacit is really coming down isn't Mick
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-needs-miracle-after-4842676
-
It has been reported that Harrison has been courted by various hedge funds, and the pay rise, tucked away in a footnote to the salary list, may have been an attempt to take his earnings closer to what he might earn in the private sector.
Looks like he's got a good agent.
-
We're all in this together the Tories told us, thats how we'll reduce the defecit Gideon said.
I think this chap got an exemption
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrison
And that defacit is really coming down isn't Mick
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-needs-miracle-after-4842676
The deficit is not coming down nearly as fast as I would have liked. I blame all you leftie moaners. You want the deficit cutting but you don't want spending reducing. You can't have it both ways like you always want to. Bear in mind Labour have opposed every decision by the Tories to cut it. If you lot got onside we'd have cut it by a lot more.
-
Spending doesn't need to be cut like all the right wing nut jobs would have you believe. Deficit = £90 billion, tax avoidance by the rich and corporations = £120 billion. Done n dusted...piece of piss.
-
Spending doesn't need to be cut like all the right wing nut jobs would have you believe. Deficit = £90 billion, tax avoidance by the rich and corporations = £120 billion. Done n dusted...piece of piss.
I didn't realise that red Ed had suddenly become a right wing nut job. Only very recently he promised to tackle the deficit with sensible cuts. I suggest you get in touch with him because he is obviously unaware of your brilliant plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30417955
-
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/583/040/cff.png)
-
As we enter a new year and a general election not too far away I thought I'd give Labour supporters some more bad news. There's never been a case when a party has won an election when it's been behind on both leadership and the economy - and that's where Labour is now. This is not going to change. So I would urge all Labour supporters to vote UKIP in seats where Labour normally have the sitting MP. You are not going to win the election so lets get as many UKIP MPs elected as possible to give the political elite a good kicking.
-
More bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.
Get in.
-
More bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.
Get in.
Michael you sir are a plank, carrying all this political stuff on your back all these years, you must be in need of some psychotherapy.
Sorted the typos for you Sammy.
-
I prefer Sammy's original description of me as an oak. Oaks are dominant in many north temperate forests. I like to think I dominate all the lefties on this forum.
-
I prefer Sammy's original description of me as an oak. Oaks are dominant in many north temperate forests. I like to think I dominate all the lefties on this forum.
Oaks also have very small acorns.
-
and are sometimes hollow!
-
An acorn is the fruit of the oak. I would like to think I have a lot of fruit out there. I just need to nurture it a bit longer and soon the forum will be awash with right wingers and you left wingers will be in the minority.
-
If it comforts you, keep on thinking that and let the rest of us carry on living in the real world.
-
Latest Yougov poll shows Labour and the Tories on 32%. UKIP are now on a magnificent 18%. I think it's safe to say that Labours lead over the last few years has now totally evaporated. The future is looking bleak.
Get in.
-
Oh dear. The leftie leaning Mirror has Labour on 30% and the Tories on 32%. But the big news is that UKIP are on a magnificent 23%!
Get in.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Daily-Mirror-General-Election-Poll-I.pdf
-
The right wing Sky news have this from their latest polling,thought you was the king of copy and paste mick,you missed this opportunity for some reason
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2h hours ago
Update - new @SkyNews House of Commons projection: Lab 282 seats, Con 270, LD 20, SNP 53, Plaid Cymru 3, UKIP 2, Green 1, Others 19 #GE2015
-
The right wing Sky news have this from their latest polling,thought you was the king of copy and paste mick,you missed this opportunity for some reason
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2h hours ago
Update - new @SkyNews House of Commons projection: Lab 282 seats, Con 270, LD 20, SNP 53, Plaid Cymru 3, UKIP 2, Green 1, Others 19 #GE2015
I've not looked at it but my first impression is that Labour may be showing as having slightly more seats but that's because our voting system is extremely unfair. It is a fact that Labour gets a lot more seats than the Tories with the same percentage of the vote. UKIP on 23% wouldn't get that many seats for the same reason. However, as Greece has shown, a small party can very quickly become the largest party in just a few years. In the 2010 election they only got 3% of the vote. So to now to be on 23% is a remarkable achievement.
They may not gain many seats this time around but watch out when the 2020 election comes around. Whoever wins this time around is not going to be popular at the end of their term in office. The EU will be well on the way to unraveling and UKIP will be well positioned to become the government.
Get in.
-
Just like the SDP was supposed to...oh wait...
-
Just like the SDP was supposed to...oh wait...
I don't think the SDP ever got anywhere near 23% of the vote. They soon realised they were doomed to failure so went all in with the Liberals.
-
The Alliance got 25% of the vote in 1983.
And UKIP haven't got anywhere near 23% of a general election vote share yet...you're counting your chickens a bit.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker
-
The Alliance got 25% of the vote in 1983.
And UKIP haven't got anywhere near 23% of a general election vote share yet...you're counting your chickens a bit.
Excuse me. UKIP got 23% in the Mirror poll. Also you can't compare the SDP's vote share as most of that was Liberal voters. It's a fact that at 23%, UKIP have increased their share of the vote ten fold since the 2005 election. That's what I call excellent progress.
-
Glyn
Leave it mate. You can't reason with boneheaded ignorance.
-
The Alliance got 25% of the vote in 1983.
And UKIP haven't got anywhere near 23% of a general election vote share yet...you're counting your chickens a bit.
Excuse me. UKIP got 23% in the Mirror poll. Also you can't compare the SDP's vote share as most of that was Liberal voters. It's a fact that at 23%, UKIP have increased their share of the vote ten fold since the 2005 election. That's what I call excellent progress.
Read what other people have written, eh?
Also, last time you were parading opinion polls you were extolling the yougov poll as the one to take notice of. What are they saying about UKIP now?
-
Look, I was just trying to be magnanimous by picking the most recent poll from the most read paper on this forum. I can't win!
-
I prefer Sammy's original description of me as an oak. Oaks are dominant in many north temperate forests. I like to think I dominate all the lefties on this forum.
I think the original version read "cock", not oak.
-
Look, I was just trying to be magnanimous by picking the most recent poll from the most read paper on this forum. I can't win!
If you're going for forum popularity I would imagine that everybody on this forum watches the BBC, so what say we go with their poll of polls from here on to avoid any accusations of cherrypicking?
-
The Alliance got 25% of the vote in 1983.
And UKIP haven't got anywhere near 23% of a general election vote share yet...you're counting your chickens a bit.
Excuse me. UKIP got 23% in the Mirror poll. Also you can't compare the SDP's vote share as most of that was Liberal voters. It's a fact that at 23%, UKIP have increased their share of the vote ten fold since the 2005 election. That's what I call excellent progress.
Read what other people have written, eh?
Also, last time you were parading opinion polls you were extolling the yougov poll as the one to take notice of. What are they saying about UKIP now?
Interesting that like other polls they show a Tory lead - I'm still not believing that. But if the good economic news keeps coming then the Tories have some chance... These debates etc will be a big point, but this election will be a big class war, a bit like in other countries.
-
I don't think the Tories can rely on good economic news. There is some good news but there is still a lot wrong with the economy. Even if everything were to come right from here on in, there isn't enough time before the election for a feel good factor to kick in.
That's if everything comes right. UK growth has slowed for the last couple of quarters.
-
The right wing Sky news have this from their latest polling,thought you was the king of copy and paste mick,you missed this opportunity for some reason
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2h hours ago
Update - new @SkyNews House of Commons projection: Lab 282 seats, Con 270, LD 20, SNP 53, Plaid Cymru 3, UKIP 2, Green 1, Others 19 #GE2015
I've not looked at it but my first impression is that Labour may be showing as having slightly more seats but that's because our voting system is extremely unfair. It is a fact that Labour gets a lot more seats than the Tories with the same percentage of the vote. UKIP on 23% wouldn't get that many seats for the same reason. However, as Greece has shown, a small party can very quickly become the largest party in just a few years. In the 2010 election they only got 3% of the vote. So to now to be on 23% is a remarkable achievement.
They may not gain many seats this time around but watch out when the 2020 election comes around. Whoever wins this time around is not going to be popular at the end of their term in office. The EU will be well on the way to unraveling and UKIP will be well positioned to become the government.
Get in.
UKIP will be hoping the Conservatives win in May,a defeat will see them ditch Cameron and swing massively to the right,stealing all of UKIP's ground,the presence of UKIP makes a Labour victory more likely,well done Nige
-
Look, I was just trying to be magnanimous by picking the most recent poll from the most read paper on this forum. I can't win!
If you're going for forum popularity I would imagine that everybody on this forum watches the BBC, so what say we go with their poll of polls from here on to avoid any accusations of cherrypicking?
The problem with the BBC is that it's usually nearly a week behind what's happening. The latest polls show a 1 point Tory lead, Comres 31/30 and Yougov 34/33.
-
I thought you placed IPSOS-MORI above all other polling companies, d**khead?
-
Look at that poll tracker Glyn posted, I can't see anything to suggest things won't stay roughly the same right up until Election Day.
Without anything unexpected cropping up the two biggest factors on the chances of seeing a real recovery are the drop in oil prices and QE in the EU. We can't be sure how either of those things will play out and the UK government isn't responsible for either of them.
-
Just for the record, in case anyone thinks Mick gives remotely balanced posts on this subject, he has a record as long as you arm of only ever quoting data that supports why he wants to believe. He's like a five year old who shuts out the rest of the world when it tells him it's time to stop playing and go to bed.
Here's the actual state of opinion polls. Over the past two weeks, there have been 21 national polls.
In 11 of those, Labour were ahead by between 1-5%
In 5, Lab and Con were level
In 5, Con were ahead by 1-2%
There is no indication that anything has changed over the past 2 months. The balance of probability is that Labour are still ahead by 1-1.5%.
Our resident idiot just pops up every time random variations in the polls tell him a story he wants to hear.
He was thrapping off in December when 2 consecutive Ipsos-Mori polls have the Tories a 3% lead. He ignored the fact that these were entirely consistent, within the standard margin of error, of the average of all the other polls saying that Labour was 1-2% ahead. He insisted that Ipsos were the gold standard for polling and that their results showed that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead.
Funny that he said nothing when Ipsos published a poll earlier this month showing that Labour were 1% ahead.
It's this aspect of Mick's personality disorder that I utterly despise. This absolute inability to even recognise data that challenges his worldview. That is why Bob G was tearing his hair out over Mick's education. Had he gone further (and he's clearly a clever bloke) he would have had this infantile side of his personality bashed out of him. It's what higher education does. It says, "We don't accept prejudice and pre-judged decisions. We teach to to weigh up all the information and make informed decisions. That is a key part of the growing up process. And if you can't engage with that, you will forever be an intellectual child."
-
Just for the record, in case anyone thinks Mick gives remotely balanced posts on this subject, he has a record as long as you arm of only ever quoting data that supports why he wants to believe. He's like a five year old who shuts out the rest of the world when it tells him it's time to stop playing and go to bed.
Here's the actual state of opinion polls. Over the past two weeks, there have been 21 national polls.
In 11 of those, Labour were ahead by between 1-5%
In 5, Lab and Con were level
In 5, Con were ahead by 1-2%
There is no indication that anything has changed over the past 2 months. The balance of probability is that Labour are still ahead by 1-1.5%.
Our resident idiot just pops up every time random variations in the polls tell him a story he wants to hear.
He was thrapping off in December when 2 consecutive Ipsos-Mori polls have the Tories a 3% lead. He ignored the fact that these were entirely consistent, within the standard margin of error, of the average of all the other polls saying that Labour was 1-2% ahead. He insisted that Ipsos were the gold standard for polling and that their results showed that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead.
Funny that he said nothing when Ipsos published a poll earlier this month showing that Labour were 1% ahead.
It's this aspect of Mick's personality disorder that I utterly despise. This absolute inability to even recognise data that challenges his worldview. That is why Bob G was tearing his hair out over Mick's education. Had he gone further (and he's clearly a clever bloke) he would have had this infantile side of his personality bashed out of him. It's what higher education does. It says, "We don't accept prejudice and pre-judged decisions. We teach to to weigh up all the information and make informed decisions. That is a key part of the growing up process. And if you can't engage with that, you will forever be an intellectual child."
Look, you don't know what level of education I have undergone. Modesty prevents me from declaring it because it is only one aspect that makes up my personality. It really makes my piss boil that some of you that have had a university level education think your point of view is more valid than someone who hasn't. It obviously doesn't cross silly Billy's mind that the way universities train you to think is just one way of thinking amongst the many. You could almost think of it as brainwashing.
Silly Billy and BobG have obviously been affected this way. I pride myself on having the ability to take in information from a wide variety of sources and to be able to make sense of it without having to rely on the way universities tell you how you should use your thought processes. Banging on about high level education is intellectual snobbery of the worst kind and I'll have no truck with it.
I repeat what I said to other users of the forum previously. Don't let silly Billy and BobG stifle your participation in debates on this forum. No matter what your level of education you have valid points to make.
Now, to the opinion polls. I prefer to look at the latest opinion polls rather than out of date ones. The out of date ones are useful in looking at long term trends. These show that Labour has steadily been losing support over the last couple of years. The Tories support (despite UKIP) has been pretty constant.
So to the latest 5 polls. Here are the results:
Conservatives Labour
Populus 34 35
Ashcroft 32 32
Survation 31 30
Comres 31 30
Yougov 34 33
So looking at these most current polls, it shows the Tories are ahead by 1% in 3 of them, level in 1 and behind in only 1. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that gives the lie to silly Billy claiming Labour are 1-1.5% ahead. Basic maths shows that the Tories are actually on average 0.4% ahead of Labour. Now given the long term trend of Labour losing support, for them to be behind at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for them.
-
I'm undecided who to vote 4 but if there is any chance the snp could be any part of a government it would make my mind up,I'm staggered that if true anyone in England could vote labour
-
I'm undecided who to vote 4 but if there is any chance the snp could be any part of a government it would make my mind up,I'm staggered that if true anyone in England could vote labour
I take it you wouldn't vote Conservative either if there's a chance they would need to be propped up by the DUP?
-
Not enough to make any difference thou,do u think it's right that a party that wants nothing to do with England,could have a major say? If it comes to labour needing the snp to get bills thru parliament the only people to gain will be the Scottish
-
The DUP don't care about England either, that's not their remit, so they shouldn't have any say in running England either then. It's the same principle, just a different colour of stripe.
-
If I think the dup will be part of the government with the Tories and they will make a big difference then no I won't vote for them
-
From what I understand,which is not that much they wouldn't have anywhere near the influence the snp would have thou
-
Seems like there will be some strange bedfellows after the GE. The DUP are not really a natural fit with the Tories as they are predominantly a working class party.
-
Personally, I doubt that Labour will go into a formal coalition with the SNP. If Labour were the largest party after the Election, t's more likely that there would be some sort of informal agreement that the SNP would not vote AGAINST Labour on England-only issues, and with LD support, Labour could still carry much of its policy through Parliament.
Barring a big change in the polls, I've stuggling to see how the Tories can put a coalition together. The SNP have said outright that they won't vote with the Tories on anything, so the Tories would not be able to get legislation passed that affected Scotland. There is a big move in the LDs not to go into coalition with the Tories again. Clegg and Laws will be under massive pressure if, as seems likley, they lead the LDs to a drop of 50% in votes and seats, and there will be rebellion from the Left of the LDs if he tried to go into coalition with them again. Plus, Clegg doesn't have the ridiculous and mendacious fig-leaf of an existential crisis to the country that he used to justify dropping their entire economic stance to go into Govt last time.
It's going to be the strangest and most unpredictable outcome to any Election for well over a century. My money is on a very messy Lab/LD/SNP agreement. Whether it holds is another matter. Whether it badly damages any/all of them is another matter again.
This figure from Electoral Calculus shows what a bizarre situation we are in.
(http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/BGround.jpg)
The blue dot showing what was the current state of the polls in the Autumn is a bit out of date. According to UKPR which is one of the most definitive polling sites, the current state of Lab & Con is about 33:32. So the blue dot shouold probably be in the Lab/Nat Coalition zone. Bearing in mind that the SNP effectively ARE the Nats in terms of number of seats that they are going to win, and that they've said categorically that they won't support a Tory Govt, the Con/Nat section is irrelevant. So, for the Tories to get into power, they are going to have to poll >36% or hope that Labour drop well below 29%. In other words, they need an outcome that is at least as good for them as the 2010 election. But that flies against both history (No full term Govt since the War has done as well in an Election as it did in the previous one) and recent polling trends (the Tories have flatlined in the low 30s for three years).
Take your pick of what is going to happen.
-
Interesting read bst thanks
-
My advice would be not to vote for Labour. If you do, there is a strong probability if Labour are the largest party that England will end up being run by the Scotch. Another two reasons not to vote Labour are that every single time they've left office they have increased unemployment. This proves conclusively that they are crap at running the economy. Also they won't let us have a referendum on the EU.
-
BST. That graphic is interesting indeed. Also, as you say, it is going to be a lot easier for Labour to put together a coalition or a "confidence and supply" arrangement than it is for the Tories.
Indeed, it is possible to foresee a scenario where the Tories are the largest single party by a whisker, yet (after much horse trading) Labour can put together a minority government on the basis of confidence and supply. That could lead to a lot of instability, both politically and economically.
Where I think the big problem will lie is in any relationship between Labour and the SNP. I can't believe Sturgeon and Salmond will agree to any deal that won't involve a second referendum on independence. Agreeing to that would potentially be suicidal for Labour.
-
I think if labour got in power and the Scottish gained a lot due to the snp,I think that would ruin labour for years
-
TRB
I could well see that it could lead to political chaos.
I see no reason why it should lead to economic chaos. It was the need for "strong Govt" to give confidence that "hard decisions" would be taken and thus save us from the bond vigilantes that Clegg used as his excuse for going into coalition. It was economic mumbo-jumbo back then and it still is today. A politically weak Govt would in no way lead to economic chaos.
Interesting thought though. Assume for the sake of argument that Lab & Con both get, say, 280 seats, LDs 28, SNP 35, UKIP 4-5, Greens 1-2, PC 2 plus the 18 or so from NI.
Ignoring Sinn Fein, I reckon that would tot up to about 350 MPs from parties who are for relatively mild cut-backs from 2015-20, and 300 who would be for balls out Austerity. Implementing an economic policy like the one that Osborne unveiled in the Autumn Statement, with a plan to cut Govt spending as a proportion of GDP back to Great Depression era levels would not possibly get a Parliamentary majority.
Barring a big change in polling, that's one nightmare we're going to be saved from.
-
Bpool
If the SNP end up apparently holding the balance of power, I think you'd see some very interesting power politics.
My take is that Labour would not invite them into a formal coalition. Instead, Labour would say: "We're going to put forward these policies. We're not asking for formal support from you. BUT, you have campaigned as a left-wing party, promising a left-wing outcome. If you DONT support us, if you bring us down, you're giving the next Election to the Tories on a plate. And we will ram that story down the Scottish voters' throats. 'The SNP told you they were against the Tories. Now look what they actually do in reality'."
This is the sort of very sophisticated politics that goes on in many other (successful) countries. I guess we're in for some of it over the next few years. What comes out the other end will depend on how string and skilful the various politicians are.
-
BST- I'm not sure I agree with your sweeping statement that a weak government would not lead to economic chaos. Business, whether domestic or international, dislikes uncertainty more than anything else. I think a lot of investors were nervous about the coalition, but because the Tories (wisely from their point of view) got the Lib Dems to buy into their economic plans we had the stability the investors wanted. (Whether the policies were the right ones is not the point at issue.)
Of course you may be right and Labour may be able to develop a broad centre-left consensus on economic policy. But there is always a chance that they can't. Also, if it takes weeks rather than days to form a government that won't collapse at the slightest issue, then that uncertainty could be damaging economically.
-
TRB
The sole and only point that was put forward to "justify" the coalition was that we needed string Govt to send a message to the markets that our deficit was going to be controlled. Nothing else was so much as mentioned at the time. Nothing about inward investment. Nothing about capital flight.
Plenty of people knew that that was a myth at the time. There is no linkage whatsoever between a nation's debt and the bond rates that it pays, if the country has it's own central bank and it's debts are in it's own currency. Plenty knew it, but plenty more in politics other didn't know it, or pretended they didn't because ignoring that fact made support for austerity easier.
EVERYONE knows it now. It is one issue that has been empirical proven beyond doubt over the last few years. So, even if we DID have weak Govt and even if that DID result in the deficit ballooning (it won't), it would have no effect whatsoever on the bond markets. None at all.
All that said, I see that Clegg, in the absence of anything more useful to fill the space between his ears with, wrote an article in the Telegraph last week, once more suggesting that we might end up like Greece without strong Govt. I guess he's thinking that if the Big Lie worked once, he might as well try it again.
-
Red Ed is so out of touch with normal people and so like Mr Bean it's hilarious.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2924842/Help-cried-Ed-m-locked-stuck-garden-ll-late-Gordon-excruciating-misadventures-Calamity-Ed-blistering-memoir-s-got-Labour-squirming.html
-
It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.
I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.
-
It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.
I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.
Settle old scores? He's doing it for the money.
-
It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.
I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.
Settle old scores? He's doing it for the money.
He was on the Daily Politics today. Seems like his memoirs are getting more and more coverage as time goes on. Poor Ed.
-
Right laugh last night watching Ed Balls on Newsnight squirm with embarrassment at not being able to name one business man that supports Labour. The best he could come up with was Bill who is some bloke who used to be a CEO that no-one's ever heard of. He'd been talking to him earlier that evening at some business do.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/ed-balls-newsnight-labour-conflict-business
Watch how often he blinks. As an expert on body language I can tell you it means he is lying. I wonder if silly Billy blinks a lot when he is posting leftie drivel.
-
You must see life as if lit by a strobe light.
As for Balls, he wears contact lenses and it was 11pm, retard.
-
You must see life as if lit by a strobe light.
As for Balls, he wears contact lenses and it was 11pm, retard.
I like blinking I do and as an expert in this field reckon you must have been blinking a lot when you did this post. The average contact lens wearer blinks every 5 seconds. Balls was blinking at more than once a second (nearly twice a second). Watch the video for yourself and time him if you don't believe me.
May I suggest you forward the following information to him so he can get some help for his affliction. Or maybe he could just stop lying.
http://www.andrewgasson.co.uk/info_blinking.htm
-
There's so much to choose from for why things are looking grim for Labour. I'll just mention one for now. Ashcroft has got the Tories on 34% and Labour on 31%.
Get in.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/02/lord-ashcroft-the-conservatives-lead-by-three-points-in-my-latest-poll.html
-
You utterly reprehensible idiot.
10 polls last week.
Labour ahead in 7.
Tied in 2.
Tories ahead by 1% in one.
Not a bleat from you.
One poll showing the Tories in front by a bit and you're back again.
Why Mick? Why do you do this? What on earth do you get out of this?
-
You utterly reprehensible idiot.
10 polls last week.
Labour ahead in 7.
Tied in 2.
Tories ahead by 1% in one.
Not a bleat from you.
One poll showing the Tories in front by a bit and you're back again.
Why Mick? Why do you do this? What on earth do you get out of this?
Look, it's not my fault that whenever I look at an opinion poll it has the Tories ahead. I try and source my information from a broad spectrum of pollsters to give a balanced picture. I also source the most up to date information unlike you that is always looking at what happened in the past.
-
The latest Yougov poll also has the Tories on 34%.
Get in.
-
Some interesting thoughts on the GE here. Although it isn't unusual for pundits to forecast a Hung Parliament this time around, their prediction on the largest single party is interesting.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643
Given the likely membership of the Commons though, I doubt a minority Tory government would last a year. If they could square off the SNP then a minority Labour one might go on for a while though.
-
Some interesting thoughts on the GE here. Although it isn't unusual for pundits to forecast a Hung Parliament this time around, their prediction on the largest single party is interesting.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643
Given the likely membership of the Commons though, I doubt a minority Tory government would last a year. If they could square off the SNP then a minority Labour one might go on for a while though.
Interesting read. I agree that the Tories will be the biggest party and a EU referendum is inevitable. Where I disagree is that I also think the Tories will have a majority (maybe with the help of UKIP).
Their comments on an EU referendum are interesting and just shows how out of touch Labour are by not offering one. If they had have done, their electoral prospects would have been much better. The fools.
-
I think Labour's policy on the EU referendum is also a mistake. I expected that Miliband would agree to a referendum but campaign to stay in. Though the EU may not be a big issue itself in the election, one of UKIP's successes has been to show how issues like immigration are inexorably linked to EU membership.
That said, I'm not convinced that a referendum is inevitable in the coming Parliament. A Labour minority government might still set its face against a referendum, and might have support in that area from the Lib Dems and the Nationalists.
-
TRB
Miliband's position on the referendum is one of principle. HE doesn't believe we should even consider leaving the EU. Therefore it would be political opportunism to offer a referendum.
We castigate our politicians for being rootless chancers who believe in nothing but gaining power. Here's a counter example. It would have been electorally beneficial for Milband to offer a referendum. But he genuinely believes that the consequence would be seriously detrimental for the UK economy. If he'd said in, say 2013 or 2012 that the next Lab Govt would offer a referendum in, say 2017, that would have guaranteed that a referendum would take place (because the Tories were already offering one). So that would have GUARANTEED that we had 4-5 years of uncertainty, during which time companies would have not known whether setting up/investing in this country would turn out to be a decision that ended up with them not being on the EU inside.
The referendum decision has certainly hurt Miliband and Labour. But sometimes you take a hit if something not important is at stake.
-
TRB
Miliband's position on the referendum is one of principle. HE doesn't believe we should even consider leaving the EU. Therefore it would be political opportunism to offer a referendum.
We castigate our politicians for being rootless chancers who believe in nothing but gaining power. Here's a counter example. It would have been electorally beneficial for Milband to offer a referendum. But he genuinely believes that the consequence would be seriously detrimental for the UK economy. If he'd said in, say 2013 or 2012 that the next Lab Govt would offer a referendum in, say 2017, that would have guaranteed that a referendum would take place (because the Tories were already offering one). So that would have GUARANTEED that we had 4-5 years of uncertainty, during which time companies would have not known whether setting up/investing in this country would turn out to be a decision that ended up with them not being on the EU inside.
The referendum decision has certainly hurt Miliband and Labour. But sometimes you take a hit if something not important is at stake.
Given that the majority of people want a referendum then Milliband is bang out of order. He thinks he knows best. That is the behaviour of a dictator not someone that believes in democracy.
He is clueless in regards to strategy. If he'd offered a referendum at the last general election then UKIP would still be on about 4%. Instead they won the European elections and will take seats off Labour at the general election.
He is not a man of principle. He knew the economy was going to fall off a cliff a year before the crash. He advised Brown to cut and run before disaster hit. He weaponised the NHS. He is as big an opportunist as there is. He's just stupid when it comes to Europe.
-
Get in. Ipsos MORI have now got the Tories on 34% as well. It's all going in the right direction.
-
Unique analysis from Mick again there in concluding 'going in the right direction' from data that has hardly moved in the past six months.
-
I'm looking at the last 2 years. Labour were getting 44%. They are now getting low 30's. The Tories are now consistently 34%. With nearly 3 months to go the Tories will go higher and Labour will continue the trend of losing support.
Get in.
-
Why does Mick refer to people on here as "lefties",he's a UKIPer no?Hasn't Nigel Garage recently praised ex KGB thug Putin(the Labour left used to love all things Soviet),this along with a virulent anti Europeanism is exactly the ground occupied by the lunatic fringe of the Labour left of the early eighties,Mick is a lefty
-
Indeed, does left and right mean anything these days? After all, you could hardly have called Tony Blair a leftie,could you?
-
BST. Miliband could actually have trumped Cameron had he wanted to. He could have called for an EU referendum and said he would hold it in 2016.
Cameron's 2017 date is posited on the idea that he will negotiate a better deal for the UK. Miliband would not need to do that as from day one he would argue the case for staying in under current terms.
You may be right about Miliband taking a principled stance on this issue, but that doesn't square with some of his other policies, which seem to be determined by the current news agenda.
-
Why does Mick refer to people on here as "lefties",he's a UKIPer no?Hasn't Nigel Garage recently praised ex KGB thug Putin(the Labour left used to love all things Soviet),this along with a virulent anti Europeanism is exactly the ground occupied by the lunatic fringe of the Labour left of the early eighties,Mick is a lefty
I am the voice of reason. I hold some left wing views and I hold some right wing views. I don't just hold left wing views (unlike some others around here I could mention). For example I despise the monarchy. This is hardly a right wing view. I always look at an issue dispassionately before deciding I was 'right' all along.
It would be fair though to say I am a right wing extremist in most of my views so I am quite happy to be labelled right wing.
By the same token some lefties will hold some right wing views. But I class them as lefties if that is their general outlook on life. People like silly Billy I would class as a left wing extremist. This is why we clash so much. I don't think he would acknowledge any right wing view is correct because he is so ideologically driven. I on the other hand will acknowledge where a left wing view is correct.
That is the difference between us. I will espouse a point of view even if it is not right wing. Silly Billy on the other hand will only espouse left wing views whether they are correct or not.
-
Ed Milliband has hired a charisma coach! Hahaha!
What a loser. What a waste of money. He is beyond help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLvtPOOqJ6A
-
That leftie rag the Guardian has got the Tories on 36% and Labour on 32%. That's more like it. Those predicting a hung parliament will be made to eat their words. Looks like us UKIPers are moving back to the Tories where they are the best party to defeat Labour. It's called using our brains and voting tactically.
Get in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31501805
-
Unemployment down yet again today. Wages rising faster than inflation for 4 months now.
Get in.
-
The latest Opinium/Observer poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 33%. This is the first time that Opinium have shown a Conservative lead since back in 2012.
Get in.
-
Oh dear. Labour big hitter Jack Straw has been caught out in a 'cash for access' sting. His daily rate? £5000 per day. That's over £1.8million per annum. What a plonker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-in-latest-cash-for-access-scandal.html
-
The trend is undeniable. ComRes in the Daily Mail have figures of CON 34% and Labour on 32%. The two point Conservative lead is the largest ComRes have shown since 2010.
Get in.
-
CON will get most seats but it won't be a majority. Who will they form a coalition with though? Will Lib get enough seats? SNP might overtake them and they won't team up with the Torys.
-
CON will get most seats but it won't be a majority. Who will they form a coalition with though? Will Lib get enough seats? SNP might overtake them and they won't team up with the Torys.
I still think Tories will get an overall majority but it could quite easily be another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I think the LibDems will still be the largest 'minor' party. One thing I'm certain of, Labour will not be forming the next government either on their own or in coalition with another party.
The main reason I think the Tories will at least be the largest party is that the voters they lost to UKIP are steadily coming back to them. This shown in all recent opinion polls. I think people will only stay with UKIP if it's to try and defeat Labour or the LibDems.
Tactical voting will decide this election and it will be Labour that suffers the most.
-
Oh dear. Labour big hitter Jack Straw has been caught out in a 'cash for access' sting. His daily rate? £5000 per day. That's over £1.8million per annum. What a plonker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-in-latest-cash-for-access-scandal.html
I believe there are two MP's mentioned in that story, who is the other one and which party is he a member of please?
-
Oh dear. Labour big hitter Jack Straw has been caught out in a 'cash for access' sting. His daily rate? £5000 per day. That's over £1.8million per annum. What a plonker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-in-latest-cash-for-access-scandal.html
As well as the Tory Malcolm Rifkind, who, unlike Straw, managed to make a real idiot of himself.
Though I think in his desire for a quick headline Miliband is making an ass of himself over this issue. The question of how MPs are to be remunerated needs careful thought.
-
Oh dear. Labour big hitter Jack Straw has been caught out in a 'cash for access' sting. His daily rate? £5000 per day. That's over £1.8million per annum. What a plonker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-in-latest-cash-for-access-scandal.html
As well as the Tory Malcolm Rifkind, who, unlike Straw, managed to make a real idiot of himself.
Though I think in his desire for a quick headline Miliband is making an ass of himself over this issue. The question of how MPs are to be remunerated needs careful thought.
It is very difficult for me as I loathe Labour with a passion, but here is my considered dispassionate view of Milliband.
He does not display the characteristics of a leader. He doesn't lead. He reacts to events usually very quickly in a populist manner. He doesn't set the agenda like a leader should. By reacting to events all the time in this quick soundbite populist manner his policies soon unravel under closer scrutiny. I'm convinced he thinks the electorate are on the whole thick and these type of tactics will win the election. I've got news for him. It won't.
Now I know I hate Labour but I do think what I'm saying is bang on. I would be big enough to say the same about Nige or Dave if the cap fitted. I think in terms of leadership, those 2 are far better at setting the agenda. Milliband is a follower, not a leader.
Labour dropped a massive clanger picking him as leader.
-
Oh dear. Labour big hitter Jack Straw has been caught out in a 'cash for access' sting. His daily rate? £5000 per day. That's over £1.8million per annum. What a plonker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-in-latest-cash-for-access-scandal.html
I believe there are two MP's mentioned in that story, who is the other one and which party is he a member of please?
The name of the other MP is in the link! I didn't hide anything! If you bothered to read the article it is obvious which party Rifkind is from. I would have thought anyone who has only the vaguest feel for politics would have known he was a Tory.
I can't believe you couldn't work out who the other one was and what party he was from. In future try reading the links I use to back up my statements then you won't have to ask such silly questions. Luckily for you I answer all questions thrown at me. Even the occasional silly one.
-
The last 3 Yougov polls are showing an average of a 2 point lead for the Tories. The tide has finally turned and the Tories are starting to pull away from Labour. I expect the surge to continue and for the Tories to win an overall majority.
The bookies are now odds on for the Tories to have the most seats. 1/2 in fact. If only you'd all listened to the expert advice I gave many months ago to back them at 2/1. Labour are now 15/1 to win an overall majority.
With a giveaway budget to come, Labour are well and truly now on the back foot.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Get in.
-
Get in!
-
Newsnight up until now have had their experts predicting Labour and the Tories to each have about 285 seats. The latest prediction is for the Tories to have 295 seats and Labour only 267. More evidence that Labour are starting to lose ground as the grim possibility of a Labour government starts to dawn on the great British public. I'm so happy.
Get in.
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
Well, the last poll that Mick was so keen to trumpet was Yougov's, so here's their latest poll.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/29/labour-lead-4/
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
Well, the last poll that Mick was so keen to trumpet was Yougov's, so here's their latest poll.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/29/labour-lead-4/
Thank you, Mick is usually on the ball with these opinion polls, I wonder why this one wasn't reported by Mick with the same enthusiasm? ;)
-
The Tories are pretty nailed on to get most seats. I don't think that's in doubt.
-
The Tories are pretty nailed on to get most seats. I don't think that's in doubt.
More because of the SNP than the Tories or UKIP though.
-
Gaz.
Genuine question. What makes you think that?
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
Well, the last poll that Mick was so keen to trumpet was Yougov's, so here's their latest poll.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/29/labour-lead-4/
I think you'll find that I tend to vary the polls I report on. In this spirit here is the poll from Opinium after the budget showing a budget bounce as I predicted.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/budget-bounce-takes-tories-ahead-of-labour-by-three-points-in-the-polls
Get in.
Now as to the latest Yougov poll. That is the exception that proves the rule. There is a margin for error in polls and this one is obviously a rogue poll. It would be disingenuous of me to only report on rogue polls which is why I ignored it. But seeing as you lefties have mentioned it I felt I should comment.
Sorted.
-
The Tories are pretty nailed on to get most seats. I don't think that's in doubt.
I think there's a lot of doubt. I can see that Labour could lose 20-30 seats they would normally count on in Scotland, but there are a lot of Tory-held marginals that could easily go Labour for all sorts of reasons.
Also - and this is not intended as a partisan point - the current distribution of votes vs. Seats works in Labour's favour. If the two parties got an identical number of votes, Labour would have a slight edge in terms of seats.
Until recently I would have predicted that the Tories would - just - have the greater number of seats but possibly not enough to form a minority government. Based on the latest polls I'd probably go for a small Labour lead in terms of seats. Plenty of time for that to change though.
The key factor for both may be those currently saying they will vote UKIP or SNP. The election result may depend on how many of those drift back to the two main parties.
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
Well, the last poll that Mick was so keen to trumpet was Yougov's, so here's their latest poll.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/29/labour-lead-4/
I think you'll find that I tend to vary the polls I report on. In this spirit here is the poll from Opinium after the budget showing a budget bounce as I predicted.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/budget-bounce-takes-tories-ahead-of-labour-by-three-points-in-the-polls
Get in.
Now as to the latest Yougov poll. That is the exception that proves the rule. There is a margin for error in polls and this one is obviously a rogue poll. It would be disingenuous of me to only report on rogue polls which is why I ignored it. But seeing as you lefties have mentioned it I felt I should comment.
Sorted.
Thanks for that Mick, much appreciated, can we now treat yougov as rouge pollsters? Or just the polls that don't agree with you?
-
Why have the latest opinion poll not been posted?
Well, the last poll that Mick was so keen to trumpet was Yougov's, so here's their latest poll.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/29/labour-lead-4/
I think you'll find that I tend to vary the polls I report on. In this spirit here is the poll from Opinium after the budget showing a budget bounce as I predicted.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/budget-bounce-takes-tories-ahead-of-labour-by-three-points-in-the-polls
Get in.
Now as to the latest Yougov poll. That is the exception that proves the rule. There is a margin for error in polls and this one is obviously a rogue poll. It would be disingenuous of me to only report on rogue polls which is why I ignored it. But seeing as you lefties have mentioned it I felt I should comment.
Sorted.
Thanks for that Mick, much appreciated, can we now treat yougov as rouge pollsters? Or just the polls that don't agree with you?
By 'rouge' pollsters are you intimating that they favour Labour because of their affinity with Labour's colour of choice 'red'?
No, I don't think their preferred colour has anything to do with it. Every pollster no matter what colour they prefer has a rogue poll from time to time.
Like I say, I use polls from all the polling companies in an effort to offer a balanced perspective. I'm sure Yougov will be back on track soon. They are going to be polling every day right up to the general election. Let's see what future polls show before anyone starts crowing.
-
Like I say, I use polls from all the polling companies in an effort to offer a balanced perspective. I'm sure Yougov will be back on track soon. They are going to be polling every day right up to the general election. Let's see what future polls show before anyone starts crowing.
Do you? That seems an awfull lot of work, perhaps you should you use one of those comparison sites who do all that for you, something like:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
or http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/
which will save you a massive amount of time. Betterware doesn't sell itself you know.....
-
Gaz.
Genuine question. What makes you think that?
I think the SNP rise will do for labour. It will hit them hard. It won't be a blue landslide but they'll win.
-
Gaz
But as the polls currently stand (the average poll figures) even taking an SNP landslide in Scotland into account (IF that happens) Labour would be the largest party in England by 20-30 seats.
If the Tories are going to be the largest party, nevermind be in a position to put a coalition together, they need to change the polls by ~ 3-4% damn quickly. They need Labour to drop from 34% to 30% or they themselves to rise from 32% to 36%. At present, with the campaign well underway, there's no sign whatsoever of that change coming. Two weeks ago there was a tiny move towards the Tories, but that reversed last week and we're back as you were. And the result of the "debate" that Cameron refused to have seems (looking at today's YouGov poll) to have been a quite stunning success for Miliband. I didn't watch it because I'd rather stick tin tacks in my scrotum than watch Paxman w**king off about how clever he is, but the Times figures have Miliband am seen as trouncing Cameron.
Which leader came across best?
EM 49
DC 34
Which leader have the more honest answers
EM 48
DC 29.
This is crucial because the Tories have been putting a great deal of emphasis on the belief that people won't see Miliband as a serious alternative. But it looks like people thought Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron on Thursday night. That's a potential game-changer, and it MIGHT explain why Labour had their biggest poll lead in weeks this morning.
Fascinating week coming up. If that 4% Lab lead this morning turns out to be genuine and not just normal variation, the game's turned on its head.
-
Ha!
New ComRes poll has Con 36, Lab 32. Exact opposite of this morning's You Gov.
Anyone's guess what the real position is. Both if those are compatible with it being 34-34 or 35-33 either way.
-
Look. It's very simple. The Yougov poll that you lefties were getting so excited about was a rouge poll like I said. Yougov have had the Tories consistently ahead recently.
The bookies aren't daft. They were way behind me but have recently seen sense. They've got the Tories 2 to 1 on to be the biggest party the last time I checked. They are on the right lines. Mark my words the Tories will win an overall majority.
Us UKippers aren't daft. We'll support the Tories where they've got the best chance of winning a seat and do our best to damage Labour wherever possible. This will mean we will lose some of our support back to the Tories but will further damage Labour.
I can't understand why I am the only one that can accurately predict the outcome of the election.
As for the debate that Milliband won. Did he hellers like. He came across very badly. He wouldn't answer questions. Paxo had to keep pulling him up on not answering his questions and always asking himself a question. What a lying, insincere plank.
What you lefties have to understand is that it's not what the polls show now, it's the direction of travel. It's going one way. The Tories are gaining support and Labour are losing it.
Get in.
-
Ha!
New ComRes poll has Con 36, Lab 32. Exact opposite of this morning's You Gov.
Anyone's guess what the real position is. Both if those are compatible with it being 34-34 or 35-33 either way.
I didn't see the TV thing either, but I think one reason Miliband came over better was because he was questioned on things he would do while Cameron was forced to defend his record as PM.
If that was the case then I have no sympathy for Cameron. In a head to head both men would have to answer the same questions. The crumb of comfort for him is that it is likely to be forgotten in 6 weeks time.
As I said above, the real game changer here would be if either main party could make significant inroads with those currently minded to vote UKIP or SNP.
-
It's been happening for a while now. Us Ukippers are using our heads not our hearts. As the election comes closer we are now going back to the Tories in droves as we know that is the only way to get a referendum on the EU.
If there was proportional representation then we'd all vote UKIP. Unfortunately we have a first past the post system that is grossly unfair to us. So we are going to vote tactically. We'll damage Labour as much as we possibly can. We don't care who we vote for as long as our vote is used to inflict maximum damage on Labour.
The Tory voters are not daft either. In places like Doncaster they would also prefer to vote Tory. However they know there is no chance of winning so they will vote UKIP as this is the best way of damaging Labour.
I'm surprised I'm the only one able to work it all out. Labour are going to get squeezed on all sides. This means they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning the election.
-
TRB
I'm not sure what anyone can do to make inroads into the SNP support. It seems impervious to the usual laws of logic.
Salmond has called EVERY big economic decision catastrophically wrong over the past decade.
He wanted Scotland in the Euro
He wanted Scotland to follow the economic example of Ireland and Iceland.
He said Scotland could share the Pound and have fiscal independence.
He built post-independence finances on the assumption that oil would not drop below $110/barrel.
Every call was appalling. That would be terminal for a normal party. But every time Salmond gets it wrong, the SNP support goes up. It's like the Scots are blaming the main parties for the laws of logic. They are voting for what they would like the world to be like in fantasy.
I've said before, a nasty, vindictive side of me wishes the bas**rds had voted for independence. Salmond would have been lynched by now as the Scots realised the catastrophe they'd been led into. But the Scots had the good sense not to do that. And now they can indulge themselves, voting for a party that is divorced from economic reality. Trying to convince them not to vote SNP is like trying to convince our resident idiot here to use logic when he argues. Utterly pointless.
-
TRB
I'm not sure what anyone can do to make inroads into the SNP support. It seems impervious to the usual laws of logic.
Salmond has called EVERY big economic decision catastrophically wrong over the past decade.
He wanted Scotland in the Euro
He wanted Scotland to follow the economic example of Ireland and Iceland.
He said Scotland could share the Pound and have fiscal independence.
He built post-independence finances on the assumption that oil would not drop below $110/barrel.
Every call was appalling. That would be terminal for a normal party. But every time Salmond gets it wrong, the SNP support goes up. It's like the Scots are blaming the main parties for the laws of logic. They are voting for what they would like the world to be like in fantasy.
I've said before, a nasty, vindictive side of me wishes the b*****ds had voted for independence. Salmond would have been lynched by now as the Scots realised the catastrophe they'd been led into. But the Scots had the good sense not to do that. And now they can indulge themselves, voting for a party that is divorced from economic reality. Trying to convince them not to vote SNP is like trying to convince our resident idiot here to use logic when he argues. Utterly pointless.
Look. The Scotch aren't stupid. They know they can have their cake and eat it. If only the stupid idiots that wanted them to refrain from voting for independence had let them go their own way we'd all be better off. But no. Labour knew they'd be finished as a political party if they couldn't rely on on lots of Scotch MPs. Well, the silly sods got the independence result they wanted but in doing so have finished themselves off as a political force in Scotland.
Mind boggling incompetence of the highest order.
-
Polls are a guide but don't represent the way our voting system works. I think it's possible that LAB get more votes and less seats. If you think its that close you can bet 7/4 that LAB get most seats.
-
I actually think there's more chance of the opposite, Tories to get move votes and less seats. They usually get less seats per vote so to speak than Labour.
Our electon system is a funny one, these are the stats for the last few elections, obviously the minor parties play a part and the more LD/UKIP/SNP/Greens etc pick up, the more this changes.
Somewht interesting though that Labour got massively more seats in 2005 than Tories in 2010 despite a lower amount of vote share. Just shows that the vote share is largely flawed as a diagnostic tool. IE places like Doncaster for Labour will be way above what their national average is.
God knows what the right system would be, is there even one anywhere in the world that's fair?
1992 1997 2001 2005 2010
Labour Seats % 41.6% 63.4% 62.7% 62.4% 39.7%
Votes % 34.4% 43.2% 40.7% 35.2% 29.0%
Tories Seats % 51.6% 25.0% 25.2% 25.5% 47.1%
Votes % 41.9% 30.7% 31.7% 32.4% 36.1%
-
whatever party you support,the whole system needs reform..I find it unacceptable that the SNP could hold the key to the balance of power for our country..There Mp's can vote on how our country is run and we don't get a say in how many paperclips there parliment buys..Sadly because of the first past the post system benefiting certain party's over others I cant see that happening soon...
I was talking to our Conservative mp last week and he concentrates on local issues rather that national ones as he his so dissalusioned with how political partys in Westminster works regardless of who they are...
-
Look. It's very simple. The Tories will get the most seats. No question. Most people think they won't get an overall majority. They will.
So no need to worry about the SNP wielding power. The worst that will happen is the Tories will have some kind of 'coalition' agreement with the LibDems again.
So relax everybody. Labour will not be in a position to destroy the economy and increase unemployment yet again.
Sorted.
-
I'm not sure the Tories will get a majority. The Lib Dems have said they won't rejoin the Tories haven't they over the Euro referendum?
-
I'm not sure the Tories will get a majority. The Lib Dems have said they won't rejoin the Tories haven't they over the Euro referendum?
It won't be the same arrangement as last time but it will enable us to have stable government. That's worst case scenario.
Get your money on a Tory overall majority. Best odds available are 6/1. It will be like printing money.
If you are daft enough to think there will be a Labour overall majority you can get 17/1. in fact I'd be prepared to offer 100/1 on that outcome.
Get in.
-
Look. It's very simple. The Tories will get the most seats. No question. Most people think they won't get an overall majority. They will.
So no need to worry about the SNP wielding power. The worst that will happen is the Tories will have some kind of 'coalition' agreement with the LibDems again.
So relax everybody. Labour will not be in a position to destroy the economy and increase unemployment yet again.
Sorted.
What Lib Dems?
-
Look. It's very simple. The Tories will get the most seats. No question. Most people think they won't get an overall majority. They will.
So no need to worry about the SNP wielding power. The worst that will happen is the Tories will have some kind of 'coalition' agreement with the LibDems again.
So relax everybody. Labour will not be in a position to destroy the economy and increase unemployment yet again.
Sorted.
What Lib Dems?
Even with their dramatically reduced share of the vote I'll be surprised if the Lib Dems don't have between 20-30 MPs. What you might call "The Eastleigh Effect" where they poll considerably better in seats they hold than those they don't. In contrast, even if they poll at around 12-13% UKIP will be lucky if they have 5 MPs.
-
I'm expecting LibDems to get 30 and UKIP 10. I reckon the UKIP vote is massively underestimated in Labour seats because many Ukippers keep their political allegiance quiet because of all the disgust people tend to show when they find out you're a Ukipper. It's usually the leftie lot that try their best to make Ukippers feel like they are racist bigots and are the scum of the earth.
Well it's going to backfire on them. Its just a shame there aren't more people around like me that are not afraid to state their allegiance. in the privacy of the ballot box no-one knows how you've voted. Watch out Labour, we're coming to get you.
-
whatever party you support,the whole system needs reform..I find it unacceptable that the SNP could hold the key to the balance of power for our country..There Mp's can vote on how our country is run and we don't get a say in how many paperclips there parliment buys..Sadly because of the first past the post system benefiting certain party's over others I cant see that happening soon...
I was talking to our Conservative mp last week and he concentrates on local issues rather that national ones as he his so dissalusioned with how political partys in Westminster works regardless of who they are...
Has it been unacceptable that the Libdems have had that key for the past five years..?
-
Love them or hate them, the Lib Dems fight seats throughout Britain. I have far less of a problem about them holding the balance of power than I do with parties who only fight in one part of the UK.
And yes, I am also thinking about the possibility of the DUP holding the balance of power.
-
Not sure what you mean about them holding the balance of power.
Both Lab and the SNP have made it clear that there will be no coalition between them.
The SNP's strongest position is that they have said they will vote against a Con Government in a confidence vote. That seems perfectly fair to me. After all, the Govt's biggest issues are economic and foreign policy and neither of these are devolved to Scotland. So, if a Govt were formed that had major policy stances on non-devolved issues that went against what 70% of the Scottish electorate had voted for (Lab & SNP combined) I see no problem in Scottish MPs voting the Govt down.
Doesn't change my opinion that the SNP are a bunch of lying shites peddling fantasies to the gullible.
-
I'm expecting LibDems to get 30 and UKIP 10. I reckon the UKIP vote is massively underestimated in Labour seats because many Ukippers keep their political allegiance quiet because of all the disgust people tend to show when they find out you're a Ukipper. It's usually the leftie lot that try their best to make Ukippers feel like they are racist bigots and are the scum of the earth.
Well it's going to backfire on them. Its just a shame there aren't more people around like me that are not afraid to state their allegiance. in the privacy of the ballot box no-one knows how you've voted. Watch out Labour, we're coming to get you.
Just memorialising this post for posterity.
-
Glyn
That one was worth a laugh.
It's the lefties who make Ukippers feel like bigots eh? Not the prospective candidates who call foreigners "Ting Tongs" or talk about "Bongo Bongo Land".
Sweet.
-
Glyn
That one was worth a laugh.
It's the lefties who make Ukippers feel like bigots eh? Not the prospective candidates who call foreigners "Ting Tongs" or talk about "Bongo Bongo Land".
Sweet.
You can talk. I bet anyone that intends to vote UKIP that you know would most definitely keep that information from you. You are the most condescending person on this forum to anyone that lets it be known they support UKIP (maybe there is also one other person that's as bad as you, he knows who he is.)
We'll have the last laugh. Just be grateful I let you off with that bet on who would be the largest party when Labour were miles ahead in the polls. Not so cocky now are you?
-
You couldn't make it up. One of Labour's key election pledges is that they will control immigration. Really? I didn't know they were planning to leave the EU. What a load of old cock. The furore over their daft mug shows their true colours. They don't want to control immigration. They must think we're all stupid.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/29/diane-abbott-labour-immigration-controls-mugs-shameful
-
Gaz
But as the polls currently stand (the average poll figures) even taking an SNP landslide in Scotland into account (IF that happens) Labour would be the largest party in England by 20-30 seats.
If the Tories are going to be the largest party, nevermind be in a position to put a coalition together, they need to change the polls by ~ 3-4% damn quickly. They need Labour to drop from 34% to 30% or they themselves to rise from 32% to 36%. At present, with the campaign well underway, there's no sign whatsoever of that change coming. Two weeks ago there was a tiny move towards the Tories, but that reversed last week and we're back as you were. And the result of the "debate" that Cameron refused to have seems (looking at today's YouGov poll) to have been a quite stunning success for Miliband. I didn't watch it because I'd rather stick tin tacks in my scrotum than watch Paxman w**king off about how clever he is, but the Times figures have Miliband am seen as trouncing Cameron.
Which leader came across best?
EM 49
DC 34
Which leader have the more honest answers
EM 48
DC 29.
This is crucial because the Tories have been putting a great deal of emphasis on the belief that people won't see Miliband as a serious alternative. But it looks like people thought Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron on Thursday night. That's a potential game-changer, and it MIGHT explain why Labour had their biggest poll lead in weeks this morning.
Fascinating week coming up. If that 4% Lab lead this morning turns out to be genuine and not just normal variation, the game's turned on its head.
Hahaha. You were getting far to excited over a rouge poll. Latest Yougov poll has them neck and neck at 35% each. Populus have them neck and neck at 34% each (they normally show a Labour lead). Lord Ashcroft (the most reliable poll IMHO) have the Tories on 36% and Labour only on 34%.
The direction of travel is plain to see. The Tories are going to win an overall majority.
Get in.
-
By "Balance of Power" I don't mean "Coalition." It is inconceivable that the SNP would enter a coalition that would entail them taking up positions in a UK Government. That would go against all they stand for.
Similarly it is hardly likely that the DUP would join a coalition. What both parties would want to do would be to wring concessions beneficial to them out of the minority government. Once they have banked those concessions they may even be unwilling to further support the minority government.
The Lib Dems are maybe the only "minor" party who would be willing to consider a formal coalition. But of course they've had their fingers burned in the current one and they will be very wary of forming another one.
-
Gaz
But as the polls currently stand (the average poll figures) even taking an SNP landslide in Scotland into account (IF that happens) Labour would be the largest party in England by 20-30 seats.
If the Tories are going to be the largest party, nevermind be in a position to put a coalition together, they need to change the polls by ~ 3-4% damn quickly. They need Labour to drop from 34% to 30% or they themselves to rise from 32% to 36%. At present, with the campaign well underway, there's no sign whatsoever of that change coming. Two weeks ago there was a tiny move towards the Tories, but that reversed last week and we're back as you were. And the result of the "debate" that Cameron refused to have seems (looking at today's YouGov poll) to have been a quite stunning success for Miliband. I didn't watch it because I'd rather stick tin tacks in my scrotum than watch Paxman w**king off about how clever he is, but the Times figures have Miliband am seen as trouncing Cameron.
Which leader came across best?
EM 49
DC 34
Which leader have the more honest answers
EM 48
DC 29.
This is crucial because the Tories have been putting a great deal of emphasis on the belief that people won't see Miliband as a serious alternative. But it looks like people thought Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron on Thursday night. That's a potential game-changer, and it MIGHT explain why Labour had their biggest poll lead in weeks this morning.
Fascinating week coming up. If that 4% Lab lead this morning turns out to be genuine and not just normal variation, the game's turned on its head.
Hahaha. You were getting far to excited over a rouge poll. Latest Yougov poll has them neck and neck at 35% each. Populus have them neck and neck at 34% each (they normally show a Labour lead). Lord Ashcroft (the most reliable poll IMHO) have the Tories on 36% and Labour only on 34%.
The direction of travel is plain to see. The Tories are going to win an overall majority.
Get in.
Hey ICI, did you hear the England fans last night chanting to the Italians "Where were you in World War 2?" Heartening to hear the Right Wing is alive & kicking, bless 'em.
-
Gaz
But as the polls currently stand (the average poll figures) even taking an SNP landslide in Scotland into account (IF that happens) Labour would be the largest party in England by 20-30 seats.
If the Tories are going to be the largest party, nevermind be in a position to put a coalition together, they need to change the polls by ~ 3-4% damn quickly. They need Labour to drop from 34% to 30% or they themselves to rise from 32% to 36%. At present, with the campaign well underway, there's no sign whatsoever of that change coming. Two weeks ago there was a tiny move towards the Tories, but that reversed last week and we're back as you were. And the result of the "debate" that Cameron refused to have seems (looking at today's YouGov poll) to have been a quite stunning success for Miliband. I didn't watch it because I'd rather stick tin tacks in my scrotum than watch Paxman w**king off about how clever he is, but the Times figures have Miliband am seen as trouncing Cameron.
Which leader came across best?
EM 49
DC 34
Which leader have the more honest answers
EM 48
DC 29.
This is crucial because the Tories have been putting a great deal of emphasis on the belief that people won't see Miliband as a serious alternative. But it looks like people thought Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron on Thursday night. That's a potential game-changer, and it MIGHT explain why Labour had their biggest poll lead in weeks this morning.
Fascinating week coming up. If that 4% Lab lead this morning turns out to be genuine and not just normal variation, the game's turned on its head.
Hahaha. You were getting far to excited over a rouge poll. Latest Yougov poll has them neck and neck at 35% each. Populus have them neck and neck at 34% each (they normally show a Labour lead). Lord Ashcroft (the most reliable poll IMHO) have the Tories on 36% and Labour only on 34%.
The direction of travel is plain to see. The Tories are going to win an overall majority.
Get in.
Hey ICI, did you hear the England fans last night chanting to the Italians "Where were you in World War 2?" Heartening to hear the Right Wing is alive & kicking, bless 'em.
I didn't hear it but can assure you that the bulk of the fans chanting would have been lefties. it is incontrovertible fact that more lefties than righties go to football matches especially away internationals.
Us righties on the whole prefer a man's game such as rugby union.
-
Yeah....& us 'Righties' ought to see about banning all showing's of Jesse Owens medal winning events once we grasp power. I'm so with you ICI.
-
Yeah....& us 'Righties' ought to see about banning all showing's of Jesse Owens medal winning events once we grasp power. I'm so with you ICI.
I'm genuinely interested in why you think I'm a rascist. Is it because I'm a Ukipper?
-
Think ed milliband has made a mess of this zero hour contract stuff
-
BPool
Why?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3022239/Miliband-vows-abolish-zero-hours-forgets-Labour-use-them.html
-
Was in chippy I didn't buy the paper lol
-
Bpool
1) This hasn't "emerged" as the Mail say. It's old news. At least 9 months old.
2) if Labour councils are using exploitative zero hours contracts, they should be held to account. If they are using them (as the article suggests) for relief workers, that is entirely different (see 4 below).
3) Ed Balls dealt with this last June. He was advised by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to use these contracts as the easiest way of paying the living wage to short-term internees without falling foul of Parliamentary rules.
4) the issue is all about workers being exploited. Not about the principle of zero hours contracts when they are in the worker's best interests. That is why Labour are saying they will give someone the RIGHT TO ASK FOR a regular contract after 13 weeks. Not that they will outlaw zero hours contracts.
5) The cheek of Grant Shapps accusing ANYONE of hypocrisy is breathtaking. This is the man who, against Parliamentary rules, continued to run a business under a false name after he became an MP. This was pointed out by a member of the public on Facebook. Shapps publicly denied this and took legal action for defamation against this person. Then a couple if weeks ago, Shapps admitted that he had been "overly firm with his denial" over his false name. Which means in layman's terms "I lied through my f**king teeth and tried to bully an honest member of the public into backing down to save my face, by threatening to hammer him financially in the courts." Shapps calling someone a hypocrite is like Marcello Trotta calling someone a bottler from the penalty spot when under pressure.
As for business telling us it will be a catastrophe for jobs, well they WOULD say that. They said the same thing about the Minimum Wage. They say the same thing about ANYTHING that gives workers more protection.
Finally, don't forget that that revolting rag of a newspaper has it in for Miliband since he took them on a couple of years ago when they ran that disgusting story about how Miliband's father was an enemy of Britain. That's a man who served in the Navy against Hitler. Being accused by a paper that supported Hitler in the 1930s.
-
You're a rare breed amongst employers BST, someone who cares about workers rights
-
I try to Filo.
My company's going through a tough cash flow time at the moment. I've foregone my salary for the last two months which has allowed us to not have to lay anyone off. I'm owed £6k in expenses from various travels over the past year and I've written that off. I utterly f**king despise those bosses who see workers as units to be hired and fired at will. They are people. With families.
-
Think ed milliband has made a mess of this zero hour contract stuff
Yep pushing it far too much and now looks like a 'one trip' pony. If he is to win, he must widen his attack to appeal to a far wider audience I.e. those that don't already sit in either camp or in fact never vote. He has to think of changing quickly with a view to revisiting this later in the campaign.
BTW I utterly despise these sort of contracts and they have no place in this country. They should be abolished immediately.
-
Yougov now got the Tories on 37% and Labour on 35%.
The Tories are now moving comfortably to outright majority territory as I predicted.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/03/cons-lead-2/
Get in.
-
Can you honestly see them pushing up towards 50%? It's still very unlikely.
-
Can you honestly see them pushing up towards 50%? It's still very unlikely.
They don't need 50%. They need about an 8% difference with Labour. I reckon the Tories will be on 40% come election day. That's only 3% more than now. Labour are going to be wiped out in Scotland, they are losing votes to the Greens, UKIP and Plaid Cymru. UKIP voters will support the Tory candidate where it keeps Labour out. Whichever way you look at it Labour are getting squeezed on all sides and this will continue. After the next leader's debate I expect Labour to lose more votes to the smaller parties as Ed is going to get another bashing. Cameron won't because he won't be there.
Get in.
-
If you UKIPPers are suddenly going to vote tactically to keep Labour out - why do you believe that Greens & Lib Dems wont vote tactically in the same seats to keep Cameron out?
Some of the most interesting contests are going to be the Lib Dem v Tory ones, places round me like Chippenham, Bath, Wells etc, will the Lib Dem voters put aside their dislike of Clegg to keep Cameron out? Will UKIP hurt the Tories?
-
Same for me, Wilts. I live in one of the most marginal Lib Dem v Tory marginals. I fully expected it to go blue in 2010, but it didn't. I suspect the Lib Dems have squeezed the ex-Labour vote as far as they can, so they might struggle to hang on this time.
One interesting local factor is that the LDs have been losing council votes and seats hand over fist to the Greens. Will those voters stay Green or vote tactically to keep the Tories out?
-
The (limited) evidence from 2010-14 by-elections was that where the LDs were challenging Labour, their vote collapsed, but where they were fighting the Tories, their vote held up.
-
If you UKIPPers are suddenly going to vote tactically to keep Labour out - why do you believe that Greens & Lib Dems wont vote tactically in the same seats to keep Cameron out?
Some of the most interesting contests are going to be the Lib Dem v Tory ones, places round me like Chippenham, Bath, Wells etc, will the Lib Dem voters put aside their dislike of Clegg to keep Cameron out? Will UKIP hurt the Tories?
Because UKIP want a referendum on Europe we will only vote UKIP if we think we've got a good chance of winning the seat. We won't vote UKIP if we think it's going to let Labour in. We want anyone else other than Labour to win, ideally the Tories if it can't be us. The last thing we want is Labour in power and no referendum. We are more sophisticated than other voters who will vote with their hearts instead of tactically with their heads.
-
If you UKIPPers are suddenly going to vote tactically to keep Labour out - why do you believe that Greens & Lib Dems wont vote tactically in the same seats to keep Cameron out?
Some of the most interesting contests are going to be the Lib Dem v Tory ones, places round me like Chippenham, Bath, Wells etc, will the Lib Dem voters put aside their dislike of Clegg to keep Cameron out? Will UKIP hurt the Tories?
Because UKIP want a referendum on Europe we will only vote UKIP if we think we've got a good chance of winning the seat. We won't vote UKIP if we think it's going to let Labour in. We want anyone else other than Labour to win, ideally the Tories if it can't be us. The last thing we want is Labour in power and no referendum. We are more sophisticated than other voters who will vote with their hearts instead of tactically with their heads.
'More sophisticated' are you having a laugh fella ?
How the hell do yo know this, what is the evidence you have that draws you to such a conclusion ? None I doubt as UKIP And their voters have little or no pàst tactical voting history. You make it all up as you go along !
-
If you UKIPPers are suddenly going to vote tactically to keep Labour out - why do you believe that Greens & Lib Dems wont vote tactically in the same seats to keep Cameron out?
Some of the most interesting contests are going to be the Lib Dem v Tory ones, places round me like Chippenham, Bath, Wells etc, will the Lib Dem voters put aside their dislike of Clegg to keep Cameron out? Will UKIP hurt the Tories?
Because UKIP want a referendum on Europe we will only vote UKIP if we think we've got a good chance of winning the seat. We won't vote UKIP if we think it's going to let Labour in. We want anyone else other than Labour to win, ideally the Tories if it can't be us. The last thing we want is Labour in power and no referendum. We are more sophisticated than other voters who will vote with their hearts instead of tactically with their heads.
'More sophisticated' are you having a laugh fella ?
How the hell do yo know this, what is the evidence you have that draws you to such a conclusion ? None I doubt as UKIP And their voters have little or no pàst tactical voting history. You make it all up as you go along !
Look. It's very simple. The Tory vote is going up and UKIP's is going down. Ukippers are going back to the Tories in their droves. They are intelligent and know that voting UKIP to let Labour in is crazy. The last thing us Ukippers want is Labour in power and no EU referendum. However UKIP will still hold on to a decent amount of voters. These will be predominantly ex Labour voters who will stay with them come what may. This will damage Labour badly.
Sorted.
-
If you UKIPPers are suddenly going to vote tactically to keep Labour out - why do you believe that Greens & Lib Dems wont vote tactically in the same seats to keep Cameron out?
Some of the most interesting contests are going to be the Lib Dem v Tory ones, places round me like Chippenham, Bath, Wells etc, will the Lib Dem voters put aside their dislike of Clegg to keep Cameron out? Will UKIP hurt the Tories?
Because UKIP want a referendum on Europe we will only vote UKIP if we think we've got a good chance of winning the seat. We won't vote UKIP if we think it's going to let Labour in. We want anyone else other than Labour to win, ideally the Tories if it can't be us. The last thing we want is Labour in power and no referendum. We are more sophisticated than other voters who will vote with their hearts instead of tactically with their heads.
'More sophisticated' are you having a laugh fella ?
How the hell do yo know this, what is the evidence you have that draws you to such a conclusion ? None I doubt as UKIP And their voters have little or no pàst tactical voting history. You make it all up as you go along !
Look. It's very simple. The Tory vote is going up and UKIP's is going down. Ukippers are going back to the Tories in their droves. They are intelligent and know that voting UKIP to let Labour in is crazy. The last thing us Ukippers want is Labour in power and no EU referendum. However UKIP will still hold on to a decent amount of voters. These will be predominantly ex Labour voters who will stay with them come what may. This will damage Labour badly.
Sorted.
If only politics and the electorate were that simple, what on earth has drawn you to that conclusion ?
You have no evidence whatsoever to lead you to write such dribble with any seriousness ? :blink:
This is what you would like to happen isn't it Mick ?
-
You asked for evidence. Here it is. Tories now on 39% and UKIP down to 7%. Labour on a pathetic 33%. This being a poll by ICM for the leftie rag the Guardian. Conclusive proof us Ukippers are moving back to the Tories (for now).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/conservatives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour
Get in.
-
I'll guess, without bothering to check that our resident expert is getting all excited about the ICM poll?
Is that right?
This is what Anthony Wells of YouGov had to say about it
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9347
"The worst thing you can do in analysing polls of voting intention is to get excited at polls that show something exciting and different and ignore those that show the same old pattern. Occassionally the unusual poll will herald a genuine movement in public opinion – after all, whenever there is a change, one poll has to pick it up first. More often than not, the unusual poll will turn out to be a freak result, the product of unusual sampling or methods. If there is genuinely a change in public opinion, other polls will pick it up sooner or later, so it’s always wise to withhold your judgement.
Today we have one of those unusual polls, and we have the overexcitement you’d expect. ICM’s monthly poll in the Guardian has topline figures of CON 39%(+3), LAB 33%(-2), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 7%(-2), GRN 7%(+3) (tabs). This is pretty odd all round – a storming six point lead for the Tories, up on thirty-nine percent; the Greens and UKIP equal on seven percent.
In the Guardian’s write up they are rightly dubious, and include a welcome caveat from ICM’s Martin Boon about the inevitability of random variation and the sample perhaps being a touch too Tory. I’ll just leave it with the usual caveats – it’s one poll, and an odd looking one at that. Sure, it could be the start of some Tory surge, but if it is we will see it echoed in other polls today…and luckily enough we have at least three of them."
Ho hum. I'll wait for Mick's new mates to start trolling Wells and complaining that he's being unfair to their man.
-
Oh dear. More bad news for Labour. The SNP have almost doubled their lead over Labour giving the party a 28 point lead.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/snp-has-almost-doubled-lead-over-labour-in-scotland-poll-shows
Get in.
-
Oh dear. More bad news for Labour. The SNP have almost doubled their lead over Labour giving the party a 28 point lead.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/snp-has-almost-doubled-lead-over-labour-in-scotland-poll-shows
Get in.
Get in? I'm clearly much more favourale towards the Tories and this does have some Tory benefit potentially. But that is largely irrelevant as the damage the SNP could do exceeds the damage Labour could commit!
-
Oh dear. More bad news for Labour. The SNP have almost doubled their lead over Labour giving the party a 28 point lead.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/snp-has-almost-doubled-lead-over-labour-in-scotland-poll-shows
Get in.
Get in? I'm clearly much more favourale towards the Tories and this does have some Tory benefit potentially. But that is largely irrelevant as the damage the SNP could do exceeds the damage Labour could commit!
I'm a big picture sort of person. I'm very relaxed about the outcome of the election. I think the Tories will win with an overall majority. If I'm wrong the next likely outcome is a Tory LibDem coalition. Worst case scenario is a minority Labour government supported by the SNP.
Even that scenario is OK by me. It wouldn't take long before the wheels would come off any kind of Labour government. Within 2 years they'd be out of office for a generation. The Tories would form the next government with a landslide. UKIP would become the second largest force in British politics. The country would lurch violently to the right and we'd be out of Europe.
Get in.
-
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1452306/dreams-vs-reality-o.gif)
-
The movements in that ICM / Guardian poll are too dramatic to suggest anything other than an outlier. It isn't backed up by any of the other polls, including the daily YouGov one.
With regard to Scotland I have have a hunch that most of the polls are over-estimating the strength of the SNP vote. They are certainly going to do well, but I don't think as well as some of the polls suggest.
I wonder if Scotland now has it's own "Shy Labour" equivalent of the famous "Shy Tory?"
-
It is clearly all still neck and neck I think the polls make that clear.
-
TRB
There was a fair bit of evidence of Shy Noes in the Indy Ref polls. And a fair few claims of intimidation by Yes supporters which is a worry.
There was a poll a few days ago that asked the question "Do you consider the criticism of the party you support to be a personal criticism?" For most parties, there were around 10-20% who answered "yes" which is worrying enough. But for SNP supporters, the figure was over 50%.
That is truly scary. It suggests that rational debate is going out of the window in Scotland. Which might explain why, the more the SNP's economic plans are criticised as somewhere between fantasy and extremely dangerous, the more popular they become.
-
Today's launch of their manifesto is a game changer. I fully expect the Tories to pull away in the opinion polls now.
-
Mick
I preferred the old days when you used to make loads of spelling mistakes.
-
TRB
There was a fair bit of evidence of Shy Noes in the Indy Ref polls. And a fair few claims of intimidation by Yes supporters which is a worry.
There was a poll a few days ago that asked the question "Do you consider the criticism of the party you support to be a personal criticism?" For most parties, there were around 10-20% who answered "yes" which is worrying enough. But for SNP supporters, the figure was over 50%.
That is truly scary. It suggests that rational debate is going out of the window in Scotland. Which might explain why, the more the SNP's economic plans are criticised as somewhere between fantasy and extremely dangerous, the more popular they become.
There's also the phenomenon of the Cyber-Nats, who are very quick to heap abuse on anyone who casts doubt on the SNPs aims and policies.
I get the feeling that quite a few of them would have felt at home in 1930s Germany.
-
TRB
Aye. It's not a healthy situation.
I heard one of them saying today that Scotland's position at the moment is similar to Ireland's in the early 1900s. He was meaning that there is a momentum towards independence. But I'm not sure he realised the sub-text to what he was saying. At least I HOPE he didn't.
-
Oh dear. Do we really want this bunch of clowns in charge?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/watch-the-horribly-awkward-moment-this-labour-candidate-forgets-her-partys-policies-10177591.html
-
Just watched the UKIP manifesto launch. What an excellent document. If only the other parties could take a leaf out of their book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32312687
Get in.
-
Or do we really want these who sneer at anyone that doesn't conform to the master race?
http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2015/04/13/mental-health-conditions-wear-wristbands-says-tory-candidate-cambridge/
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/the-only-black-face-in-the-ukip-manifesto-is-on-the-page-about-overseas-aid-10178065.html
-
Or do we really want these who sneer at anyone that doesn't conform to the master race?
http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2015/04/13/mental-health-conditions-wear-wristbands-says-tory-candidate-cambridge/
No sneering and no reference to a master race in the article. I think you've gone a bit over the top.
I suggest you read the article again and try to put the comment she made into context. She was only trying to come up with a solution that would help mentally ill people deal with our legal system better.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/the-only-black-face-in-the-ukip-manifesto-is-on-the-page-about-overseas-aid-10178065.html
So what. As a party that is not racist or politically correct we couldn't care less whether every ethnicity is represented in the document.
The policies in the document are what counts. Not comparing the ethnicities of who is pictured in it.
You give a perfect example of political correctness gone mad. To the likes of you it is more important to get the right ethnic mix of people pictured rather than dealing with the big issues of the general election. People tasked with drawing up a manifesto should not have the additional pressure of having to make sure they have observed all the ludicrous rules of political correctness.
I suggest you and your kind watch the manifesto launch. You will find that there were many ethnicities in the crowd and they were the ones that were the most vociferous in heckling the politically correct reporter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32321623
-
Yet another poll showing the Tories in the lead.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/17/uk-britain-election-poll-survation-idUKKBN0N829T20150417
Get in.
-
And just below in 'More from Reuters' two other polls are mentioned, one a day older and the other the same day as the survation poll. One has Labour ahead, the other is tied!!
Get in.
-
Latest Opinium poll has Tories on 36% and Labour only on 32%.
Get in.
-
Latest YouGov in Sunday Times has Labour 3 points ahead.
Get in.
-
Latest Opinium poll has Tories on 36% and Labour only on 32%.
Get in.
Must be a rouge poll
-
YouGov/Sun (15/4) – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%
Ipsos MORI/Standard (15/4) – CON 33%, LAB 35%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 10%, GRN 8%
Panelbase (16/4) – CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 4%
YouGov/Sun (16/4) – CON 34%, LAB 34%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
Populus (16/4) – CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%, GRN 4%
YouGov/Sun (18/4)- CON 33%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%
Bit of a pattern there, can anyone tell me what it is (dont worry I have removed any polls that contradict what I have to say in an attempt to bias my 'facts')
-
Wilts
Yes, yes, yes, but as right-wing psephological geniuses have been saying, the overwhelmingly good economic news will result in a swing to the Tories.
Sometime.
Eventually.
Maybe.
-
On which topic, last week the longest odds you could get on Cameron being PM after the election were 8/13. Miliband was 7/4.
Look at the numbers today after another week of the polls not moving to the Tories despite everything they chuck at it.
https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Both on Evens.
-
Latest Populous poll has Labour on 34% and Tories on 32%.
Get in.
-
Mick's volte face has been the most entertaining thing about the entire campaign so far. :lol:
-
Mick's volte face has been the most entertaining thing about the entire campaign so far. :lol:
Excuse me. No volte face. I form my opinions on current and past information. I am prepared to change my mind when a situation changes. If only you lefties would take on-board the overwhelming destruction job I've done on Labour. Unfortunately you are very closed minded. I guarantee that many of the previously undecided voters have taken on-board what I've said. I'd be amazed if any of them would now vote Labour.
All I would say to them now is get behind Labour where they have a chance of winning. My advice now is to play the long game. Let's hope they form the next minority government held to ransom by the SNP. This arrangement would only last for 2 years at the most. They'd have to take some tough decisions and would find their support would fall off a cliff.
The election after this one is the key election. Labour would be finished (see what's happened in Scotland for how quick things can change). The Tories and UKIP could then get on with pushing through a hard right agenda.
Get in.
-
The gift that keeps on giving. :lol:
-
Hahaha! You lefties do make me laugh.
-
On which topic, last week the longest odds you could get on Cameron being PM after the election were 8/13. Miliband was 7/4.
Look at the numbers today after another week of the polls not moving to the Tories despite everything they chuck at it.
https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Both on Evens.
Longest odds now:
Miliband 5/6
Cameron 5/4.
That's quite some turn round in a week for Milband, from 7/4 to 5/6.
-
Fortunately, I had £1000 on Miliband at 7/4. I've now laid that off by having £1200 on Cameron at 5/4. Whoever is PM in 17 days, I end up £500 up.
Get in.
-
Fortunately, I had £1000 on Miliband at 7/4. I've now laid that off by having £1200 on Cameron at 5/4. Whoever is PM in 17 days, I end up £500 up.
Get in.
Betting slips?
Or are they locked up in the dame place as Micks?
:)
-
Fortunately, I had £1000 on Miliband at 7/4. I've now laid that off by having £1200 on Cameron at 5/4. Whoever is PM in 17 days, I end up £500 up.
Get in.
Betting slips?
Or are they locked up in the dame place as Micks?
:)
Unlike you, I'm prepared to take the man at his word.
-
Bad news. Yougov have got the Tories at 35% and Labour down on 34%. It gets worse. It seems the Tory policy of slagging off a Labour/SNP 'coalition' is working and attracting more support for the Tories. The media is dominated with this story and not on Labour's big push on the NHS this week.
Let's hope Labour can turn it around.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
-
On which topic, last week the longest odds you could get on Cameron being PM after the election were 8/13. Miliband was 7/4.
Look at the numbers today after another week of the polls not moving to the Tories despite everything they chuck at it.
https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Both on Evens.
Longest odds now:
Miliband 5/6
Cameron 5/4.
That's quite some turn round in a week for Milband, from 7/4 to 5/6.
Now:
Miliband 8/11
Cameron 11/8
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Well, well, well.
-
On which topic, last week the longest odds you could get on Cameron being PM after the election were 8/13. Miliband was 7/4.
Look at the numbers today after another week of the polls not moving to the Tories despite everything they chuck at it.
https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Both on Evens.
Longest odds now:
Miliband 5/6
Cameron 5/4.
That's quite some turn round in a week for Milband, from 7/4 to 5/6.
Now:
Miliband 8/11
Cameron 11/8
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election
Well, well, well.
Get in.
-
I have to say that the lack of overall movement in the polls points in one direction. Basically the same one before a shot was fired in the campaign. There will be a hung parliament and Labour will be the largest party.
I have to say though that unless the eventual arithmetic allows for a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems it is unlikely to end well. The Nationalists will, I think, provide Labour with dangerous allies.
As for the Tories, I think they have run a very poor campaign. You might argue that they have some unpromising material to work with in policy terms. However I think the big question that will be asked in the inevitable inquest is why they failed to cut some sort of deal with UKIP.
-
As we have said previously TRB the main point of interest is how many of their marginal seats can the Lib Dems hang on to? Bath, Cheltenham, Chippenham, Wells etc. Will they still be the protest vote party? There is talk of the Greens running them close in Bristol West and thats an 11000 majority. Will there be enough disafection and stay-aways to let the Tories in - or will UKIP split their vote?
-
I think the Lib Dems will have around 30 seats after the election. A substantial reduction but not a wipe out.
I think they have lost their "protest vote" tag and that's where a lot of their support has gone. Protest voters will go to UKIP or the Greens.
-
I have to say that the lack of overall movement in the polls points in one direction. Basically the same one before a shot was fired in the campaign. There will be a hung parliament and Labour will be the largest party.
I have to say though that unless the eventual arithmetic allows for a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems it is unlikely to end well. The Nationalists will, I think, provide Labour with dangerous allies.
As for the Tories, I think they have run a very poor campaign. You might argue that they have some unpromising material to work with in policy terms. However I think the big question that will be asked in the inevitable inquest is why they failed to cut some sort of deal with UKIP.
I would agree with this.
I also think it has been the dullest most uninspiring election with not much innovation in terms of policy from either side. I think the next few years will be a mess. Perhaps a good election to lose?
The tory campaign should focus on the economy and how they're better equipped to deal with that over Labour - an argument they could win easily, but they haven't done that, which is a shame really.
The SNP mixing with Labour will be a bit of a problem for the country but that's probably where the smart money is. What a headache for all!
-
The tory campaign should focus on the economy and how they're better equipped to deal with that over Labour - an argument they could win easily, but they haven't done that, which is a shame really.
Not after achieving sod all in the last five years they won't.
-
The tory campaign should focus on the economy and how they're better equipped to deal with that over Labour - an argument they could win easily, but they haven't done that, which is a shame really.
Not after achieving sod all in the last five years they won't.
Really? Sustained, steady growth, defecit lower (only just granted), wages now increasing above inflation, taxes lower for all, unemployment down, more people employed than ever before....
They are all positives. It's far from perfect but it is not a bad job at all...
Today's analysis will prove interesting;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739
On a second note all miss an opportunity on the NHS. It's clearly an issue for many and it is clear that Labour in Wales has not done a good job. The Tories should be hammering home how it is doing better in England than Labour in Wales are and SNP are in Scotlad. They could turn what has been one of their negatives in to a huge positive.
-
BFYP
The fact that it's generally accepted that the Tories have done a grand job of running the economy shows what a good politician Osborne is. He has dominated the political debate and bent it to his will by simply repeating the mantra that he has managed the economy well.
Unfortunately, he is a shocking economist. The fact is that in May 2010, he inherited an economy that was starting to recover from a horrific recession. He then implemented policies which choked off that recovery. The FACT is that we have actually experienced the worst recovery from recession since the South Sea Bubble in the 1700s. The OBR reckon that, directly due to Osborne's policy in 2010-12, we have lost, permanently something like £1500 of economic output for every single person in the country. Other economists argue that the number is more likely to be 2-3 times bigger than this.
And what was the benefit of that? We massively missed his aim of reducing the deficit anyway.
An utterly catastrophic period of economic management. It beggars belief that ANYONE can look at this graph, recall that Month 27 was the last General Election and call the Tory economic policy a success. But that's politics.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/GDP/may2014s.png)
AND the growth that we HAVE had over the past 2 years has been exactly matched by an increasing workforce. For the first time ON RECORD, we are not growing the economy faster that the workforce is growing. Productivity has followed and almost perfectly stable growth path for at least 100 years. Until the last 5 years, when, unprecedentedly, it has stopped growing. And THAT is the terrifying thing. If productivity doesn't improve we are unarguably set for a poorer future. It is THE most important issue for politicians over the next decade.
Have you heard anyone mention it?
-
Alternatively we can give the keys to Balls and Milliband and destroy us like they did last time..At least they cant sell off the whole of the countries gold reserves this time at the lowest price on record and I quote Philip hobbs of the economist at the time "im dumfounded they have decided to do this it's schoolboy stuff and beyond belief) every economist in the world advised them to wait...Twelve months later we could have funded the nhs for months just in the difference...Every business leader big and small don't want the Labour back in and that should give the whole country a clue as to were they think the country will go if they do....
-
Wing Co
I run a small business. I want Labour back in.
-
BFYP
The fact that it's generally accepted that the Tories have done a grand job of running the economy shows what a good politician Osborne is. He has dominated the political debate and bent it to his will by simply repeating the mantra that he has managed the economy well.
Unfortunately, he is a shocking economist. The fact is that in May 2010, he inherited an economy that was starting to recover from a horrific recession. He then implemented policies which choked off that recovery. The FACT is that we have actually experienced the worst recovery from recession since the South Sea Bubble in the 1700s. The OBR reckon that, directly due to Osborne's policy in 2010-12, we have lost, permanently something like £1500 of economic output for every single person in the country. Other economists argue that the number is more likely to be 2-3 times bigger than this.
And what was the benefit of that? We massively missed his aim of reducing the deficit anyway.
An utterly catastrophic period of economic management. It beggars belief that ANYONE can look at this graph, recall that Month 27 was the last General Election and call the Tory economic policy a success. But that's politics.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/GDP/may2014s.png)
AND the growth that we HAVE had over the past 2 years has been exactly matched by an increasing workforce. For the first time ON RECORD, we are not growing the economy faster that the workforce is growing. Productivity has followed and almost perfectly stable growth path for at least 100 years. Until the last 5 years, when, unprecedentedly, it has stopped growing. And THAT is the terrifying thing. If productivity doesn't improve we are unarguably set for a poorer future. It is THE most important issue for politicians over the next decade.
Have you heard anyone mention it?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaah!
-
Wing Co
I run a small business. I want Labour back in.
If you run your business in line with your hard left views I'd be very surprised if it isn't struggling and destined eventually to go bust.
-
BST equally you could argue the government is now finally finding more stable growth, rather than more artificial government spending backed growth that Labour tend to favour more of. We could spend hours providing graphs to prove our points couldn't we?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739
Here's the IFS analysis - as ever Labour will lead to higher spending and debt, why the Tories aren't pushing this as number one point I do not know, particularly with the SNP pushing for even more spending if they power share....
The tories have some weakness in not having explained how they will cut etc and they should have worked this out and had it all laid out, that really would have caused Labour a problem, big opportunity missed there.
It's actually amazing how many people don't know who they'll vote for though, nothing really grabs the average man's attention.
BST question though why do you want Labour in? What exactly are they going to do for you? A lot of the stuff they've talked about probably doesn't help your business does it?
-
The tory campaign should focus on the economy and how they're better equipped to deal with that over Labour - an argument they could win easily, but they haven't done that, which is a shame really.
Not after achieving sod all in the last five years they won't.
Really? Sustained, steady growth, defecit lower (only just granted), wages now increasing above inflation, taxes lower for all, unemployment down, more people employed than ever before....
They are all positives. It's far from perfect but it is not a bad job at all...
"Sustained, steady growth"
You mean exactly like they inherited five years ago? Erm..no...they let the economy shrunk in those five years and it's only now growing back to what it should have been.
"defecit lower (only just granted)"
Remind me, what exactly did that safe pair of hands the Tories promise us about where we'd be regarding this five years ago..?
"wages now increasing above inflation"
Erm...who put them below inflation in the first place..?
"taxes lower for all"
What do you say to those who don't pay income tax but had to cope with VAT increases? Are they included in your "all"?
"unemployment down, more people employed than ever before"
These I will concede. However, on the whole the current government have achieved virtually nothing that they said they would. It comes to something when instead of a situation where a government would normally be crowing about their economic achievements and the opposition trying to smear them, the situation is the absolute reverse - Labour are ones pushing the economy and all the Tories do is continually try to smear Labour and the SNP. When asked about the economy, all a Tory will say is 'our record speaks for itself' (a non-answer of the weakest kind)...instead of seizing such a golden opportunity and trumpeting what a success they've made of it! Even the Libdems don't seem to have anything much to say about it. That says everything.
-
Here's the IFS analysis - as ever Labour will lead to higher spending and debt, why the Tories aren't pushing this as number one point I do not know
Why not? Because 'their record speaks for itself', that's why not! :lol:
-
BFYP
Two reasons I want Labour back in.
1) Over the past 50 years, there have been two catastrophic, ideologically-driven economic experiments. Those caused major lasting damage to the economy. They were both committed by Tory Govts. Howe in 1981 and Osborne in 2010. In both cases, the Tory Chancellor went against straightforward basic economic theory and in both cases they drove us into serious and long lasting loss of economic performance.
No Labour Govt has EVER done that. They HAVE been caught up in the inevitable collapses that bedevil the Capitalist system. All countries and all Govts do. But that is very different from choosing to hobble your economy because you ideologically disagree with discretionary, expansionary Govt spending. That's deciding to reduce your performance for ideological reasons.
So there's reason number 1. I believe that we'd have a healthier economy if we had a Govt that is prepared to follow sensible economics, not the economics of Austerity. So that would benefit my company.
2) I believe in a strong public sphere. I believe that there are many things that are better when funded centrally by us all, collectively, from taxes. I would go much further than Labour. I believe that health, education, transport and pensions are fundamentally ill-suited to private enterprise. Either because they are natural monopolies (look at train ticket prices from Doncaster to Bristol, where there is no competition) or because the market argument is predicated on the assumption that the consumer has all the information it requires to make an informed choice as a consumer (you reckon that as a 20 year old, you can choose a pension fund that will perform well over the next 50 years? No way. You can't. You guess and you gamble your future prosperity on nothing more than a hunch.)
So there you go. Hard-headed decisions why I really, really don't want another Tory Govt. It's not a gut reaction. It is a decision made from a combination of my philosophical outlook and my assessment of the sort of country I want to live in.
-
Oh dear. Comres have Tories on 36% and Labour on 32%. Survation have Tories on 33% and Labour on 29%.
-
BFYP
Two reasons I want Labour back in.
1) Over the past 50 years, there have been two catastrophic, ideologically-driven economic experiments. Those caused major lasting damage to the economy. They were both committed by Tory Govts. Howe in 1981 and Osborne in 2010. In both cases, the Tory Chancellor went against straightforward basic economic theory and in both cases they drove us into serious and long lasting loss of economic performance.
No Labour Govt has EVER done that. They HAVE been caught up in the inevitable collapses that bedevil the Capitalist system. All countries and all Govts do. But that is very different from choosing to hobble your economy because you ideologically disagree with discretionary, expansionary Govt spending. That's deciding to reduce your performance for ideological reasons.
So there's reason number 1. I believe that we'd have a healthier economy if we had a Govt that is prepared to follow sensible economics, not the economics of Austerity. So that would benefit my company.
2) I believe in a strong public sphere. I believe that there are many things that are better when funded centrally by us all, collectively, from taxes. I would go much further than Labour. I believe that health, education, transport and pensions are fundamentally ill-suited to private enterprise. Either because they are natural monopolies (look at train ticket prices from Doncaster to Bristol, where there is no competition) or because the market argument is predicated on the assumption that the consumer has all the information it requires to make an informed choice as a consumer (you reckon that as a 20 year old, you can choose a pension fund that will perform well over the next 50 years? No way. You can't. You guess and you gamble your future prosperity on nothing more than a hunch.)
So there you go. Hard-headed decisions why I really, really don't want another Tory Govt. It's not a gut reaction. It is a decision made from a combination of my philosophical outlook and my assessment of the sort of country I want to live in.
BST, I respect your opinion completely, but totally reject your notion that all economic problems under Labour are not their fault but that under the Tories it's their wrong ideals - that is just typical pro labour stance. Quite clearly in the more modern world a large proportion of our economic success is driven by factors outside of our control and largely we can only focus on what happens in our country. I'm actually not one who blames the last Labour government completely, equally I don't agree that the economy in 2010 ended up going badly wrong, it just didn't and the long term gains are proving better than the short term. But I can understand what you're saying and why you're saying it, I just don't agree on how you view the modern economic world.
On your second point I really do not agree. There is a clear benefit in private companies supporting and working with public organisations. Take health as an example, why can't private companies run a lot of services? With good contracts that bring benefits to the public and strict monitoring it clearly does work. Equally in schools, why can't private comanies successfully run schools to a great extent? I work in this area and there is a clear benefit to local authorities in that they can pay out less to companies than it would cost to run the services theirselves. The private companies can then deliver that at a profit to themselves and to a high standard. The key there is ensuring that the contracts are watertight and hold down companies to deliver exactly what they promise - it does work and the phobia of the left in using companies that make profits is just wrong. Granted some companies get it wrong but that's why you put the safeguards in the contracts to protect the services and ensure that competition in the market delivers excellence.
Equally, you say that the public sector can make better decisions on things, well clearly it can't. The people don't change whether they work for a public or private company it is still the same people and the systems aren't hugely different are they? A pension fund still has to grow whether it is in the private or public sector.
What I will agree with you on is that all public services should stay free to use at the end user. Health should be free, education should be free up to 18 in my view etc. I don't disagree at all one bit on that, it is fundemental to British society and any party that substantially changed that would lose my vote (and I say that as someone who has health insurance).
But I will ask you one question which may intrigue me as an answer. Do you really think that this Labour government is going to change any of the things that you mention? They will still go for huge amounts of outsourcing (Because it works), they will still keep trains etc in the private sector (because they can't afford not to) and they will never change the fundementals of the finances of the country because it would be electoral suicide. This country is not at all left wing enough to go down that route and it would not work. There's no mention of any of this in a Labour policy anywhere because they know how the electorate will react.
The tory campaign should focus on the economy and how they're better equipped to deal with that over Labour - an argument they could win easily, but they haven't done that, which is a shame really.
Not after achieving sod all in the last five years they won't.
Really? Sustained, steady growth, defecit lower (only just granted), wages now increasing above inflation, taxes lower for all, unemployment down, more people employed than ever before....
"Sustained, steady growth"
You mean exactly like they inherited five years ago? Erm..no...they let the economy shrunk in those five years and it's only now growing back to what it should have been.
"defecit lower (only just granted)"
Remind me, what exactly did that safe pair of hands the Tories promise us about where we'd be regarding this five years ago..?
"wages now increasing above inflation"
Erm...who put them below inflation in the first place..?
"taxes lower for all"
What do you say to those who don't pay income tax but had to cope with VAT increases? Are they included in your "all"?
"unemployment down, more people employed than ever before"
These I will concede. However, on the whole the current government have achieved virtually nothing that they said they would. It comes to something when instead of a situation where a government would normally be crowing about their economic achievements and the opposition trying to smear them, the situation is the absolute reverse - Labour are ones pushing the economy and all the Tories do is continually try to smear Labour and the SNP. When asked about the economy, all a Tory will say is 'our record speaks for itself' (a non-answer of the weakest kind)...instead of seizing such a golden opportunity and trumpeting what a success they've made of it! Even the Libdems don't seem to have anything much to say about it. That says everything.
Glyn a few points on your comments;
Wages - Labour saw drops in their last spell and below inflation rises for the last 2 years with the exception of one period - the Tories inherited that.
Growth - Done pretty well after the initial period where it was rocky, but in comparison to Europe etc pretty well and the IMF even supports the process undertaken now after some scepticsm.
They are all positives. It's far from perfect but it is not a bad job at all...
VAT - Yes it went up, but given we appear to have little problem in supporting consumer spending in this country at a sensible level it was perfectly achievable. As an accountant I implore everyone to keep it at 20% it is much, much easier than 17.5% that's for sure. Equally will Labour reverse this? No they won't. Will they put up taxes for middle incomes? Probably. Will they put fuel duty up? Probably? But hey they can fund the country by taxing bankers (large amounts of which will simply move offshore to avoid it).
I say this though, I still expect Labour to be in power in a months time though I would like to be wrong. I'm disappointed with the lot of them and it is telling how many people are. There is not a great amount to choose from at the moment. There's clearly not much that supports your view BST and not that much that supports mine. I have just about made my mind up (which is largely irrelevant in a super safe seat) but I won't deny that the Tory campaign has been poor, Labour lack ideas and ideology, the Lib Dems perhaps talk the most sense in a lot of areas but are largely unvotable, UKIP make sense in some areas but are just far too right wing and talk rubbish in some others. As for the Greens, well they just live on a different planet, or at least seem to prefer to.
Essentially, it's not a good bunch! I keep waiting for somebody to do something game changing and it hasn't happened.
-
bst....
I know mate and I respect your opinion...But reality is that the vast majority of business in this country do not want Labour back in wether it be big or small and you will be hard pressed to argue that point ..I believe it would be a disaster for this Country..Personally I think the torys have done a admirable job of putting this country into the economic position its in..I wont forget that treasury letter that said "sorry theres no money left" left for the tory incumbent by his Labour counterpart...The last two years I have given 3 and 5% rises to my 28 staff...It's my firm belief if Labour get in they will be back to 1% again as they borrow and borrow...
In truth one of my biggest issues is that in there last term..Labour made financial descisions that had most economists scratching there head with the incompetence of it all..The gold one I mentioned above which if the common man knew how much that crazy descision cost would be aghast is just one example...And with Balls and Milliband the faces haven't changed nor has the brain...If labour do get a coalition with there friends from across the border who seem destined to want to rule us, The very next day you watch how the footsie100 and Aim markets react and I bet you a pre match steak dinner it wont be positive..
-
Oh dear. Labour not doing very well in the marginals.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
-
bst....
I know mate and I respect your opinion...But reality is that the vast majority of business in this country do not want Labour back in wether it be big or small and you will be hard pressed to argue that point ..I believe it would be a disaster for this Country..Personally I think the torys have done a admirable job of putting this country into the economic position its in..I wont forget that treasury letter that said "sorry theres no money left" left for the tory incumbent by his Labour counterpart...The last two years I have given 3 and 5% rises to my 28 staff...It's my firm belief if Labour get in they will be back to 1% again as they borrow and borrow...
In truth one of my biggest issues is that in there last term..Labour made financial descisions that had most economists scratching there head with the incompetence of it all..The gold one I mentioned above which if the common man knew how much that crazy descision cost would be aghast is just one example...And with Balls and Milliband the faces haven't changed nor has the brain...If labour do get a coalition with there friends from across the border who seem destined to want to rule us, The very next day you watch how the footsie100 and Aim markets react and I bet you a pre match steak dinner it wont be positive..
Wing Co
From the figures I've seen, the very biggest cost of that decision might be judged at £8bn. That's assuming that the Treasury had the wisdom of Solomon and sold that amount of gold at the very height of the market instead of when they actually did.
OK. I'll accept that. It's equivalent to about 0.4% of GDP.
Perspective. The OBR reckon that the Austerity we had in 2010-12 has cost us as a nation about £100bn through lost output. There are very many economists who think this is a grossly conservative figure. The biggest estimate I have seen is about £300bn. That's somewhere between 5-15% of GDP.
And Osborne is planning the same spending cuts over the first 3 years of the next Parliament!
And you wonder why I want this lot out.
-
With figures like that Bst you would think British business would be clamouring for a Labour government but they have no business support at all zip...?? So Why do you explain how the Tory's can get endless big and small businesses backing but Labour cant produce one letter of business support..You could argue zero hours contracts which was a big labour push a few weeks ago,until someone reminded them about the amount of zero hours contracts offered by labour councils that is ? You can produce predictions and calculations like the one above all you like but the cure sometimes needs a bit of pain, but our economy is in miles better shape because of Austerity..I know my business is...
I try and keep an opened mind on these things...However if Millipede and Balls are the very best Labour has to offer I wouldn't want to trust them with my kids pocket money...
-
Wing Co.
I despair at this comment: "You can produce predictions and calculations like the one above all you like but the cure sometimes needs a bit of pain, but our economy is in miles better shape because of Austerity". By what measure do you conclude that we are in better shape BECAUSE OF Austerity?
By coincidence, Simon Wren-Lewis has been talking about exactly this topic over the past few days in his series on macro-economic myths. Here's what he has to say today.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-7-strong-recovery.html
What you call "a bit of pain" is actually an utterly unprecedented collapse in productivity growth. The graph at the start of that blog scares the living daylights out of me. It says that something has happened over the past 7 years that appears to have permanently knocked us off the path of increasing productivity that we had been on since the War (in fact, as S W-L has shown in another post, since the 1820s http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/disaster.html )
Now, you can argue the toss about what the cause of that productivity collapse is. You can argue that is was down to Labour wrecking the economy. You can argue that it was down to the Coalition wrecking the recovery. What you CANNOT say (at least you can't find evidence to support saying) is that we're in great shape now as a result of the decisions that have been made by the Coalition. We've had growth. Eventually. But the growth we've had is totally unprecedented. It's come because we have more people doing lower value, lower productivity work, not because our economy is more productive. That is an appalling situation to be in, because it says that we've gone onto a trajectory that will make us significantly poorer over the next generation. If there was ANY evidence that we have had to go through a "bit of pain" to sort this out, but that going through that pain, we HAVE sorted it out, I'd be on your side of the argument. But there is none. Not a scrap. We took a decision in 2010 that went against the sort of basic economics that is taught to first year undergraduate students. We carried on that experiment for 2 years, with disastrous results. We then changed tack and went to a slightly more conventional approach. We got moderate growth as a result, but we have not come remotely close to making up the gap that we allowed to build up while we were experiencing that "bit of pain". Everything has panned out EXACTLY as the basic economic textbooks say it should. And now, Osborne is telling us that he's going to do EXACTLY the same thing again if he's Chancellor after 7 May.
I'll bet YOU a pre-match steak dinner that if he DOES get a chance to implement that policy, and if he DOES cut as hard as he says he will over the next 3 years, those productivity graphs will continue to flat-line. I wonder how long that would need to go on before someone would admit that mistakes have been made?
-
Back on to election(maybe we should have an election thread?), polls really quite split today showing they don't really know.
Few things came up, stamp duty one, not so sure it'll make much difference to getting first time buyers in to new homes. Rent controls is another and I'm still unsure on how that works well really it's certainly messy but all parties need to do something to address the market issues.
The Tories then have a letter from small businesses. Bit of tokenism there, but really is anyone inspired by any of this?
-
It is clear from reading between the lines of this debate that whoever gets in under whatever name the electorates wishes are going to be ignored with some sleazy back room deal.Austerity will continue, food banks will become the norm and the bankers will continue to make money.Thats why I will be voting TUSC
-
Oh dear. Latest poll in Scotland shows the SNP will win every seat in Scotland. 54% for SNP and only a pathetic 20% for Labour.
-
I really hope that Cameron's (or more likely his campaign manager's) adoption of trying to portray himself as a descamisado blows up in his face when people realise what a marketing con it is.
-
Cameron looks like the old boxing champion who has taken one too many hits, and will be glad to retire, it's only in the last few days he has put any effort in, it's as though he has had a b..locking.
He seems resigned to his fate of losing, as though he already knows that is beyond him to get back in.
I have heard it said of Cameron that he only puts in the effort when he really has to, hence he has become more assertive in the last few days because the polls refuse to budge.
It was noticeable that in the three debates before the last GE that he performed better as they went on. Although in many ways the damage was done in the first one when Clegg ran rings around him.
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
-
Has anyone mentioned Labour's PFI's debts yet....?
It is estimated that we (the taxpayers) will end up paying five times over for building projects funded by Private Finance Initiative deals commissioned by the last Labour government.
Great deals arranged by Labour that we are still saddled with.
New analysis shows that the 544 PFI projects agreed under Labour will cost every working family in the country an average of nearly £15,000 each, even though the original building cost stands at just over £3,000.
-
MM
How "new" is that "new analysis"?
Only the Telegraph used precisely your words 5 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8225864/Labours-PFI-debt-will-cost-five-times-as-much-Conservatives-claim.html
And the "new analysis" was actually done by one Tory MP, not an independent economics analyst.
Owt else to add?
-
Has anyone mentioned Labour's PFI's debts yet....?
It is estimated that we (the taxpayers) will end up paying five times over for building projects funded by Private Finance Initiative deals commissioned by the last Labour government.
Great deals arranged by Labour that we are still saddled with.
New analysis shows that the 544 PFI projects agreed under Labour will cost every working family in the country an average of nearly £15,000 each, even though the original building cost stands at just over £3,000.
Ignore silly Billy. He'd argue black was white if he thought he could get away with it. Labour used PFI to keep the costs off the balance sheet. They weren't bothered it was vastly expensive. I've dealt with this issue comprehensively in the FAOIC1967 thread. You won't be surprised to know silly Billy tries to defend this national disgrace.
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
-
I think we might be getting to a point where UK wide polls are about as useful in Scotland as they are in Northern Ireland.
If the Labour vote really is migrating to the SNP north of the border then one would expect that to be reflected in a lower percentage for Labour in UK wide polls. However, it might also mean that they are doing better in England and Wales than the UK polling suggests.
My feeling is still that we'll wake up to a Hung Parliament a week today. I'm still unsure as to which will be the larger of the two main parties. I lean slightly towards the Tories having marginally more seats than Labour.
-
Now I am not an expert pollster like wot u is Mick, but even I can see the trend here. You support UKIP - their polling rating goes down. You support Labour - their polling rating goes down. Any chance of you switching to the Tories before next Thursday?
-
Really not looking good for Labour!
-
They are being wiped off the face of the map.
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
I told you so. Read the above post and weep all you lefties. I've made a fortune betting on that result.
Now I'd be grateful if all those people that doubted the voice of reason get in line and get your abject apologies sorted.
The title of the thread said it all. It ran for a long time with many thousands of views. This is conclusive prof that I know what I am on about. In future it would take a very brave person indeed to doubt me.
Get in.
-
I think it has become very clear that despite what Milliband expected oh and BST for that matter..Labour has been rejected in every area it fought..Dress it up how you like but for a party to perform as badly as that against a unpopular government due to Austerity..Labour really couldn't have done any worse...The bottom line is there are two reasons "People don't forget what they did last time" but for me people think they have drifted to far centre right..They don't see them as a socialist alternative....
-
WingCo
I think it's actually much worse for Labour that you say. They have lost in three different directions
Soctland and a fair fraction of the English working class see them as economically too right wing.
The aspiration English lower middle class see them as too right wing
The liberal middle class see them as too authoritarian/not green enough.
That's very similar to the problem that the Tories had in the early 2000s, when they were seen as not being right wing enough by their core voters, and as too right wing by everyone else.
The only thing that brought the Tories to power in 2010 was the recession. it was nothing that the Tories did explicitly. They were the beneficiaries of events. The only way I can see Labour being remotely competitive in 2020 is if so similarly catastrophic event screws the Tories. Something like a Black Wednesday, or a global collapse. Personally, whatever my own political preferences, I would never want that to befall the country.
I'll put my hand up. I called this spectacularly wrong. Sometimes, you've got to be a big enough man to put your hand up and admit that.
-
I think it's a mix of things. When it comes down to it people haven't forgotten the economic problems and the Tory rhetoric of blaming labour is a strong line of attack.
Secondly, no matter what people say, the style of ed is an issue and he can be seen as weak, people just don't trust him or his team.
Furthermore, the Lib vote didn't go to labour and UKIP didn't hurt the Tories much more than labour, something I had predicted .
still astounding that Cameron has increased his vote share and number of seats after all the flack they've taken. When it comes down to it the country is more Tory than we think. I thought it wasn't the best campaign by them and I say that as a Tory voter. But it has worked and they're gonna get a very small majority it seems. If they get boundary changes through its a big plus for them in 2020 under a new leader
-
There are many reasons why Labour lost. The main one is that the English do not like socialism. Blair understood this but Milliband didn't.
Another major reason was the lack of an in out EU referendum.
I could go on.
-
At least we now know we've got 5 more years of austerity measures, an health service thats gonna be even more on its arse than it is now, true unemployment figures hidden by employers abusing zero hour contracts, fat greedy tories getting fatter and greedier, graduates leaving uni with massive student loan debts. The future bright isn't it?
Get in!
I'm not bitter though..
-
At least we now know we've got 5 more years of austerity measures, an health service thats gonna be even more on its arse than it is now, true unemployment figures hidden by employers abusing zero hour contracts, fat greedy tories getting fatter and greedier, graduates leaving uni with massive student loan debts. The future bright isn't it?
Get in!
I'm not bitter though..
No but you are very deluded. We have not had austerity. In case you didn't know the National Debt doubled under the coalition. This can by no means be described as austerity.
-
The polls didn't help labour I think it encouraged more Tories to vote
-
Farage fails to win his seat.
So, assuming that he sticks to his promise to step-down if he didn't win, that's three leaders of the four largest parties in votes resigning, plus the Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Foreign Secretary and Cabinet ministers like the Chief Secretary, BIS and Energy all gone. I can't recall there EVER being a cull of leading politicians like that in a single election in the last 100 years.
-
Farage and Clegg both resigned. Is there a stand out candidate to replace Ed? Probably not. Chuka may be favourite and he's useless.
-
Farage and Clegg both resigned. Is there a stand out candidate to replace Ed? Probably not. Chuka may be favourite and he's useless.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next Labour leader is Mrs Balls, aka Yvette Cooper. Mind you, she always looks as though she's sucking a particularly sour lemon, so that might turn voters off.
-
At least we now know we've got 5 more years of austerity measures, an health service thats gonna be even more on its arse than it is now, true unemployment figures hidden by employers abusing zero hour contracts, fat greedy tories getting fatter and greedier, graduates leaving uni with massive student loan debts. The future bright isn't it?
Get in!
I'm not bitter though..
No but you are very deluded. We have not had austerity. In case you didn't know the National Debt doubled under the coalition. This can by no means be described as austerity.
Got it...
-
At least we now know we've got 5 more years of austerity measures, an health service thats gonna be even more on its arse than it is now, true unemployment figures hidden by employers abusing zero hour contracts, fat greedy tories getting fatter and greedier, graduates leaving uni with massive student loan debts. The future bright isn't it?
Get in!
I'm not bitter though..
Never understood why people have an issue with having to pay for a university education. A degree enhances your earning potential, therefore why should you benefit from this for nothing? A student loan is just a graduate tax, it isn't a millstone around necks given you pay it back when you afford it.
The loans aren't the issue, the issue is the dumbing down of the university system allowing anyone to go and studying the most mickey mouse of subjects - but then of course, they won't get any further in life with their degree and will have their loan written off when they never earnt enough to breach the thresholds. The only losers are the tax payers that are part funding a piss up!
-
Farage fails to win his seat.
So, assuming that he sticks to his promise to step-down if he didn't win, that's three leaders of the four largest parties in votes resigning, plus the Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Foreign Secretary and Cabinet ministers like the Chief Secretary, BIS and Energy all gone. I can't recall there EVER being a cull of leading politicians like that in a single election in the last 100 years.
Farage has very broadly hinted that he will resign but stand again for the leadership. So much for saying that the party had to have a leader in the Commons which was why he would have to go if her didn't win...!
-
At least we now know we've got 5 more years of austerity measures, an health service thats gonna be even more on its arse than it is now, true unemployment figures hidden by employers abusing zero hour contracts, fat greedy tories getting fatter and greedier, graduates leaving uni with massive student loan debts. The future bright isn't it?
Get in!
I'm not bitter though..
Never understood why people have an issue with having to pay for a university education. A degree enhances your earning potential, therefore why should you benefit from this for nothing? A student loan is just a graduate tax, it isn't a millstone around necks given you pay it back when you afford it.
The loans aren't the issue, the issue is the dumbing down of the university system allowing anyone to go and studying the most mickey mouse of subjects - but then of course, they won't get any further in life with their degree and will have their loan written off when they never earnt enough to breach the thresholds. The only losers are the tax payers that are part funding a piss up!
I would advocate full or partial funding for students in subjects the country needs more people qualified in, to attract more students to those areas.
-
I wouldn't.
Ultimately I believe that people should be in jobs that they feel passionate about, all you would do in that scenario is throw money at people to go down one career path despite their heart not being fully in it. You see it quite a lot with teachers, finish their degrees, don't know what to do in life so do a PGCE because they get it funded and end up teaching a subject their heart isn't in and it is the kids that suffer...
-
Agree with you jenny,so many people go to uni for the lifestyle as such and end up cing out with nothing
-
The huge increase in people going to uni was a Labour ploy to keep them off the dole figures.
-
The huge increase in people going to uni was a Labour ploy to keep them off the dole figures.
And getting people to advance their education rather than draw dole is of course much worse than using zero-hours contracts to get people of the dole queue...
-
All the parties use zero hour contracts thou,how can you not?if you make it a law not to have them then firms just won't employ anyone and make do,they are fAr from perfect but better than nothing
-
Right. I've got a question for all you lefties. Where the hell are all the abject apologies?
I alone predicted a Tory majority. You lefties thought I was an idiot. The very least I deserve is boatloads of praise for getting it so right.
Get on with it. You know you should.
-
You miss my point bpoolrover. I only used zero-hours contracts to put into context the absurdity of Mick's point about labour using university to get people off the dole.
-
You miss my point bpoolrover. I only used zero-hours contracts to put into context the absurdity of Mick's point about labour using university to get people off the dole.
Waffling on about zero hours contracts is absurd. A tiny proportion of workers are on them. The vast majority of workers prefer them to a 'normal' contract.
It's about time you lefties started putting the employer first for a change.
-
The "zero hours" argument was wasted on 95% of the population. What the hell was it all about , was he deliberately thrown a curved ball by the strategists. People want to know about the economy as a whole surely...it was bizarre !
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html
So it begins...
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html
So it begins...
That's why it needed diluting - many thanks to the people of the South - West who ensured that the Tories now can run the country without the checks and balances that the Lib/Dems supplied :mad:
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
Bang on the money Mick and I hope you had some on the result ?
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
Bang on the money Mick and I hope you had some on the result ?
I did. I made a fortune. I kept drip feeding money on this bet over many months. Regular readers of this forum will know I've been predicting a Tory majority for years. Unbelievably I managed to get 18/1 on the day of the election (I put £1000 on). (Labour were 80/1).
I could even have taken hundreds off silly Billy when he challenged me to a bet ages ago when Labour were miles ahead in the polls. I accepted his 'bet' then let him off when it transpired he wasn't betting at all. All he was going to do was divert some of his charitable givings if he lost.
Get in.
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
Bang on the money Mick and I hope you had some on the result ?
Hoola. Is this the same MadMick who has spent a month telling us there was going to be a hung parliament with the Tories 40 seats short of a majority and the outcome being a Labour/SNP Govt?
-
Oh dear. Ipsos MORI had Labour 2 points ahead last week. They've now got the Tories ahead by 5 points! 35% to 30%.
I think we should beware of a single poll that shows a sudden shift like that. There will be plenty of other polls over the weekend so we can see if this represents the start of a trend.
I want Labour to win but have detected a significant shift to the Tories. For example UK Polling Report now has The Tories ahead in their poll of polls. This has only just happened. There have also been a spate of polls recently showing big Tory leads.
It is clear to me that the Tories are on the up and Labour are on the way down. Unfortunately Ed did very badly in the Question Time debate last night and Dave did much better. I think this is going to have a significant impact on the way the undecideds decide to vote.
I hope I'm wrong but after detailed analysis I still predict an overall Tory majority.
Bang on the money Mick and I hope you had some on the result ?
Hoola. Is this the same MadMick who has spent a month telling us there was going to be a hung parliament with the Tories 40 seats short of a majority and the outcome being a Labour/SNP Govt?
Tbf Billy his quote is from 1st May but I grant he suggested other alternatives. Yesterday was a bad bad result. It was caused by the rise of both UKIP (peddling anti- European / Immigration crap) And the SNP ( also peddling rubbish to the Scottish electorate) .
I was almost physically sick when I saw that slip of a lass unseating Douglas Alexander. My God what a mess for the Union and for future dealings with Europe !!
However Cameron has got major problems on his hands and there isn't even an effective Opposition to cast their eye over future legislation.
Folk have to realise that we don't have "truly" poor people in this country anymore. Neither do we have far left or right parties. God help us all when they fiddle with the electoral boundary changes too. :(
-
Hoola, stop massaging his ego. He makes "predictions" like a monkey w**king off over a typewriter. Some of them are bound to be right.
Months ago he was predicting that Jeremy Clarkson was going to stand against Miliband. Then Farage was going to do so. And beat Miliband. And that UKIP were going to take tens off seats off Labour across the North. He predicted a Tory majority. Then a Tory minority Govt. Then a Labour minority Govt.
It's a personality defect. He hasn't got the first f**king idea what happens outside his bedroom, but he has a overwhelming need to be able to claim that he is right. So he spurts out predictions like a masturbating simian and when one comes up, he crows about his success.
What grown ups do is to try to assess how the future will work out. And when they get it wrong, like I did, badly, about this election outcome, they are man enough to put their hand up and admit it.
Stop helping him in his self-abuse and there's just the outside chance he might grow up.
-
I know where you are coming from and will bear your advice in mind. However on this occasion he WAS right. The failure of the party that I support makes me sick to my stomach... You must feel the same eh ?
Credit must go grudgingly to the Tory strategists who played with the electorate and their fears. I think that the electorate believed that William Wallace and his hordes were coming down south to rape and pillage :(
-
I know where you are coming from and will bear your advice in mind. However on this occasion he WAS right. The failure of the party that I support makes me sick to my stomach... You must feel the same eh ?
Credit must go grudgingly to the Tory strategists who played with the electorate and their fears. I think that the electorate believed that William Wallace and his hordes were coming down south to rape and pillage :(
We need a modern day Duke of Cumberland to put down the Scottish Rebelion :)
-
I know where you are coming from and will bear your advice in mind. However on this occasion he WAS right. The failure of the party that I support makes me sick to my stomach... You must feel the same eh ?
Credit must go grudgingly to the Tory strategists who played with the electorate and their fears. I think that the electorate believed that William Wallace and his hordes were coming down south to rape and pillage :(
We need a modern day Duke of Cumberland to put down the Scottish Rebelion :)
Haha just cut them adrift and stop subsidising them ...that will sort it.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html
So it begins...
It says its to be capped, but the headline says cut.
-
Gaz
Caps on individuals' funding, resulting in an overall cut in funding.
-
Gaz
Caps on individuals' funding, resulting in an overall cut in funding.
May I remind everyone we are still borrowing many billions to fund such schemes. We can't currently afford the level of welfare we've got. Tough decisions have to be made to get us living within our means. If we weren't paying so much in interest thanks to Labour then maybe this scheme would not have to be affected.
In future I'd be grateful if anyone that is going to complain about cuts could explain how they would avoid this. I do not want to hear the answer that we should just borrow more money or tax the rich more. WE are already borrowing far too much and the rich are already paying more than their fair share of tax. Taxing them more would be counter productive.