Craig, I really don't know why I'm bothering to make this point when you're actually using the language of the pure sociopath, but a person is not a dog. Please, get help.

 

You missed my point entirely Tyron

 

If a dumb animal like a dog can respond to training and develop a new mindset and behavioural pattern then there is no reason why a person cannot as man is supposed to be far more intelligent and adaptable than a beast

Edited January 31, 201411 yr by Sandro Raniere

Many of the 2.5m will be people in their 50s or early 60s who will probably never work again as they are too old for most employers, there will always be a permanent pool of people in a holding pattern for retirement

 

My post was about the 1m YOUNG unemployed, there is no real excuse, unless they are living in a deeply depressed area work wise such as an old mining area or something, for a young person to be out of work for more than a year in this day and age, those 4 things i listed were all applying to under 25s only

Are you still not able to work out that ~400-500,000 vacancies with 1 million unemployed under 25 is still something that means, yes, there absolutely is a real reason for someone that age to be out of work?

You missed my point entirely Tyron

 

If a dumb animal like a dog can respond to training and develop a new mindset and behavioural pattern then there is no reason why a person cannot as man is supposed to be far more intelligent and adaptable than a beast

Dogs have been bred through evolution to respond to that kind of training. A human being isn't a drone that just responds to conditioning like that, for the reason that they are more intelligent and adaptable than a dog.

Or equally, all four polls fall within the margin of error for a situation of LAB 39, CON 34, UKIP 12, LD 9 - and the whole point of the margin of error is that 95% of the time polls fall within them, so it's entirely normal that you would once in a while get a few days of what looked like a consistent narrowing. Rogues are very rarely so rogue as to suddenly leap to 10 points from 3, and the overall situation not really changing makes more sense than a popular policy suddenly leading to Labour support plunging. It could be a rogue, but we have to wait a few days before we can tell.

 

And they haven't 'consistently' shown the Labour lead at 1-3%. Populus had one showing a 7 point lead the same day as the ComRes/YouGov leads.

 

Obviously the 10-point lead is an outlier, but if the weekend polls show they've restored a 5/6-point lead, I'm going to assume the slump at the beginning of this week was simply because people were reminded of Ed Balls' existence last weekend. Just the same as, whenever George Osborne gets some huge media coverage, even if he's saying something that on the surface should be popular, the Tories' ratings dip (Labour should thank their lucky stars that it was Osborne who made the minimum wage announcement a few weeks ago, because I bet if Cameron had done it, it would've made more impact on people).

Edited January 31, 201411 yr by Danny

I think what will ultimately cancel out the Balls factor (and consequently keep him in a job) is that Osborne is pretty much equally reviled.

The two Sunday polls put Labour's lead at 7% and 5%, which seems to confirm the batch of bad polls last week were either outliers or a short-term blip.

 

 

The most interesting bit of polling imo is:

 

If George Osborne has money to spend at the next Budget, which of the following do you think should be his main priority?

 

Reducing taxes 41%

Reducing the deficit 22%

Increasing public spending 21%

 

Admittedly, the fact people prefer tax cuts to spending increases is not great news for us lefties, but I definitely think less than a quarter of people saying cutting the deficit should be the priority shows how the politicians/media are totally overestimating how much people care about the deficit, and how little tolerance people will have of parties (any party) saying at the next election there should be yet more cuts just the sake of satisfying "the markets".

Edited February 2, 201411 yr by Danny

A preference poll tells you bugger all about whether people think an issue is important - just because people who are pretty hard pressed would much rather their taxes go down than the deficit tells you nothing. People who are thirsty will always be more likely to say they'd rather the water go to them than towards putting out a fire down the road, but it doesn't mean they're suddenly okay with nothing being done about the fire.

 

If you wanted to find out whether the public still thinks the deficit is important, a preference question wouldn't be the way of backing up your point in any case (for the same reason as polling showing that people broadly agree that being stabbed in the balls is worse than being kicked in the balls doesn't make it accurate to say that a whack in the nads is popular). If you wanted to do that, a straight yes or no option to a question detailing the current situation and asking if people think reducing the deficit should be a priority for the next government would be the way forward. Although even that wouldn't tell us the answer really - because the answer to that would be ~50+% saying yes, the answer to a question on whether the cuts are too fast/harsh would be ~50+% saying yes, the answer to a question on whether we should have tax cuts would be ~60+% saying yes, and I'd even hazard a guess that you'd have a slim plurality of ~40+% saying yes to spending increases. If it sounds contradictory, it's because it is. When polled, the public is always in favour of having its cake and pretty much always in favour of eating it (curiously the number in favour of eating it has a historical tendency of dropping just before elections, although I do think the unique set of circumstances leading into 2015 means that Labour might just about get away with defying that tendency's annoying habit of killing our leads).

 

The politics has to meet the economics at some point Danny. You're probably right that doing that fully before the election would utterly wreck Labour's chances of winning it due to the particular coalition our hopes of victory are built on - but if you think it would be unpopular then, how unpopular do you think it will be when it has to meet the economics after we've won on a campaign pretending it never has to? I know you dismiss the markets as a concern because the right-wing press has totally hyperbolised in the past about them - but do you really think nothing is going to happen if we walk into Number 10 and the first thing we say to those lending us the (hopefully by then) ~£70bn a year to bridge the gap between what we take in and what we spend is that we're going to do bugger all about reducing that at the time of growth when you're supposed to? If not then - then when?

A preference poll tells you bugger all about whether people think an issue is important - just because people who are pretty hard pressed would much rather their taxes go down than the deficit tells you nothing. People who are thirsty will always be more likely to say they'd rather the water go to them than towards putting out a fire down the road, but it doesn't mean they're suddenly okay with nothing being done about the fire.

 

Disagree. Simple yes/no questions about whether people care about an issue are notoriously ineffective at working out how much the public is concerned about them - if asked about a specific issue, people are almost always going to answer that they care about it, partly because they naturally think they would look ignorant if they said they didn't care at all about an issue which a pollster thought to be important enough to ask about it. Most pollsters have established that making people make choices is the best way of finding out what they really care about. (Best example of this is EU questions, and the discrepancy between almost everyone answering that they would like an EU referendum when specifically asked about it, but then, when asked to rank it against other priorities, it comes out with a very low score, hence why all the Tories' posturing on it makes no difference whatsoever.)

 

The politics has to meet the economics at some point Danny. You're probably right that doing that fully before the election would utterly wreck Labour's chances of winning it due to the particular coalition our hopes of victory are built on - but if you think it would be unpopular then, how unpopular do you think it will be when it has to meet the economics after we've won on a campaign pretending it never has to?

 

I absolutely agree Labour would become incredibly unpopular if they implemented cuts in government, and would probably be out for years afterwards. I'm not saying they should lie during the election campaign that there won't be cuts, then implement them once they get in - I'm saying they should say there'll be no more cuts during the election campaign, then actually stick to it when they get into government.

 

And, as I said last week, I REALLY hope Labour aren't stupid enough to go for this happy-clappy New Labour fantasy nonsense, that it's possible to make huge spending cuts yet somehow still magically improve public services even with less money going into them, because people would rightly think Labour are playing them for idiots and that would give the party a much bigger "credibility" problem than any they've had so far. People know it's a choice between cutting the deficit and letting public services/living standards getting worse, or forget about cutting the deficit as the cost of improving public services and living standards, and any attempt from Labour to claim there's some too-good-to-be-true way of achieving both and having our cake and eating it too will leave people totally unconvinced.

 

I know you dismiss the markets as a concern because the right-wing press has totally hyperbolised in the past about them -but do you really think nothing is going to happen if we walk into Number 10 and the first thing we say to those lending us the (hopefully by then) ~£70bn a year to bridge the gap between what we take in and what we spend is that we're going to do bugger all about reducing that at the time of growth when you're supposed to? If not then - then when?

 

Depends what you mean by "nothing". I'm sure there'll be business people shrieking about how Britain is going to go bankrupt, and yes, maybe interest rates on government bonds will creep up for a few weeks (though that will have little effect on most people), but in the long run, I definitely don't think the sky isn't going to fall in. Just like the sky hasn't fallen in in Japan despite them having extremely high debt levels and despite the routine screeching from rightwingers that they're about to get a "reckoning", just like Britain itself for most of its history when it's had a fairly high deficit, and indeed, just like actually in 2015 having the deficit at such a level won't have caused the sky to fall in (I'm not actually suggesting the deficit should go even higher, I'm saying it should just be kept at the same level as when they come in in 2015, which would quite obviously be possible since...the deficit will be that high then, and the sky won't fall in, hence how is it logical to say the sky would fall in by keeping it at the same level in future?).

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by Danny

Don't Japan owe most of their money internally?

Don't Japan owe most of their money internally?

 

The same is also true for Britain, albeit to a slightly lesser extent.

FINALLY, someone within Labour points out how the NewLabourite thinktankbots are willfully ignoring all the evidence that people don't want to hear Labour rambling on about "fiscal discipline":

 

http://labourlist.org/2014/02/its-time-mil...-wing-populism/

Edited February 5, 201411 yr by Danny

There's a prediction on Political Betting of the Lib Dems taking 30-35 seats in 2015. Of these, there are 30 "probable" or "certain" holds:

 

Bath, Bermondsey & Old Southwark, Berwickshire, Brecon & Radnorshire, Bristol West, Caithness, Cardiff Central, Ceredigion, Cheadle, Cheltenham, Colchester, Edinburgh West, Gordon, Hazel Grove, Inverness, Kingston & Surbiton, Leeds NW, Lewes, North Devon, North Norfolk, NE Fife, Orkney & Shetland, Ross & Skye, Sheffield Hallam, Southport, Thornbury & Yate, Twickenham, West Aberdeenshire, Westmorland & Lonsdale, Yeovil

 

There's eight "probable" gains each for the Tories and Labour and another six "possible" for the Tories. Of the five "possible Lib Dem hold" seats, Labour are second in one and a very close third in another two.

 

So basically, that's a very convoluted way of saying that the Tories can only really hope to gain a maximum of 16 Lib Dem seats next year - putting them on 319. I suppose the odd Labour seat might go blue if it's very urban/rural split and the Lib Dem vote goes predominantly to them but there's in effect no way in hell they'll deliver a majority unless they can not only outpoll Labour (they'll probably need that just to prevent an outright defeat) but gain seats they couldn't manage last time.

Oh, I'd missed that reply the other day Danny! Gi's an hour or two, I'll reply after I've got the Melodifestivalen heat two thread out of the way (PRIORITIES *.*)

There's a prediction on Political Betting of the Lib Dems taking 30-35 seats in 2015. Of these, there are 30 "probable" or "certain" holds:

 

Bath, Bermondsey & Old Southwark, Berwickshire, Brecon & Radnorshire, Bristol West, Caithness, Cardiff Central, Ceredigion, Cheadle, Cheltenham, Colchester, Edinburgh West, Gordon, Hazel Grove, Inverness, Kingston & Surbiton, Leeds NW, Lewes, North Devon, North Norfolk, NE Fife, Orkney & Shetland, Ross & Skye, Sheffield Hallam, Southport, Thornbury & Yate, Twickenham, West Aberdeenshire, Westmorland & Lonsdale, Yeovil

 

There's eight "probable" gains each for the Tories and Labour and another six "possible" for the Tories. Of the five "possible Lib Dem hold" seats, Labour are second in one and a very close third in another two.

 

So basically, that's a very convoluted way of saying that the Tories can only really hope to gain a maximum of 16 Lib Dem seats next year - putting them on 319. I suppose the odd Labour seat might go blue if it's very urban/rural split and the Lib Dem vote goes predominantly to them but there's in effect no way in hell they'll deliver a majority unless they can not only outpoll Labour (they'll probably need that just to prevent an outright defeat) but gain seats they couldn't manage last time.

NE Fife would be safe if Ming was staying, but he's retiring so I'd put that seat on the up for grabs list.

 

All of their Scottish seats bar Orkney & Shetland will turn SNP or Labour I think. They got a hammering at our last election for letting the Tories in and that certainly won't have been forgotten if we vote in 2015.

Bristol West needs a 10% swing (c. 5,500 votes going Labour from Lib Dem last time). It's doable, especially as it's a big student seat.

NE Fife would be safe if Ming was staying, but he's retiring so I'd put that seat on the up for grabs list.

 

All of their Scottish seats bar Orkney & Shetland will turn SNP or Labour I think. They got a hammering at our last election for letting the Tories in and that certainly won't have been forgotten if we vote in 2015.

 

Do you not think even Charles Kennedy will hold on?

 

I do generally agree with you though, I think the Lib Dems will lose most of their Scottish seats, especially since Scots have tactical voting down to an art form--the Tories have consistently underperformed their voteshare in Scotland for years now since, I believe, SNP/Labour/LibDem voters have always rallied behind whichever of those parties was best placed to beat the Tories in a particular constituency. I'm guessing that tactical voting will probably extend to trying to keep the Lib Dems out now too?

Isn't Kennedy's constituency fairly western and rural? I'd have thought he'd be alright.

 

Bristol West needs a 10% swing (c. 5,500 votes going Labour from Lib Dem last time). It's doable, especially as it's a big student seat.

I hadn't realised it was one of the big student ones. To be honest if we're fighting in Hallam then they need a slap if they can't win there.

 

EDIT: Majority was still over 5k in 2005, tough ask.

Well yeah but Bristol West is about as GUARDIAN READING as you GET when it comes to constituencies, of COURSE they'd fallen out of love with the Sainted Tone after Iraq/tuition fees/PFI/foundation hospitals/9-11/neoliberalism/lentil tax

Yeah never been to Bristol, hence my ignorance. I assumed it was just a big student factor post-Cleggmania further boosting their lead, a 10% swing for the Lib Dems and a 7% swing against for us in 2005 wasn't exactly unique.

Happy days are back again :cheer: :cheer:

 

Only a matter of time before people thank the tories and that being reflected in the polls

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/pu...es-9111566.html