Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

That Conservative score is well outside the mean established over the last few weeks. I doubt that the reshuffle or any recent political event is large enough to have caused such a dip, so I think that one can probably be chalked up to "odd sample", pending further polls. The long-term mean remains CON 33%/LAB 36%/UKIP 12%/LD 9%/GRN 5%.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yeah it is odd.

So did Ed get to meet Obama today?

 

[Jackpot]

Recent ex-Environment Secretary, a climate change denier, went on a rant against the green lobby. Says Harper and Abbot should be our role-models.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...l/21/paterson-green-blog-right-climate-change

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah it is odd.

So did Ed get to meet Obama today?

I don't know, but I typed "obama ed miliband" into google images and it looks like he already got a picture with the Prez back in 2011.

So I'm not sure why he's bothering...

 

[Nicktendo86]

This is just cringe worthy.
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/miliband-white-house-photo/

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is just cringe worthy.
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/miliband-white-house-photo/

Why? It's three guys walking. You must cringe at an awful lot of things.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Why? It's three guys walking. You must cringe at an awful lot of things.

Not the pictures, the blurb of look out for pictures of a special meeting *wink wink*. There are serious things going on today with a UN vote on the Russians allowing investigators into the plane crash site, the cluskterfuck of Israel/Gaza and Labour are creaming themselves over a photo with Obama like schoolgirls.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Not the pictures, the blurb of look out for pictures of a special meeting *wink wink*. There are serious things going on today with a UN vote on the Russians allowing investigators into the plane crash site, the cluskterfuck of Israel/Gaza and Labour are creaming themselves over a photo with Obama like schoolgirls.

Labourlist isn't run by Labour, it's an independent organization. It also does have articles on the Labour Party and Israel (an example here) and on the Labour Party and Russia (an example here). Nor does that article really make it seem like anyone is "creaming themselves". Really, you just look like you're trying much too hard to find something to complain about here.

 

[Maledict]

The thread is basically ToryGaf at the moment so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a shame but generally politics threads always end up dominated by one group or another.

That's not a critiscism of the posters - just seems to happen naturally.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't really mind what political alignment people have, it's interesting to talk about these things regardless.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The thread is basically ToryGaf at the moment so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a shame but generally politics threads always end up dominated by one group or another.

That's not a critiscism of the posters - just seems to happen naturally.

Oh don't be daft. There's plenty of different viewpoints in the thread - just look at the previous couple of pages.

Cyclops and Nicktendo post a lot, sure, but there's usually someone there with a counterpoint.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't really mind what political alignment people have, it's interesting to talk about these things regardless.

Agreed, I just love discussion on our sometimes crazy politics but no one has to agree with what anyone posts. Every view has a value. I ramble too much in here though and need to cut back on my posting, concentrate on the footygaf thread

 

[Volotaire]

The thread is basically ToryGaf at the moment so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a shame but generally politics threads always end up dominated by one group or another.

That's not a critiscism of the posters - just seems to happen naturally.

Not to be reductive of your analysis, but just because posters seem to have a more free market or liberal (the 1900 definition) point of view does not mean they are 'Tories'. Moreover, there seems to be a lot of Labour representatives here recently in the last few weeks.

In other news, Nick Griffin has been replaced as party head of the BNP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28408039
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...onal-party-leader-nick-griffin-vote-collapses

He;s replaced by Adam Walker, who received a suspended jail sentence and a life ban from teaching


Walker was banned from teaching in February after he lost a legal challenge against the then education secretary, Michael Gove.

Walker had received a suspended jail sentence for verbally abusing three schoolboys, chasing them in his car and slashing the tyres on their bikes with a Stanley knife.

He took Gove to court, claiming that this decision was "prejudiced" because of his membership of the BNP.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I love that the leader of the BNP referred to the UK as a 'multicultural shithole'. There aren't too many party leaders that find success by calling their own constituency a shithole.

 

[8bit]

The Conservatives are more likely to be the topic of conversation due to them being in charge IMO. I don't think this is a particularly right leaning crowd though.

 

[Jezbollah]

In addition, Labour really hasnt had much to shout about in general and in PMQs unless the Tories have fucked up. So there's not much chest thumping going on from the left at the moment. That translates to this thread.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think that's true. It hasn't always been like this, and I don't think it's because the population of GAF has changed dramatically. But when life gives you Ed Miliband, make lemonade, as they famously say.

Edit: I think the key problem isn't that he's crap (though he is), it's just that he's so uncontentious. He has so few significant policy positions (allowing public sector to bid on train franchises, capping private rent rises, capping energy bills... Otherwise, he's signed up to the Tory spending plans, and he agreed on spending restraint whilst voting against all the actual legislation to achieve it.) If he were Kinnock or Benn or Blair or even Foot then there'd be something to discuss, but it seems that Labour's main solutions are so utterly piecemeal and, politically, insignificant that he's basically a non-entity. Meanwhile, the coalition has actually enacted some fairly radical reforms (which is separate to "good" reforms - personally I like most of them, but there is at least something to discuss there).

Obviously the Lib Dems supporters are pretty quiet. Dead men tell no talllllleeeeessss!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think that's true. It hasn't always been like this, and I don't think it's because the population of GAF has changed dramatically. But when life gives you Ed Miliband, make lemonade, as they famously say.

Edit: I think the key problem isn't that he's crap (though he is), it's just that he's so uncontentious. He has so few significant policy positions (allowing public sector to bid on train franchises, capping private rent rises, capping energy bills... Otherwise, he's signed up to the Tory spending plans, and he agreed on spending restraint whilst voting against all the actual legislation to achieve it.) If he were Kinnock or Benn or Blair or even Foot then there'd be something to discuss, but it seems that Labour's main solutions are so utterly piecemeal and, politically, insignificant that he's basically a non-entity. Meanwhile, the coalition has actually enacted some fairly radical reforms (which is separate to "good" reforms - personally I like most of them, but there is at least something to discuss there).

Obviously the Lib Dems supporters are pretty quiet. Dead men tell no talllllleeeeessss!

I'm fine with Ed. When I voted in the Labour leadership elections, my main priority was finding someone who wouldn't tear the party apart. If David had been selected instead, the Labour party would almost certainly have descended into chaos, given how closely associated with all the key Blairite factions David Miliband was. Ed was obviously somewhat associated with Brown, but not closely enough for it be an immediate issue. Really, it's a miracle the party isn't more fractious at the moment, and I think Ed Miliband did a good job at that.

As for his policy positions, I think there are actually a fair old number now. Just to run through a brief list;

• Gas and electricity price freeze until 2017
• Reintroduce the 10p starting tax rate
• Expanding free child care for 3 and 4 year olds to 25 hours a week for working parents
• Build 200,000 homes a year by 2020
• A legislated version of the living wage
• The Compulsory Jobs Guarantee
• Closing loopholes relating to the zero hour contract
• Reduce the small business multiplier in business rate for 2015, and freeze it for 2016
• A mansion tax on properties valued at over £2 million
• Means-tested fuel allowance
• Investing the OBR with auditing powers
• Increased subsidies for regional banks
• A break-up of the major banks
• Force energy companies to separate generation and supply ends of the business, and use an open market to monitor pricing between the two halves

There are more, but I'm bored now. Suffice to say, it seems a bit weird to say "they have no policies" when they have quite a number of policies. They've even published two booklets full of them, and the Policy Review isn't even finished yet. I think many erstwhile Labour supporters are actually quiet because a fair few of those policies aren't really what they wanted - the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee being a big example. Miliband is more centrist than a number of people expected.

 

[War Peaceman]

Agree with you there Crab. I've said it so many times but David Milliband is poison. He would have been a worse choice. That isn't to say that Ed is brilliant, but the only other viable choice was/is Yvette Cooper. Well, Darling too, but he stepped away from front bench politics.

Labour have actually put forward a number of policies, many of them solid(by which I mean, potentially popular) ideas. The problem they face is image. These ideas have emerged in a piecemeal fashion and there is no real coherency to their approach. Essentially, they have a messaging problem.

Incidentally, what are the Coalition's 'fairly radical reforms'?

 

[Nicktendo86]

• Gas and electricity price freeze until 2017
  While this may seem well meaning, in practice is utterly stupid. Markets cannot be controlled like this, especially a market that depends on fluctuating wholesale prices and when you are asking the industry to stump up massive amounts of cash to build new power stations. Wholesale prices look to be taking a big hit next winter as well so Ed may freeze prices much higher than they would be if he didn't enact the freeze. Let's also not forget that whilst he was energy secretary he put up prices with his green stuff, why the change of heart? Pure populist nonsense.
• Reintroduce the 10p starting tax rate
  That they cut? Ok. Sure.
• Expanding free child care for 3 and 4 year olds to 25 hours a week for working parents
  Funded by... taxing bankers I suppose?
• Build 200,000 homes a year by 2020
  Didn't labour oversee the lowest ever levels of house buiding? Nice to see a change in heart.
• A legislated version of the living wage
  Good idea.
• The Compulsory Jobs Guarantee
  Complete and utter nonsense. How would this be funded? We have record levels of employment now, who is this supposed to help? Stupid, utterly stupid.
• Closing loopholes relating to the zero hour contract
  Good idea, perhaps Labour MPs who use them might want to have a hand in this.
• Reduce the small business multiplier in business rate for 2015, and freeze it for 2016
  I can get behind this
• A mansion tax on properties valued at over £2 million
  Lib Dem policy.
• Means-tested fuel allowance
  Good idea in principle, but means testing is always a nightmare.
• Investing the OBR with auditing powers
  Setting up the OBR was a great idea, glad to see Labour get behind it.
• Increased subsidies for regional banks
  I don't know what this is supposed to achieve.
• A break-up of the major banks
  Kinda already been done to and extent with Lloyds-TSB. Would need to see more detailed plans.
• Force energy companies to separate generation and supply ends of the business, and use an open market to monitor pricing between the two halves
  Again meddling with open markets. Agree we need good regulation, are Ofgen still not investigating?

In my honest opinion, the majority of the above is populist nonsense aimed at their core vote and would not really benefit this country at all.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm fine with Ed. When I voted in the Labour leadership elections, my main priority was finding someone who wouldn't tear the party apart. If David had been selected instead, the Labour party would almost certainly have descended into chaos, given how closely associated with all the key Blairite factions David Miliband was. Ed was obviously somewhat associated with Brown, but not closely enough for it be an immediate issue. Really, it's a miracle the party isn't more fractious at the moment, and I think Ed Miliband did a good job at that.

I dunno, I think that's exactly what they need, though. They need that dialectical approach to basically deciding who they are. I'm not the first person to ask what a traditionally tax-and-spend party does in an era with little money, and right now there's a sort of uneasy truce between all the groups that I don't think is good for the party in the longer term. It also means you end up with the weird situation like the 10p tax bracket where they find themselves pledging to revert their own reforms.

As for his policy positions, I think there are actually a fair old number now. Just to run through a brief list;

• Gas and electricity price freeze until 2017
• Reintroduce the 10p starting tax rate
• Expanding free child care for 3 and 4 year olds to 25 hours a week for working parents
• Build 200,000 homes a year by 2020
• A legislated version of the living wage
• The Compulsory Jobs Guarantee
• Closing loopholes relating to the zero hour contract
• Reduce the small business multiplier in business rate for 2015, and freeze it for 2016
• A mansion tax on properties valued at over £2 million
• Means-tested fuel allowance
• Investing the OBR with auditing powers
• Increased subsidies for regional banks
• A break-up of the major banks
• Force energy companies to separate generation and supply ends of the business, and use an open market to monitor pricing between the two halves

There are more, but I'm bored now. Suffice to say, it seems a bit weird to say "they have no policies" when they have quite a number of policies. They've even published two booklets full of them, and the Policy Review isn't even finished yet. I think many erstwhile Labour supporters are actually quiet because a fair few of those policies aren't really what they wanted - the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee being a big example. Miliband is more centrist than a number of people expected.

But I also think a lot of them are "have a pony" style nothing-policies. Build 200,000 houses a year? The last government had a target of 240,000 a year and they just... didn't. Clegg has said the Lib Dems want to target 300,000 and it's the official position of the Conservatives to boost house building but they don't have a specific target. "Closing loopholes", "stop abuse" (re: 0-hour) is political cover for "we don't want to tell you what we'll do" etc. Then there's a few about the minutiae of specific functioning of industries (energy) and government (OBR). Obviously he's announced more than 3 policies, but they're by no means a meaningful offer, especially for 10 months out from an election.

As leader of the opposition, it's his responsibility to offer a meaningful alternative, but I don't think he's done that. Now that he's signed up to the Tory spending plans, he needs to stop saying "that cut's wrong" and start saying "we'd cut this". He talks about the cost of living and about how Labour would "fundamentally reshape our economy" but then offers a cap on energy costs and tweaks in the business rates. I think people would love a genuine offer to reshape the economy - a minimum income system, dramatic changes to the income tax system, switching to a land-based tax system, etc. But the list you offered doesn't really seem to do that. Yesterday was the most significant foreign policy day of the parliament imo - moreso even than Syria (though even that was a bit of a balls up - more MPs voted for a future debate than against, but Miliband's intervention effectively split the vote into two separate bills and somehow he promoted that as him holding back the baying hounds) and Miliband was in the US. Now I don't care about him trying to meet Obama - whatever, he wants to be Prime Minister and there's nothing wrong with him meeting the President of our biggest ally - but yesterday the voice of opposition (or support) on the UK's foreign policy position both regarding Gaza/Israel and Ukraine/Russia was put forward by Harman. Not even the shadow Foreign secretary, but Harman. And that's nothing against her (I've actually warmed to her in the last 4 years), but she's not the one asking to be Prime Minister. In five or two or one year, no one will remember it, but isn't that rather the point? No one will remember it, because he wasn't there. It must be hard to get behind a "leader" like that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Agree with you there Crab. I've said it so many times but David Milliband is poison. He would have been a worse choice. That isn't to say that Ed is brilliant, but the only other viable choice was/is Yvette Cooper. Well, Darling too, but he stepped away from front bench politics.

Labour have actually put forward a number of policies, many of them solid(by which I mean, potentially popular) ideas. The problem they face is image. These ideas have emerged in a piecemeal fashion and there is no real coherency to their approach. Essentially, they have a messaging problem.

Incidentally, what are the Coalition's 'fairly radical reforms'?

Well, the largest change in the provision of education since the end of WW2 and the first government to properly try and drastically change the welfare system (even Thatcher avoided doing that, it's such a political hot potato) since roughly the same time. Our post-war approach to welfare has more or less just been small changes and additions - if there's a problem with disabled people suffering, give them a little more money. If there's a problem with single mothers, make a working tax credit etc. The reforms under IDS have been the first attempts to fundamentally reshape how the system works. Then, finally, there's a reason why Hunt attracts the ire of so many on the left! I'm not defending any of these changes (not right now, anyway!) but if you think they haven't been significant reforms, I'd like to hear what government since the end of WW2 you think reformed in a more significant way.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That they cut? Ok. Sure.

I'm fine with Labour admitting they made mistakes. It's better they own up to that and do something about it than let the problem sit.

Funded by... taxing bankers I suppose?

Hopefully.

Didn't labour oversee the lowest ever levels of house buiding? Nice to see a change in heart.

Yes and no. The Labour policy under Blair was to try and get the private sector to be the one involved with house-building, rather than local authorities. This attempt sort of worked insofar as that private housebuilding under the last Labour administration was the highest in decades, but the amount of money diverted away from local authorities' housebuilding projects meant that local authorities ended up offsetting that so much that housebuilding overall reached the lowest point since 1992.

Good idea, perhaps Labour MPs who use them might want to have a hand in this.

Hopefully, yes. I'm annoyed names weren't disclosed for the 77 Conservative, 62 Labour and 12 other MPs who were using them; it just makes it much more difficult to hold them properly to account.

Lib Dem policy.

And? If an idea is good, and idea is good.

Again meddling with open markets. Agree we need good regulation, are Ofgen still not investigating?

It's not meddling with open markets? It's trying to create an open market. Most energy companies have full vertical control of the product chain - they generate the power and distribute it locally. This introduces a number of problems because it makes it difficult for independent bodies to ascertain how much each part of the supply chain costs. When you break up the various sectors and make generators sell to suppliers, the market should reveal the price (in theory), allowing regulators better insight into how to enact proc-consumer reforms.

Just a few comments on some of your responses. I've left a few out where I either agree or don't feel strongly enough to make a case.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Very interesting to get your views Crab, thanks for the comments. I take it you are a member of the Labour party?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Very interesting to get your views Crab, thanks for the comments. I take it you are a member of the Labour party?

Yes. I wouldn't say I'm a party loyalist, but I'd rather vote Labour than the other alternatives.

 

[Jackpot]

Whoever in the media said Miliband made meeting the US president look like a job interview was spot on (and not in a good way).

 

[War Peaceman]

Well, the largest change in the provision of education since the end of WW2 and the first government to properly try and drastically change the welfare system (even Thatcher avoided doing that, it's such a political hot potato) since roughly the same time. Our post-war approach to welfare has more or less just been small changes and additions - if there's a problem with disabled people suffering, give them a little more money. If there's a problem with single mothers, make a working tax credit etc. The reforms under IDS have been the first attempts to fundamentally reshape how the system works. Then, finally, there's a reason why Hunt attracts the ire of so many on the left! I'm not defending any of these changes (not right now, anyway!) but if you think they haven't been significant reforms, I'd like to hear what government since the end of WW2 you think reformed in a more significant way.

I wasn't really disputing, just querying.

The changes in education are a continuation of Labour policy (Gove waves around Lord Adonis' book for a reason), the Healthcare changes definitely are but the welfare changes barely qualify. They have been disastrously managed and are barely implemented. The intent is there, but the execution is nowhere.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I wasn't really disputing, just querying.

The changes in education are a continuation of Labour policy (Gove waves around Lord Adonis' book for a reason), the Healthcare changes definitely are but the welfare changes barely qualify. They have been disastrously managed and are barely implemented. The intent is there, but the execution is nowhere.

Sounds pretty radical to me

But yeah, Gove owes a lot to Adonis, but the scale is simply orders of magnitude greater. Philosophically, it's a move from local authority control to parent-based control. I likey.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ashcroft's marginal polls are pretty terrible news for the Conservatives: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...-POLLS-Con-Lab-marginals-report-July-2014.pdf

These are the incumbent marginals - the 12 currently Conservative-held seats with the smallest margin of victory in 2010, plus 2 extra marginals which, while not not as close as the other 12 in 2010, have been included because of particularly large UKIP voting figures (Thanet South and Yarmouth). Currently, the Conservatives would lose all but one, and eight would become non-marginals with Labour leads of at least 8%. Two are set to fall to UKIP - and of those is not one of the specially selected seats, but instead an ordinary marginal. The one seat the Conservatives would continue hold still actually sees a large drop in the Conservative vote, but is maintained because of a UKIP spoiler effect on Labour. This confirms the general trend for Labour's swing in marginal seats to outperform their national swing as a whole, and makes Conservative victory unlikely even if the national polls are to narrow significantly.

To win in 2015, the Conservatives are going to need a strongly focused effort on local battles with constituency machinery; what's happening at a national level (e.g., the party leaders and the debates) may not be significant enough to swing the election in their favour. Additionally, they need to focus on current potential Liberal Democrat voters, who represent the faction most likely to swing - UKIP voters record very high levels of unwillingness to switch their voting intentions, and attempting to move rightward to recapture them is unlikely to be successful (69% of the UKIP vote say they have ruled out voting Conservative entirely, compared to only 57% for the Liberal Democrats).

 

[Nicktendo86]

I am not putting my money on the Ashcroft polls at all, and I do not expect ukip to win 2 seats.

If they do, I am leaving the fucking country.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I am not putting my money on the Ashcroft polls at all, and I do not expect ukip to win 2 seats.

If they do, I am leaving the fucking country.

They have an average sample size of 1,000, which is enough for the margin of error to be ±3 percentage points with 95% confidence assuming reasonable weighting. The UKIP lead in Thanet South is inside the margin of error, so that's no surety, but the UKIP lead in Thannock is outside that - that is, the chance that's wrong is less than 5%. Barring a significant Conservative recovery / UKIP decline, it will almost certainly go UKIP.

Also, UKIP will probably win more than 2 seats if the current political situation continues. This is just the twelve most marginal Conservative seats - it doesn't consider Labour or Liberal Democrat marginals, or the possibility slightly less marginal seats will also go UKIP. At the moment, UKIP would probably pick up around 4-5 seats.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't know, the Ashcroft polls seem very volatile. I wonder if zomg's theory/sources at right and ukip will target northern seats as well, time will tell.

This is the first election that I can remember where I have literally no idea what will happen.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't know, the Ashcroft polls seem very volatile. I wonder if zomg's theory/sources at right and ukip will target northern seats as well, time will tell.

This is the first election that I can remember where I have literally no idea what will happen.

I mean, they're no more volatile than you'd expect for a sample size of 1000. You might describe 27% CON 39% LAB followed the next day by 33% CON 33% LAB as volatile, but they're both within the expected margin of 30%/36%. Just how polls work, unfortunately.

At this stage, I think it's fairly clear Labour will win, barring relatively large events over the next 10 months. They hold a consistent national lead of around 3.5%, and they overperform in the marginals where they have a consistent lead of around 5%. That's a comparatively large lead to overturn by election day. Obviously, Macmillan's "events, dear boy, events" quote certainly applies, but if the Conservatives won at this point, it would be the largest electoral comeback in post-war history to make from a year out, narrowly beating out '83. I think the best case scenario for the Conservatives is another hung parliament followed by coalition or minority government.

 

[CyclopsRock]

To win in 2015, the Conservatives are going to need a strongly focused effort on local battles with constituency machinery; what's happening at a national level (e.g., the party leaders and the debates) may not be significant enough to swing the election in their favour. Additionally, they need to focus on current potential Liberal Democrat voters, who represent the faction most likely to swing - UKIP voters record very high levels of unwillingness to switch their voting intentions, and attempting to move rightward to recapture them is unlikely to be successful (69% of the UKIP vote say they have ruled out voting Conservative entirely, compared to only 57% for the Liberal Democrats).

I think this is exactly what they will do (and they have the dosh to be able to afford to spray these areas with money). Plus, I think there are a few variables that are likely to go their way between now and the election, notably UKIP voters having their minds... focused by the prospect of Miliband and the potential for an actual EU Referendum if they vote Tory plus another 10 months of (most likely) good ecomomic data. There aren't many areas where there is the possibility of bad news for the Tories - with the wild, outsider possibility of the Scottish referendum - it's just a matter of whether the variables mentioned above prove significant enough come May 2015.

Also, I haven't bothered to look myself but I've heard the problem with Ashcroft's polls aren't that the polling size is too small, but that too much of the data is old (by which I mean from months ago). I know this was a criticism of his first poll of marginals from a few months back, I'm not sure if that's changed now (or, indeed, if it were actually true at the time, but a number of people said that was the case).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think this is exactly what they will do (and they have the dosh to be able to afford to spray these areas with money). Plus, I think there are a few variables that are likely to go their way between now and the election, notably UKIP voters having their minds... focused by the prospect of Miliband and the potential for an actual EU Referendum if they vote Tory plus another 10 months of (most likely) good ecomomic data. There aren't many areas where there is the possibility of bad news for the Tories - with the wild, outsider possibility of the Scottish referendum - it's just a matter of whether the variables mentioned above prove significant enough come May 2015.

I don't get where this idea Miliband will be a cure-all for Conservative elections worries comes from. I mean, he's already pre-factored into voting opinions - people know he's the leader of the Labour party and have done for enough time to have formed an opinion. There's also the worry that the opposite happens - Liberal Democrat voters, who represent the largest swing group, find Miliband more favourable than Cameron by a very tiny margin. What happens if Miliband impresses in the debates? It seems far too complacent to rely on Miliband being bad.

Also, I haven't bothered to look myself but I've heard the problem with Ashcroft's polls aren't that the polling size is too small, but that too much of the data is old (by which I mean from months ago). I know this was a criticism of his first poll of marginals from a few months back, I'm not sure if that's changed now (or, indeed, if it were actually true at the time, but a number of people said that was the case).

This poll was conducted between 18th June and 16th July, if it helps.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't think the debats will factor much, they didn't last time. Even if they did, I wouldn't be confident that Miliband would 'win' anyway, he seems to get routinely beaten in PMQ's. To my eyes anyway.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

To win in 2015, the Conservatives are going to need a strongly focused effort on local battles with constituency machinery; what's happening at a national level (e.g., the party leaders and the debates) may not be significant enough to swing the election in their favour. Additionally, they need to focus on current potential Liberal Democrat voters, who represent the faction most likely to swing - UKIP voters record very high levels of unwillingness to switch their voting intentions, and attempting to move rightward to recapture them is unlikely to be successful (69% of the UKIP vote say they have ruled out voting Conservative entirely, compared to only 57% for the Liberal Democrats).

Hmm, well they say that. But as election day approaches and the writing's on the wall regarding UKIP winning any more than say, at a wildly optimistic estimate, 5 seats. I think we'll see them scurrying to vote conservative: it's the only way an EU referendum is going to happen, and that's really the only reason anyone would vote for UKIP as far as I can tell.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Hmm, well they say that. But as election day approaches and the writing's on the wall regarding UKIP winning any more than say, at a wildly optimistic estimate, 5 seats. I think we'll see them scurrying to vote conservative: it's the only way an EU referendum is going to happen, and that's really the only reason anyone would vote for UKIP as far as I can tell.

Right, this is basically what I meant. And Miliband is relevant for the same reason - UKIP voters are, by most estimates, made up roughly 1/3rd ex Labour voters and 2/3rd ex Tory voters. I not only think that more of the Tories will return to the flock because of the EU referendum pledge (which might drive the blue 2/3rds home but won't affect the red 1/3rd) but I think less Tory voters will stay at home versus Labour, because of Miliband - he's not a guy Tory voters can get behind (unlike, say, the way Blair was), and incumbents tend to do better re:stay at home voters, because people tend to fear the unknown (potential future under Miliband for Tories) compared to the known (potential additional future under Cameron for Labs)

 

[Nicktendo86]

Shits going down with David Ward, made a stupid tweet about Gaza. Nick has to fire him. Has he actually had the balls to sack any dodgy lib dems?

 

[kitch9]

In my honest opinion, the majority of the above is populist nonsense aimed at their core vote and would not really benefit this country at all.

Only a blithering idiot would announce a price freeze on an entire sector 18 months before he can think about actioning it.

A. Blithering. Idiot.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Only a blithering idiot would announce a price freeze on an entire sector 18 months before he can think about actioning it.

A. Blithering. Idiot.

Only a blithering idiot would think that a policy announcement will for sure, 100%, even if there are major changes to the status quo, be carried out in the exact manner in which they were announced, with no alterations to take in circumstance.

A. Blithering. Idiot.

Spoiler

I mean really, if the situation changes dramatically between now and 2015, the issue might be looked at differently. However, given the current status quo, a price freeze extending for at least the next 18 months seems such a good idea that even the Conservatives are pushing for one.[1]

 

[kitch9]

Only a blithering idiot would think that a policy announcement will for sure, 100%, even if there are major changes to the status quo, be carried out in the exact manner in which they were announced, with no alterations to take in circumstance.

A. Blithering. Idiot.

Spoiler

I mean really, if the situation changes dramatically between now and 2015, the issue might be looked at differently. However, given the current status quo, a price freeze extending for at least the next 18 months seems such a good idea that even the Conservatives are pushing for one.[1]

A price freeze would be nothing but a good thing for sure, but only if it was announced today and actioned TODAY.

Giving the energy sector 18 months notice to squeeze the punters dry just on the off chance they might not be able to action a 2-5% price increase in 18 months if an election goes the wrong way is the work of a complete fuckwit!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A price freeze would be nothing but a good thing for sure, but only if it was announced today and actioned TODAY.

Giving the energy sector 18 months notice to squeeze the punters dry just on the off chance they might not be able to action a 2-5% price increase in 18 months if an election goes the wrong way is the work of a complete fuckwit!

Generally, the public likes it when you give them at least a reasonable idea of what you intend to do when you take office. Turning up on the day after the election and going "motherfucking surprise energy price freeze, bitches" might not be perceived particularly well if people had not wanted them to do that. You know, like how the surprise massive NHS top-down reorganization wasn't received very well. Besides, I highly doubt energy companies can really do much more than they already are to 'squeeze the punters dry' as you so eloquently; they're bleeding the public dry as it is. Even if they could, given the Conservatives are currently the party in office, they should probably be doing something about it, rather than fucking around reducing green taxes which only contribute towards 6% of a gas bill anyway.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Are they bleeding us dry though? We pay amongst the lowest in Europe for our gas and electricity, perhaps that is still more than we should but again as I said yesterday our infrastructure is in dire need if investment which is expected to come from the energy companies.

The government has also reduced our bills, albeit a small amount. Basically reversed what Miliband did when he was energy secretary with the green crap, as Cameron would put it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Are they bleeding us dry though? We pay amongst the lowest in Europe for our gas and electricity, perhaps that is still more than we should but again as I said yesterday our infrastructure is in dire need if investment which is expected to come from the energy companies.

We do pay relatively low prices compared to Europe, but I don't think this is any cause to relax about. As a whole, Europe has a lot of problems with energy production and over-reliance on certain companies and sources. Being amongst the best of a bad bunch doesn't mean this is an issue we can ignore when households are struggling. Given gas suppliers hit 20% profit margins[1], which is absurd by the standard of a mature industry (to use a comparison, supermarkets generate 2-3% margins), and this has infrastructure expansions prefactored (they happen at the distribution end of the market), there's a lot that can be done.

The government has also reduced our bills, albeit a small amount. Basically reversed what Miliband did when he was energy secretary with the green crap, as Cameron would put it.

Cutting the part of an energy bill that actually goes towards providing for the future is not what I'd call a particularly good thing, particularly when it means the focus is then lessened in cutting down corporate leeching.

 

[Nicktendo86]

IMF forecast for the UK econemy up again, now to 3.2%. They have slashed Russia's to 0.2%, think we will grow twice as fast as America this year.

Highest of any world economy. Unreal.

 

[Jezbollah]

This is excellent news - however this needs to translate into putting money into the pocket of the voters.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Does indeed Dan, means nothing if wages don't go up with inflation. I've said before I really feel firms are using the downturn as an excuse to give meagre pay rises, I dont think they can get away with that for much longer. The jig is up.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That said, that phenomenon is arguably what's responsible for the high levels of employment growth: there are virtues to both (less, more valuable jobs or more, less valuable jobs) so I dunno.

 

[kitch9]

Does indeed Dan, means nothing if wages don't go up with inflation. I've said before I really feel firms are using the downturn as an excuse to give meagre pay rises, I dont think they can get away with that for much longer. The jig is up.

Wages will naturally increase as competition in the workplace increases, we are seeing the start of that cycle as employment is growing but at the moment the supply of labour is still quite good. Once the available supply of labour diminishes prices will rise.

This is the main reason why I think that having manic unfettered immigration of cheap unskilled labour (or scroungers) like we have now cannot possibly be a good thing.