Support NeoGAF

[CHEEZMO™]

Qatada out? Thank God that embarrassment is over.

 

[Jezbollah]

Interesting day today:

As predicted, IMF raises British growth forecast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23241500

And Ed is trying some damage limitation vs the current Union issues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23234340

 

[Miles Quaritch]

MP pay rise goes through. Looks like they'll be getting 7.5k extra a year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23262503

Don't worry though, we're all in it together...

Now for other news,

Families caring for loved ones with cancer, or looking after a severely disabled child, are facing debt and eviction as a result of the bedroom tax, says a study.

Although ministers promised financial support to help vulnerable carers and disabled social housing tenants affected, the cash aid available is inadequate to meet demand and being heavily rationed, according to the charity Carers UK.

As few as one in 10 carers are qualifying for ongoing support from the £25m discretionary payments fund set up by the government to help disabled tenants affected by the bedroom tax.

One in six of the carers interviewed by Carers UK over the first 100 days of the bedroom tax reported that they face eviction after falling behind on the rent.

Three quarters of carers having to pay the tax – called the "spare room supplement" by ministers – said meeting the tax meant they had cut back on spending on food, electricity and heating.

The study, which covered 100 carers affected by the changes, found local authorities were drawing up tight rationing criteria to eke out local discretionary support funds.

One family reported that council officials had rejected their claim for support on the basis that the family were allegedly spending £100 a week on food, whereas officials deemed £75 was enough to get by. The family said £75 a week was equivalent in their case to a food budget of £3.60 per person per day.

Councils have been asking applicants to fill in long forms detailing household expenditure.

Although some carers were receiving help for up to 12 months many were getting assistance for just a few weeks, after which they would be asked to re-apply for help.

Under the bedroom tax, introduced for social housing tenants in April, households deemed to be "under-occupying" their homes face spare room penalties of up to £700 a year.

Households who cannot afford to make up the shortfall face having to move, although in many areas no suitable smaller homes are available, forcing tenants to take the financial hit.

The government's own impact assessment estimates 420,000 disabled tenants are affected by the bedroom tax.

Helena Herklotz, chief executive of Carers UK, said the policy was having a "shocking" impact on families already struggling to care for disabled relatives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/10/carers-debt-eviction-bedroom-tax

 

[CyclopsRock]

The pay thing was such a cop out. It SHOULD be controlled by parliament, precisely to avoid stuff like this (or, rather, so you can choose who to vote for based on what they chose to do with their own salary). The problem currently is that no one is accountable for this decision - the government is ultimately responsible for the pay of every public servant except themselves, whom they have NO control over, and therefore we have no control over it, either.

On another subject, does anyone have any issues they just flat out don't care about? We're all politically minded and fairly up to speed on current affairs, but are there any areas of policy that you just don't care about? I have two; Abortion and Northern Ireland. I just can't get worked up about either.

 

[Acorn]

Hmm, this is quite interesting.

David Cameron needs to consider proposals such as increasing the minimum wage and tackling "rip-off Britain" to widen the appeal of the Conservatives, a new party group says.

David Skelton, who is setting up Renewal, said the Conservatives could become the new "workers' party" but they would need fresh policies to attract support in regions where they currently struggle.

Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary and one of the very few Tory MPs from a working-class background, said he was supporting the Renewal initiative because he felt there should be no such thing as a "traditional Tory" background.

Skelton, a former deputy director of the Policy Exchange thinkthank, said he was launching Renewal to come up with ways of making the Conservative party more attractive to working-class and ethnic minority voters predominantly living in northern towns.

According to his analysis, the Conservatives hold just 20 of the 124 urban seats in the north of England and the Midlands.

These figures also reflect the party's weakness among public sector workers and ethnic minority voters. Households with both adults working in the public sector vote Labour ahead of the Conservatives by a 32-point margin, and non-whites vote Labour ahead of the Conservatives by a 52-point margin.

A Renewal pamphlet published on Monday, called Beyond the Party of the Rich, suggests various policies that might help to address the problem. They include: increasing the minimum wage and using lower employment taxes to make this affordable for businesses; getting a minister to tackle "rip-off Britain" by clamping down on overcharging by utility companies, train companies and mobile phone networks; cutting energy bills by abolishing the renewable energy target; and freezing or cutting fuel duty until 2015.

Skelton said: "As the Labour party becomes 'latte-fied' and ever more out of touch with its traditional working-class support base, the Conservatives can fill the gap to become the new 'workers' party'.

"The Conservatives have already changed under David Cameron's leadership and his changes were enough to give the party its biggest swing since 1931, but not quite enough to push it over the line to an overall majority. The party must go further and send out a clear message that it stands up for the many, not the privileged few."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/david-cameron-tories-working-class

 

[Nicktendo86]

Hmm, this is quite interesting.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/david-cameron-tories-working-class

They really need to take this on board and implement his ideas.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Renewal are quite interesting. They're also pushing to further Ed's reforms to mean that not only are party-contributions via unions opt-in, but also that they have a choice other than Labour - which, when you think about it, is pretty indefensible. Though, at that point, Labour would have to confront the question of why the unions would have a block vote any more since all the union members are basically the same as "normal" members.

 

[Nicktendo86]

So I see the Govmt are stopping the Liverpool pathway thing, good riddance I say after seeing my nan suffer having been put on it and having to watch her die slowly over a week.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Just looking through the Guardian results. Some pretty bad figures hidden in there. Yes, cash increased by a huge amount, but it was achieved by selling subsidiaries and a big decrease in non-current assets, though that was offset by a favourable valuation of their ~30% stake in Top Right Group.

The Guardian as a newspaper is finished, iPhone subscribers are down to 57k, iPad subscriptions are barely rising. They are relying more heavily on advertising income and after their whole digital push, they still only derive 28% of their revenue from digital operations, that's just sad. IMO they brought it on themselves by lambasting News International for sticking up a paywall as that perpetuated the sense of entitlement their readers have to free news media access which in turn has made it much harder for them to convert their readers into paying subscribers for the iPhone and iPad apps. They also haven't got a coherent strategy to roll out on Android with proper paid subscriptions either, and Android now holds 60% of market share for smartphones in the UK. The Guardian's obsession with Apple and iPhone is now hurting them financially. Seriously they need to have a paid Android phone and tablet app out tomorrow and make a big deal about it on their website, give it away for a while to get Android owners hooked in. Right now leaving iOS as the only way to pay for their paper digitally is definitely hurting them.

All in all, there is a path out for them, but they need to be more aggressive and put up a paywall like the Telegraph, limited free access, paid subscription for full access as that would still allow them to maintain some relevancy on the internet and keep advertising revenues up unlike the Times.

Some figures for digital subscriptions:

iPhone revenue - £450000
iPad revenue - £3,300,000

Compared to the Times which last I had heard crossed 120,000 paying subscribers with ARPS at ~ £130. What's more is that the paywalls at both the Times and Telegraph is working to slow the descent of newspaper sales, the former is down by just 2.3% YoY and the latter is down by just 4.6% YoY. The Guardian, who don't have a paywall for the main website have sales down by 11.6% YoY.

Interesting times for news media in the UK. I think by the end of the year it will just be the BBC and Daily Mail that remain free for unlimited reading (I think the BBC may even put up a paywall for non UK visitors given the heavy cost burden it has for them).

 

[Nicktendo86]

Speaking of the Guardian read this morning that they have posted the latest ICM poll which puts the Tories level pegging with labour at 36%, apparently the UKIP vote has folded. Surely nightmare scenario for Labour?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Speaking of the Guardian read this morning that they have posted the latest ICM poll which puts the Tories level pegging with labour at 36%, apparently the UKIP vote has folded. Surely nightmare scenario for Labour?

That's true, but at the same time the latest YouGov have Labour ahead by 11% - polls gonna poll.

 

[Nicktendo86]

That's true, but at the same time the latest YouGov have Labour ahead by 11% - polls gonna poll.

Very true.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

So Andy Burnham has skipped his C4 news interview after he got an absolute roasting from GAF's favourite MP at the dispatch box (Jeremy Hunt). With the last PMQ's before the summer break on tomorrow it might be that Burnham is gone tonight or tomorrow morning as Ed seeks to limit the damage. He can't have a whole summer of revelations about Labour's NHS failures and the Tories possibly fixing it, that pretty much blows out Labour's single strong policy area ("our NHS"). In all other areas they are behind the Tories when it comes to public opinion (Economy, Education, Immigration and Jobs) so to lose this last policy area back to the Tories after Cameron's ill fated backing of the reorganisation would be pretty bad for Labour and Ed because they will have no policy area on which to fight a GE and start out as the party of choice.

It may be that all parties will be seen as equally untrustworthy over the NHS once this shakes out, but that is still a net loss for Labour. They won't be able to campaign on "save our NHS from the evil Tory bastards" any longer because every single time they say that the Tories will just say 13,000 people died unnecessarily because Labour and the health secretary didn't listen to the advisers and patients. That single, terrible fact pretty much ends Labour's NHS record.

 

[TCRS]

Damn shame about the Guardian. Not the biggest fan of them, but I don't want to see them gone either. Balance in public opinion and in informing the public is important.

On another topic:

WHERE IS THE DAMN BABY? I thought Kate was due last weekend.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Can I file ROYYYLLL BAYHBI in my "shit I dont care about" folder?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yep, labour's 'safeguarding' of the NHS is being torn apart. If the Tories bring on some of those pro working people policies like up the min wage etc labour will look even more irrelevant.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Yep, labour's 'safeguarding' of the NHS is being torn apart. If the Tories bring on some of those pro working people policies like up the min wage etc labour will look even more irrelevant.

It's coming. A lot of private polling is being done by the Conservatives on this subject and they want to craft a policy that people respond to and one that will be popular with businesses as well. Personally I would look at landlords and the private rental market, possibly bring in some kind of capping of rent charged over and above a 5% yield for the street or property value. Something like that to bring rents down and help people with the cost of living while hitting a few wealthy property owners who can just whine about it and make themselves look stupid.

 

[Maledict]

If they honestly did something to help people renting in London that could shift a lot of seats their way. London's a labour stronghold like all the cities but its got to be easier to flip than say Liverpool or Leeds. Given its one of the few major cities in the West without rent control it would certainly impact a lot on my life and most of the people I know.

 

[Jezbollah]

One by one, you can see the start of a domino effect coming into place for a Conservative win at the election. This is fascinating to see play out some 22 months out from polling day.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Decent set of employment figures today, reversing the recent trend of rising unemployment and the claimant count keeps falling. 22k off benefits over the last month which is a nice, so far from the peak to now around 150,000. A lot of people have also been moved off incapacity benefits onto JSA at the same time, so over the year around 300,000 people have been shifted off one type of benefit or another.

Now the jobs drive needs to pick up further, as a country we need to get another 500,000 people off unemployment benefits and a million people off housing benefits. That would yield a saving of around £10bn a year from the benefits bill and bring the finances closer to sustainability.

Finally, a word on pensions. Something needs to be done, and soon, to make the state pension sustainable, right now it is a ponzi scheme which always requires more people to be paying in than taking out, or heavy borrowing by HMT to keep it going. We need to end pensioner bonuses like the winter payments, free TV licences, and free bus passes, that would save £3-4bn per year straight away. Then pensions need to be frozen in real terms for around 10 years for those who haven't paid into the pot and the pension age needs to rise to 72 by the end of 2030 (gain one year for every two that pass). People are living longer, it means that there is either going to be less money to go around, or punitive taxation on people who have jobs (our generation).

 

[Maledict]

Unless we get a "Nixon goes to China" moment there's no way the conservatives are going to be bold enough to fix the problem with the cost of free benefits to wealthy pensioners. It's their largest voting block and they are'n't going to push against that given everything they have already gone through and how tenuous things look for 2015.

Anyone reckon Ed Milliband will be gone by the end of the year? I still think the only Labour front bencher who can present a real threat to the Tories is Yvette Cooper, although how damaged she is by her husband is an interesting question.

EDIT: Falling unemployment numbers is good, but we're still looking to have another 500K or so jobs gone from local government in the next two years so that's a horrendous backdrop to have for the employment stats. The way the coalition government has set out to destroy local government really sets my teeth on edge - smash apart the most efficient of the public services, whilst at the same time ring fencing the part that needs fixing (and I say this as someone whose both parents work for the NHS and who wouldn't have his two sisters alive today if it weren't for the NHS).

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's too late for Ed to go, IMO, even now, let alone at the end of the year. The election is in less than 2 years, and like you say, Labour is seriously lacking talent at the top after the Blairite purge. None of their big hitters are around any more, and Milibands ratings are slowly going up (albeit from an initial position of woeful inadequacy). The ship on kicking him out sailed about 6 months ago, and - unlike the Tories - Labour have scant history of stiffing their leaders. It took years of discontent to get rid of Blair. Usually they have to lose several elections and/or die before they get a new leader.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Heathrow 3rd runway proposal out today.

Three options, first option is a smaller runway to the north, cheapest but has the highest number of homes destroyed. The second option (and preferred I believe) is to the north west, full length runway fewer homes destroyed, low environmental impact, reduction of people in 57db noise envelope and a medium complexity build. The third option is the most expensive and complex and it is the most environmentally damaging, seems like a time wasting option.

The second option would be completed by 2026(!) and cost £17bn, of which they would expect the taxpayer to stump £4-6bn and additional loan guarantees as well. Pretty cheap IMO. What's more is that the NW solution has the ability to add a fourth runway for little to no environmental, monetary and noise pollution cost. If NW isn't the preferred option then I really don't know why they would pick a different one. Economically it makes the most sense and it delivers long term expandability without too much additional fuss since it is a dual runway solution like we have atm.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1613&SizeId=-1

The government need to approve it in 2015 when they get elected (Lab or Tory). It's not even that expensive tbh, and BAA delivered the 5th terminal on time and on budget, we shouldn't blame them for BA's luggage fuck ups.

Build the NW option by 2023 and have it operational earlier than scheduled and then get planning permission for the dual NW solution by the end of 2030 so that by 2040 it can be ready.

Heathrow is in the wrong place, and it's noisy, but it's basically the only solution we have unless we want the government to plough £30-40bn into a new airport and watch the prices of our tickets go up as investors try and make their money back on landing fees.

 

[Jezbollah]

I still think the best option for a new hub airport is in the midlands. Something on par with Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport. London already has six airports (if you count Southend, which is undergoing rapid expansion) - I think it's time to spread the load to a more central location geographically.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I still think the best option for a new hub airport is in the midlands. Something on par with Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport. London already has six airports (if you count Southend, which is undergoing rapid expansion) - I think it's time to spread the load to a more central location geographically.

Heathrow is just about the only airport in the country that's close to capacity, though. I don't think the problem with the lack of flights originating outside of London is due to lack of capacity but rather a lack of demand. I'm not convinced an extra airport in Leeds will help that.

Edit: I know a lot of people travel from around the UK to London in order to get flights to Europe etc which increases the load in London whilst being a pain for people outside of London. But the problem is that no where outside of London has sufficient demand itself for these flights, and the transport links to London are so much better than most other places, for most cities. Which is to say, it's often easier to get to London 200 miles away than a city 100 miles away that's not London.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I still think the best option for a new hub airport is in the midlands. Something on par with Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport. London already has six airports (if you count Southend, which is undergoing rapid expansion) - I think it's time to spread the load to a more central location geographically.

Internationals don't want to fly to Birmingham. They want to fly to London. In the US Atlanta works as a hub because the country is so big, the UK is not that big. If I fly to Seattle from Heathrow, it usually goes via Atlanta. Doesn't bother me in the least. But someone flying from Seattle to the UK doesn't want to land in the middle of nowhere somewhere around Northampton.

The hub needs to be in or near London, that is for sure. People from outside of London don't want to hear it, but this city is the country's greatest asset, and international business people and investors all want to be in London, they have done for centuries.

 

[PJV3]

They should go with Heathrow and they should go for two runways, by the time one is built there will be arguments yet again about expansion.

 

[Jezbollah]

I dont think our public transport infrastructure can handle either a new airport in the south east or an expansion of Heathrow. Just my personal opinion.

For example: Sky News just highlighted the paths of the M25 when combined with all the Heathrow plans announced today. The area of the M25 from the M40 through to the M4 and M3 is an absolute nightmare as it is, even with four to five lanes and a managed motorway in place. Constant traffic jams on a daily basis without any incidents. The work on the M25 alone if they were to expand Heathrow would be a nightmare.

Even expanding Stansted Airport has issues. Having lived in Bishops Stortford for my first 30 years of my life I can say that the rail infrastructure cannot handle it (the London to Cambridge West Anglia line only has two tracks) and the M11 into London is bottlenecked soon after Loughton going onto the North Circular.

I understand that people want to fly into London etc. However it still takes the best part of an hour to get into central London from Heathrow on the Underground. I can see an airport near to HS2 being an appealing option. But what do I know at the end of the day? nothing probably.

 

[Dr Zhivago]

The hub needs to be in or near London, that is for sure. People from outside of London don't want to hear it, but this city is the country's greatest asset, and international business people and investors all want to be in London, they have done for centuries.

This is a bit of a circular argument though. Everything's in London, so everyone wants to go to London, therefore everything gets put in London.
Do other counties suffer from this?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

This is a bit of a circular argument though. Everything's in London, so everyone wants to go to London, therefore everything gets put in London.
Do other counties suffer from this?

For a lot of the stuff we're talking about, London is competing with the likes of Frankfurt, New York, Hong Kong and Shanghai for the business, so it's either the business comes to London or not at all to the UK. I know which situation I prefer.

 

[Jezbollah]

I've got no doubt of that scenario and position - but then as stated before, Heathrow is the only airport of the six around London that is near capacity. I'm not aware of the Luton or Gatwick rail links, but I know Stansted is 35 minutes into Liverpool St if it doesnt stop at Bishops Stortford/Harlow and Tottenham Hale, and Southend is 55 minutes out but can directly interface at Shenfield with Crossrail.

Using existing capacity elsewhere could see at the very least the small capacity aircraft like the Airbus A319s/320s/321s and Boeing 737s use those facilities and allow Heathrow to grow via capacity per landing slot rather than bringing in more flights.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is a bit of a circular argument though. Everything's in London, so everyone wants to go to London, therefore everything gets put in London.
Do other counties suffer from this?

It's actually quite interesting to think about the other countries. You get places like Germany where their cultural and political and economic capitals are different (Berlin and Frankfurt) as well as the US (Washington DC, Cali, New York) and then others where it's all in one mega city (the UK in London, France in Paris, Japan in Tokyo) etc. I don't really know why it happens. Geography, perhaps.

 

[Walshicus]

This is a bit of a circular argument though. Everything's in London, so everyone wants to go to London, therefore everything gets put in London.
Do other counties suffer from this?

I think the more England divorces itself from London the better. England is economically disadvantaged by London-centric policies and the identity divide is near enough a gulf; London is more foreign to England than most of Europe now.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I think the more England divorces itself from London the better. England is economically disadvantaged by London-centric policies and the identity divide is near enough a gulf; London is more foreign to England than most of Europe now.

As a Londoner I say that is a bit over the top.

 

[Maledict]

I think the more England divorces itself from London the better. England is economically disadvantaged by London-centric policies and the identity divide is near enough a gulf; London is more foreign to England than most of Europe now.

Yeah.

Maybe not.

I'm a northerner, born and bred in Lancashire and only moved to London when I was 28. This sort of statement is totally over the top.

London is a huge net contributor for the rest of England. Like it or lump it we aren't going to change how basic economics and business works by pretending London isn't there or throwing up obstacles to making the city work. The best way to increase conditions elsewhere isn't by trying to force business's to go there, but by creating conditions for business to thrive there.

The rest of the country is very adequately serviced by regional airports. Pushing the transatlantic flight out of London wouldn't suddenly bring prosperity and growth to Newcastle, it would just harm London.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Just caught up with some of the other news.

A report commissioned by the Department of Energy think that gas prices will go down by a quarter by 2020 if we tap into shale gas, if not then around a 10% reduction. It also says that household energy spend will increase every year to pay for green subsidies, and that without the subsidies the green energy industry would collapse overnight into a little heap of rubble. However, it gives no recommendation over green subsidies, only pointing out that, so far, they are very poor value for money for households.

Also caught up with PMQs, what a session. Figured Ed would get nailed on the NHS as I mentioned previously, but he got destroyed on Lynton Crosby as well. Labour can't go on political lobbying while they remain in the back pockets of the unions, it will always end with Cameron telling Labour that they got £8m from Unite which bought them their leader and Labour policies. Cameron's defence of Crosby was also pretty smart, pointing out that the Tory party pay him to be an adviser blunts the idea that he is a lobbyist because the relationship is usually reversed in that instance. On the fag packets and minimum alcohol pricing, I was showed some private polling this afternoon which helped me understand why both policies have been dropped. Neither make any difference to the issue and minimum alcohol pricing just hurts the working poor, the very same working poor that Dave will appeal to in 2015. On the fag packets it's a case of irritating those who think the state shouldn't nanny people, again that's a large block of UKIP support that are being courted. It is politics over policy, but in the run up to an election it makes sense. I also liked how Dave smacked Ed with Burnham's letter saying plain fag packets don't make a difference. If Labour support this policy now, then why didn't the shadow health secretary support it when he was the health secretary and introduce it?

I think Labour will head into the summer feeling rather battered and bruised right now, Lynton Crosby seems to have got the Tories in line since he arrived and got the PM and Chancellor focussed on 2015 and getting through the message necessary to win a majority that wasn't achieved last time. There will be a relentless courting of UKIP voters, the working poor and the trendy urban youth in trendy media jobs. That is Crosby's strategy as far as I can tell, and if he pulls it off, he will win power for Dave.

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm quite a fan of PMQs - especially since I work from home. It just feels that for the past couple of months, Cameron has handled anything Ed and co have thrown at him with a much higher degree of ease. Labour's attacks have been soft and easily countered.

Also - Benson and Hedgefunds?

 

[TCRS]

A report commissioned by the Department of Energy think that gas prices will go down by a quarter by 2020 if we tap into shale gas, if not then around a 10% reduction. It also says that household energy spend will increase every year to pay for green subsidies, and that without the subsidies the green energy industry would collapse overnight into a little heap of rubble. However, it gives no recommendation over green subsidies, only pointing out that, so far, they are very poor value for money for households.

The same in Germany. Prices for consumers (who have to subsidise green energy) are increasing, they have almost doubled since 2009 and are way above what was promised. And they are still going to increase because RE is booming. This on the other hand means that conventional power stations are not profitable anymore, but they are still needed for grid stabilty. RE is inherently unstable, because you can't control when the sun is going to shine and when the wind will blow. Currently there are 15 applications to close conventional power stations, but the government can force them to keep them open for grid stabilty. Totally fucked up situation.

This whole RE thing hasn't been thought out properly and is mainly based on ideological grounds. The technology and the infrastructure to use and store RE in an efficient and effective way just isn't ready.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

YouGov have the Tories down by just 5 points. They are recovering in London and the Midlands, as well as with ABC1 and older voters.

If there are no extraordinary events this summer I could see the two main parties heading into conference season neck and neck just as the election campaign bandwagons start to get rolling.

Dat Lynton Crosby effect. Labour are absolutely shit scared of this guy, he has Dave within spitting distance of staying in number 10 on a one day a week consultancy job. When he takes it up full time in December, Labour are in for a world of shit. He won Boris the Mayoralty in London, and I think he can win Dave the election by bringing together a motley crew of voters against welfare, immigration and Labour's economic record.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Dat Lynton Crosby effect. Labour are absolutely shit scared of this guy, he has Dave within spitting distance of staying in number 10 on a one day a week consultancy job. When he takes it up full time in December, Labour are in for a world of shit. He won Boris the Mayoralty in London, and I think he can win Dave the election by bringing together a motley crew of voters against welfare, immigration and Labour's economic record.

Bu bu but fags!

 

[CyclopsRock]

He's definitely having an effect. I don't know if the generally jubilant air around the party is creating the better discipline or vice versa, but it's working.


Labour really need to shift into gear and get their campaign manager sorted now theyve lost Watson. If they delay much longer they'll struggle to give a coherent front come 2015, which is a problem for a party which isn't exactly clear on its positions as it is.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

YouGov have the Tories down by just 5 points. They are recovering in London and the Midlands, as well as with ABC1 and older voters.

You shouldn't use single polls as evidence of anything. YouGov's opinion polls operate within a margin of error of 3 percentage points either way of the reported result, meaning an apparent 5 percentage point lead can be anywhere between a 2 percentage point lead and an 8 percentage point lead - a difference I'm fairly sure you'll agree is important. Polls are useful, but only insofar as trends over several polls are examined rather than the result of a single poll. A rolling five-day average of YouGov's poll gives an average Labour lead of 7%, which while not vastly different would still be significant in terms of repercussions.

If there are no extraordinary events this summer I could see the two main parties heading into conference season neck and neck just as the election campaign bandwagons start to get rolling.

I very much doubt it. Labour has more or less seen no change to voting intention since April. The trend over the last 4 weeks' worth of polls has been an average change of +0.03 percentage points per day, an effectively imperceptible upwards trend. The Conservatives have been reducing the lead thanks to a reduction in UKIP voting intention as would-be UKIP voters return to the fold - the Conservatives are trending upwards at almost exactly the same rate UKIP is trending downwards (probably due to a lack of Europe in the news, I'd guess), and the crossbreak averages also correlate. That doesn't give the Conservatives the room to catch Labour by conference season, as the chances of UKIP giving up a further 7 percentage points is low. That'd go beyond no-news subsidence to total collapse.

To catch Labour, either the Conservatives need to start converting people who currently say they'd vote Labour (or Liberal Democrat, but that'd be much harder since only the party faithful are left), or need a massive collapse in the UKIP base, or need Labour voters either to not vote or vote some other party. None of those things are going to happen on the necessary scale without some significant change or event.

Dat Lynton Crosby effect. Labour are absolutely shit scared of this guy, he has Dave within spitting distance of staying in number 10 on a one day a week consultancy job. When he takes it up full time in December, Labour are in for a world of shit. He won Boris the Mayoralty in London, and I think he can win Dave the election by bringing together a motley crew of voters against welfare, immigration and Labour's economic record.

All I can say is that he has an awful lot of work ahead of him.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ho ho ho

http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/claire-perrys-website-hacked-by-porn-prankers/

 

[Delusibeta]

Ho ho ho

http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/claire-perrys-website-hacked-by-porn-prankers/

Drama on Twitter ensues. Add another name to the list of politicians who publicly demonstrate they don't know how the internet works.

 

[Volotaire]

Ho ho ho

http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/claire-perrys-website-hacked-by-porn-prankers/

Guido really needs to update his website UI/layout its beyond terrible.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23446056

So an encouraging 0.6% growth of GDP in Q2. I will be interested to see how the ONS revises this in the future, given a lot of signs that things are slowly getting better in all sectors.

I have noted that a lot of the news coverage is now comparing the announced figures with that of pre-2008, specifically the large gap in manufacturing and building pre recession (which I think was 10% and 16% respectively). It seems like there's a new angle to the reporting.

 

[Delusibeta]

Farage on the immigration trucks littering 6 boroughs of London: "I think the actual tone of the billboards, it really is Big Brother, nasty, it's unpleasant. I don't think using messaging like this makes any difference, what would make a difference is enforcing our borders properly."

Not sure if clever PR move for the soundbite or if he's being genuine (considering it's Farage, probably the former), but still. When the far right says you're being Big Brother, it might be time to rethink your messaging.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I can't believe someone thought those trucks were a good idea.

Fucking idiots.

 

[Acorn]

I can't believe someone thought those trucks were a good idea.

Fucking idiots.

Its a hilarious waste of MOJ resources, politically though it is quite smart in the current climate. They are being seen to be doing something against an issue that is very unpopular, I wouldn't be surprised if these trucks were being targeted to areas of low income and high social problems.

Set the poor against the poor is generally the theme of this govt and it is working rather swimmingly. Divide and conquer etc etc.

 

[Dambrosi]

So...Cameron trying to be the Lone Ranger for the lawless Wild West Web? Or is he mistaking nostalgia for reality again?

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-filter-will-censor-other-content-too-isps-reveal-130726/

In the last few hours new information has been emerging which reveals that the proposals seen so far are actually only the thin end of a worryingly fat wedge.

The Open Rights Group are reporting that they’ve had a nice little chat with some of the ISPs that will be expected to introduce Cameron’s porn filter. Unsurprisingly the list of websites and content to be blocked by default won’t stop at porn.

ORG speculate on categories of content that might be filtered in future, but for a clearer idea of where we stand today we can take a look at the system currently being operated by ISP TalkTalk. The HomeSafe system, which was singled out for praise by David Cameron earlier this week as leading the way in this field, currently covers several categories as detailed in the image below.

As previously noted, leave the third box ticked and not only will all file-sharing sites be wiped out, but TorrentFreak with them too. Leave the rest of them ticked (note: the government is promising “default on” for all filters) and it’s anyone’s guess what else will disappear. Just like when many novice (or even experienced users) install software, the chances of people simply clicking through, next after next, is extremely high.

After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK's "pornwall" we've established a little bit about what it will be doing. To be fair, the BBC were pretty close.

The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled. As we’ve said repeatedly, it’s not just about hardcore pornography.

You'll encounter something like this:

(1) Screen one

"Parental controls"
Do you want to install / enable parental controls
☑ yes
☐ no

[next]

(2) Screen two [if you have left the box ticked]

“Parental controls”

Do you want to block

☑ pornography
☑ violent material
☑ extremist and terrorist related content
☑ anorexia and eating disorder websites
☑ suicide related websites
☑ alcohol
☑ smoking
☑ web forums
☑ esoteric material
☑ web blocking circumvention tools

You can opt back in at any time

[continue]

The precise pre-ticked options may vary from service to service.

What's clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron.

The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there's not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website's audience.

Yes, I know it's Torrentfreak, and I won't touch on the anti-Huawei paranoia, but still, dat slippery slope.

Sorry to bring this up here, but I don't see it being discussed among the pro-Tory circlejerking in this thread of late. How could any web-savvy voter endorse such blatant censorship?