Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Labour prepares for its conference today’s YouGov report

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Labour prepares for its conference today’s YouGov reports that the party’s lead has been wiped out

Whenever you get a poll that is out of the ordinary you have to treat the findings with some scepticism and today’s YouGov poll for the Sun is no exception.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Cameron gives Ed, bunny ears…!
  • It's the school dinners what done it
  • It's the school dinners what done it

    Matt strikes again - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

  • If Labour's lead really has been wiped out (and it is far too early to tell), then watch out for fun and games in the IndyRef polling. That 9/2 on Yes could soon start to look like astonishingly good value.

    There is a bigger dynamic going on here that Westminster goldfish bowl commentators seem blissfully ignorant of.

    However, if we set aside entertaining YouGov polls, and I'm afraid that we must for the time being, this is actually the biggest English political story of this parliamentary term so far. A truly stunning state of affairs if true.

    'Conservative party membership has nearly halved throughout Cameron’s premiership'

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/conservative-party-membership-has-nearly-halved-throughout-david-camerons-premiership/

    To put things in perspective, the Specatator should really have pointed out for its readers that, against trend, both the SNP and UKIP are growing. Fast.
  • As OGH points out, in polling terms, essentially meaningless poll within MOE of a 4-5 point Labour lead.

    Further the two internals asked show bug jumps in favour of the govt, suggesting as Nick Palmer would put it a "Tory leaning" panel:

    Net approval: -21 (+5)
    Net support for coalition: -22 (+15)

    That said, the big jump in coalition support is from within the Coalition (Con +27, LibD +13), so there may be something else going on.....

    However, in terms of the media narrative......
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    For this poll, Approval of HMG is -21 and Coalition support is -22 (-37).
    2010 LD voters are split:

    Cons: 14
    LAB: 30
    LD: 35
    UKIP: 12
    Green: 6
    Nats: 2
    Others: 2
  • @Tim
    "Must be careful not to overreact to one poll showing what might be true had George Osborne not cost the Tories 18 months with his incompetence."
    You're quite right Tim. But I'm not sure that today's story is George Osborne.
    But even if we assuming today's poll is an outlier, if we're looking at "cost", what has cost Labour a normal opposition mid-term lead?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9
  • @Tim
    It's probably an outlier. But if it's an outlier, then it only reflects a 3 to 4 % lead.
    What cost Labour 10% off it's lead in a year ?
  • Fat_Steve said:

    But even if we assuming today's poll is an outlier, if we're looking at "cost", what has cost Labour a normal opposition mid-term lead?

    If you want a candid opinion from a Labour supporter, here’s what Roger, had to say on the matter.

    FPT - “I've felt for a while that Ed's Labour was a pig in a poke and other than the well known antipathy to the Conservatives I couldn't see any logical reason why Labour's vote was holding up.

    After blowing his golden chance after the Syria vote all seemed hopeless. It became all too obvious that Labour had chosen a lemon.”
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited September 2013
    @Fat_Steve -
    "... what has cost Labour a normal opposition mid-term lead?"
    What do you mean by "a normal opposition mid-term lead"? Please note that north of the border there is a normal opposition mid-term deficit. A massive 13 point deficit in fact.

    Panelbase/Sunday Times
    Scottish Parliament voting intention
    Sample size: 1002
    Fieldwork: 30 August – 5 September 2013

    Constituency vote (FPTP):
    SNP 45%
    Lab 32%
    Con 12%
    LD 5%
    Grn 2%
    oth 4%

    List vote (PR):
    SNP 46%
    Lab 28%
    Con 12%
    Grn 6%
    LD 4%
    oth 4%
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    As OGH points out, in polling terms, essentially meaningless poll within MOE of a 4-5 point Labour lead.

    Further the two internals asked show bug jumps in favour of the govt, suggesting as Nick Palmer would put it a "Tory leaning" panel:

    Net approval: -21 (+5)
    Net support for coalition: -22 (+15)

    That said, the big jump in coalition support is from within the Coalition (Con +27, LibD +13), so there may be something else going on.....

    However, in terms of the media narrative......

    I wonder if, rather than a Lib Dem bounce, that has been at least partly a consequence of the Lib Dem conference who tried very hard to sell Coalitions as a "good thing".

    The poll is almost certainly an outlier and will no doubt be "corrected" by the next one but it is as bad a poll for the Lib Dems as it is for Labour. It is an important part of the tory victory strategy that the Lib Dems get at least 5% back from Labour by the election and I am getting slightly concerned that there is no sign of that happening. No sign at all. Labour are very slowly losing support but not to the Lib Dems.
  • Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

  • How many daily YouGov's is it since a tie (or blue in the lead)......

    I'll wager it won't be so many days until the next outlier like this one?

    Anyone want to bet it will?
  • DavidL said:

    As OGH points out, in polling terms, essentially meaningless poll within MOE of a 4-5 point Labour lead.

    Further the two internals asked show bug jumps in favour of the govt, suggesting as Nick Palmer would put it a "Tory leaning" panel:

    Net approval: -21 (+5)
    Net support for coalition: -22 (+15)

    That said, the big jump in coalition support is from within the Coalition (Con +27, LibD +13), so there may be something else going on.....

    However, in terms of the media narrative......

    It is an important part of the tory victory strategy that the Lib Dems get at least 5% back from Labour by the election and I am getting slightly concerned that there is no sign of that happening. No sign at all.
    Given a lot of these voters were Labour supporters who voted tactically for the Liberals I doubt that is going to happen - what matters is whether they vote for awesome Ed, or stay at home and sit on their hands.....
  • Outliers:

    Considering that - with 95% confidence - one-in-twenty samples (based upon a reasonable population) will be an outlier this whole YouGov gazing is pointless. For YouGov to collect such data requires four weeks and, as with any time-series, much of it may well be out-of-date.

    Yet the obsession exists: It is mainly the left pokeing when they are down and fibrillating when they are up. The problem is - as any fule knows - that the time-series cannot predict when nor where the outlier exists. Today's YouGov looks absurd but it is the most recent: Against which historical survey should it be weighed (or weighted) against.

    So another day and the usual rant-fests. I doubt anyone cognisant - that excludes the Soho Sewer-rat and :tumbleweed: - is no better informed....
  • DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    It's more about house price inflation.

  • @Tim
    Thanks to Simon St Claire for Roger's nice quote
    "After blowing his golden chance after the Syria vote all seemed hopeless. It became all too obvious that Labour had chosen a lemon.”
    Topic for today.
    Not Osborne not omnishambles.
    But feel free to to disagree. Perhaps there are other causes for Labour's poor polling.
  • Worth noting that earlier this summer when ICM showed a tie between red and blue, You Gov's latest poll had the reds in a 9 point lead.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/are-labour-and-tories-really-level-pegging/


  • So Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the ranks of the super rich by ....buying a four bedroomed house in Stoke Newington.

    Just as Orwell predicted.
    LOL.



    Is that a house liable to a Lib Dem Mansion Tax then?
  • tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    It's more about house price inflation.

    Clearly that is a factor SO but the bigger picture is that politics has become a middle class, aspirational career for PPEs on the make. Our politics is drawn from a small and increasingly unrepresentative portion of our population who make themselves look ridiculous when they try to pretend they are one of us.

    The tories always had tendencies that way although you think back to Maggie and John Major who weren't. For Labour it is unquestionably a major part of the Blair legacy. If our politics is to engage more people it needs a broader range of voice.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723

    So Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the ranks of the super rich by ....buying a four bedroomed house in Stoke Newington.

    Just as Orwell predicted.
    LOL.



    Is that a house liable to a Lib Dem Mansion Tax then?

    So much for a LibDem/Lab coalition then?
  • tim said:

    So Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the ranks of the super rich by ....buying a four bedroomed house in Stoke Newington.

    Just as Orwell predicted.
    LOL.

    Wee-Timmy:

    Tut-tut-tut! You forgot about their special "married-couple allowance" that they screwed the English tax-payer for...!

    :naughty-naughty:


  • Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    Now children, today's question is - how to make this acceptable for Labour, but turn it against the Tories. A gold star for the best answer.
  • Fat_Steve said:

    @Tim
    Thanks to Simon St Claire for Roger's nice quote
    "After blowing his golden chance after the Syria vote all seemed hopeless. It became all too obvious that Labour had chosen a lemon.”
    Topic for today.
    Not Osborne not omnishambles.
    But feel free to to disagree. Perhaps there are other causes for Labour's poor polling.

    Labour's poll share is pretty steady with a YG average of 38%-39% over the last four months. What's happened is that the Tory share has risen. This latest poll may herald a change - we'll have to wait and see. In media narrative terms, though, it could not have come at a worse time for EdM. It also helps the LDs as it obscures the fact that they seem to have received absolutely no conference bounce.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    It's more about house price inflation.

    Is it ?

    I'd have thought it has as much to do with professional politician syndrome, where they stuffed their boots with cash in the noughties through claiming for everything, swapping houses and building a property portfolio. When all your costs are being paid your salary is just pure disposable income. The Balls household had an income of £600k if memory serves me right on the expenses scandal.

    I would add of course this is not just a Labour issue it covers all parties and the longer an MP is in the system the better off they are.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    tim said:

    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    So Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the ranks of the super rich by ....buying a four bedroomed house in Stoke Newington.

    Just as Orwell predicted.
    LOL.

    Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper will have had a combined household income in the top 1% of the population whilst in government. Even in opposition they are in the top 5%. What the hell do they know about kids trying to get a start on a zero hours contract?

    The fact they have personally done rather well out of the housing policies you have been ranting against on here for some months is, of course, a pure coincidence.

  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    It's more about house price inflation.

    Clearly that is a factor SO but the bigger picture is that politics has become a middle class, aspirational career for PPEs on the make. Our politics is drawn from a small and increasingly unrepresentative portion of our population who make themselves look ridiculous when they try to pretend they are one of us.

    The tories always had tendencies that way although you think back to Maggie and John Major who weren't. For Labour it is unquestionably a major part of the Blair legacy. If our politics is to engage more people it needs a broader range of voice.

    I agree about the narrow band of "talent". However, as £1 million houses - many of them ex-council - are pretty common in London, I am not sure that property ownership in and of itself makes anyone that different. That said, any politician claiming to be just like everyone else is making a fool of him/her self. To want to be a politician in the first place makes you very different; and, I guess, so does the fact that politicians themselves do not realise this!

  • JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36

    You can get EVS on Con Seats 275.5+ over at Shadsy's. Free money Jack?

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited September 2013
    Conspiracy theorists might suggest today's tie could just be a warm up for a YouGov poll on the eve of Ed's latest epoch-making speech then showing a blue lead...

    That however would be a very warped and unfair thought.... certainly not one to bet on!
  • tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    @Alanbrooke

    The Balls household had an income of £600k if memory serves me right on the expenses scandal

    If your memory tells you that an MP's staff wages go into their household then they might.

    With many MPs they did. I parallel the Balls with Peter and Iris Robinson who were earning a similar amount from several salaries and employing family and friends. The researcher allowance is capped in any case so it's not the bulk of spend. the bulk came from having 2 cabinet ministers on 6 figure salaries, plus their housing plus their expenses.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36

    You can get EVS on Con Seats 275.5+ over at Shadsy's. Free money Jack?

    Stuart - I'm always a little reluctant to declare "free money" but those numbers are attractive save for the fact that Ladbrokes will probably offer you 4p to stake and added to which you tie money up for 20 months - worth the bother ?!?

  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36

    You can get EVS on Con Seats 275.5+ over at Shadsy's. Free money Jack?

    Stuart - I'm always a little reluctant to declare "free money" but those numbers are attractive save for the fact that Ladbrokes will probably offer you 4p to stake and added to which you tie money up for 20 months - worth the bother ?!?

    100% return on your investment in just 20 months?? What are you waiting for? Where else can one get that ROI? Unless, of course, your ARSE is just expelling hot air.

    And by the way, Ladbrokes are by far the best bookie when it comes to allowing high stakes. 4p? Aye right.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
    They have an asset worth £300k and a pension worth £700k plus any other savings and investments they made.
  • tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
    Why not? With a £300K house, and £700K in savings, plus what additional funds they had.

    OK, if they only have exactly £1 million, pack in their job and use some of the money for living expenses then they will not be.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    tim said:

    DavidL said:

    tim said:

    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    Orwell predicts the future of the Labour party and, sadly, all our politics in 1945.

    So Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the ranks of the super rich by ....buying a four bedroomed house in Stoke Newington.

    Just as Orwell predicted.
    LOL.

    Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper will have had a combined household income in the top 1% of the population whilst in government. Even in opposition they are in the top 5%. What the hell do they know about kids trying to get a start on a zero hours contract?

    The fact they have personally done rather well out of the housing policies you have been ranting against on here for some months is, of course, a pure coincidence.

    You seem to be arguing that the political leadership of all three parties should be replaced.
    Thought you were a fan of Chum Osborne,Chum Cameron and the other Buller Boys.
    Seem to remember you posting that trust funds didn't impact on their ability to do their jobs -but house price inflation in London does?

    All I am saying Tim is that if Labour likes to pretend they are different they are either liars or delusional. I have no problem with wealthy people of ability choosing to serve the country. I do have a problem with the fact that our political elite are a distinct class increasingly deaf to the majority of the population. And so should Labour.

  • tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
    They have an asset worth £300k and a pension worth £700k plus any other savings and investments they made.

    These are people on median level London salaries, many with kids in school and 30 or 40 years left to live. They have not made huge savings or investments. They bought their council houses. But if we are going to go down that route, there are a fair few millionaires in this country, including a decent proportion of PB posters!

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in London. They could sell up, realise £1m, by a much bigger place in say Herefordshire or by the coast for £300k and have a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
    Why not? With a £300K house, and £700K in savings, plus what additional funds they had.

    OK, if they only have exactly £1 million, pack in their job and use some of the money for living expenses then they will not be.
    I can understand an argument that defines a millionaire as someone who earns £1m per annum but asset millionaires will be increasingly common. It makes no difference if the asset is held £1m in cash or in some other form, that's the millionaire's choice.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36

    You can get EVS on Con Seats 275.5+ over at Shadsy's. Free money Jack?

    Stuart - I'm always a little reluctant to declare "free money" but those numbers are attractive save for the fact that Ladbrokes will probably offer you 4p to stake and added to which you tie money up for 20 months - worth the bother ?!?

    100% return on your investment in just 20 months?? What are you waiting for? Where else can one get that ROI? Unless, of course, your ARSE is just expelling hot air.

    And by the way, Ladbrokes are by far the best bookie when it comes to allowing high stakes. 4p? Aye right.

    Stuart, it's a personal issue. The rate of return is fine but the stake level too low to be of any significance for me.

    Simply put a few hundred quid doesn't interest me but others may take a different view and my ARSE doesn't reflect my personal betting strategy rather it's an organ for PBers to handle as they see fit.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tim said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Well actually both. We have such a plethora of VI polls that as the Labour leads narrows we will see outliers at the forefront of the trend.

    My ARSE predicts that we shall see more of these outlier trend polls to the stage where the trend is set clearly and Labour leads eventually become the outlier. The crossover will be muddied by the Euro election next year but will revert to type within months.

    The latest ARSE 2015 GE prediction issued on 10 Sep indicates :

    Con 306 .. Lab 268 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 36

    You can get EVS on Con Seats 275.5+ over at Shadsy's. Free money Jack?

    Stuart - I'm always a little reluctant to declare "free money" but those numbers are attractive save for the fact that Ladbrokes will probably offer you 4p to stake and added to which you tie money up for 20 months - worth the bother ?!?

    100% return on your investment in just 20 months?? What are you waiting for? Where else can one get that ROI? Unless, of course, your ARSE is just expelling hot air.

    And by the way, Ladbrokes are by far the best bookie when it comes to allowing high stakes. 4p? Aye right.

    If JackW believed his own "projections" he'd be on the 2/1 that UKIP will win 1-5 seats, a much better bet given he's had them as high as five and never below two, why mess around with such small returns on the Tories?

    See my 7.48am reply to Stuart.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence t much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s an, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    They're only homeless if they chose to stay in Londoave a £700k pension pot. Their choice.

    And they will then not be millionaires.
    They have an asset worth £300k and a pension worth £700k plus any other savings and investments they made.

    These are people on median level London salaries, many with kids in school and 30 or 40 years left to live. They have not made huge savings or investments. They bought their council houses. But if we are going to go down that route, there are a fair few millionaires in this country, including a decent proportion of PB posters!

    well of course there are. But the converse of your argument is that if Lord Ashcroft spends all his cash on a huge pad in London and then takes a job in McDonalds because he has no income he's suddenly poor. Simply put there are a lot of lucky Londoners as a result of asset inflation. They chose to stay and live there and that's how they're spending their nest egg.

    However MPs most of them weren't lucky Londoners they came to the city on the back of election and became millionaires through taxpayer subsidies for their housing portfolios. And that's not a party political issues it's politicians v the rest.
  • JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Or is it that the LibDem conference boost has gone to the wrong party?

    (Lots of LibDem ministers on telly has boosted the government, and the main party of government is the Conservatives.)
  • Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.



    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.



    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s

    And they will then not be millionaires.


    Why not? With a £300K house, and £700K in savings, plus what additional funds they had.

    OK, if they only have exactly £1 million, pack in their job and use some of the money for living expenses then they will not be.

    I can understand an argument that defines a millionaire as someone who earns £1m per annum but asset millionaires will be increasingly common. It makes no difference if the asset is held £1m in cash or in some other form, that's the millionaire's choice.



    The key word there is asset. Ed is certainly an asset millionaire. As are many, many people in this country; including a fair number of PB posters who perhaps might not class themselves as being very well off. But if you own your own home in the south of England or even the midlands and have a relatively small, or no, mortgage, you are a member of the financial elite and have no right to moan about anything, as you can always move to Hartlepool and live the life of Reilly!


  • The key word there is asset.

    Aha yes, I didn't see the word 'asset' in Plato's original post. I still don't, tbh, but perhaps it is my browser.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    First ICM and now YouGov showing a tie - outliers or the very beginning of a trend ?

    Or is it that the LibDem conference boost has gone to the wrong party?

    (Lots of LibDem ministers on telly has boosted the government, and the main party of government is the Conservatives.)
    Possibly so.

    Just a random thoughtlet but I feel that the overall value of party conferences is much more limited that prior to the 24hour news cycle era we now enjoy.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2013
    London house prices? Why it's like being at a dinner party in the '90s. Who wants to buy a water filter?

    Roger is half right FPT. The crucial question is what EdM says to Lab=>LD switchers.

    There is no compelling reason to return. Tories were wrong? Um, no they weren't, we are in the middle of a recovery. Wrong sort of recovery? Too nuanced. Living standards fallen? Firmer ground but wait for the bribes.

    Oh and tim the issue about the Millibands' house is not the value of the inheritance but the fact that they used a deed of variation, a perfectly sensible (and of course) legal structure designed to avoid tax. At the same time as berating tax avoiders.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    DavidL said:

    As OGH points out, in polling terms, essentially meaningless poll within MOE of a 4-5 point Labour lead.

    Further the two internals asked show bug jumps in favour of the govt, suggesting as Nick Palmer would put it a "Tory leaning" panel:

    Net approval: -21 (+5)
    Net support for coalition: -22 (+15)

    That said, the big jump in coalition support is from within the Coalition (Con +27, LibD +13), so there may be something else going on.....

    However, in terms of the media narrative......

    I wonder if, rather than a Lib Dem bounce, that has been at least partly a consequence of the Lib Dem conference who tried very hard to sell Coalitions as a "good thing".

    The poll is almost certainly an outlier and will no doubt be "corrected" by the next one but it is as bad a poll for the Lib Dems as it is for Labour. It is an important part of the tory victory strategy that the Lib Dems get at least 5% back from Labour by the election and I am getting slightly concerned that there is no sign of that happening. No sign at all. Labour are very slowly losing support but not to the Lib Dems.
    I agree with all of that, and think that the "Coalition is a good thing" narrative from the LibDems may have had some effect. There is a very small LD bounce in there and it's possible to imagine it getting bigger in tonight's poll as Clegg's speech got fairly good coverage. If he does pull back some LibDems then we might see a Tory lead, but a low labour lead is probably more likely.

    That said, we all need to keep cool during the conference season - it always produces interesting effects but they tend to cancel out.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Look at the full figures in the Yougov poll
    Before weighting Con 455 voters Labour 549
    After weighting Con 507 voters Labour 507

    very neatly done to change a Labour lead of 8% into a dead heat
  • Wow re Oborne piece on courageous Ed M...

    Had Paddy H slipped one through in a nom de plume?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Depends on how you define millionaire, de primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.


    With 10% house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.



    Indeed - I know a fair back in the 80s

    And they will then not be millionaires.


    Why not? funds they had.

    OK, if they only have exactly £1 million, pack in their job and use some of the money for living expenses then they will not be.

    I can ue if the asset is held £1m in cash or in some other form, that's the millionaire's choice.



    The key word there is asset. Ed is certainly an asset millionaire. As are many, many people in this country; including a fair number of PB posters who perhaps might not class themselves as being very well off. But if you own your own home in the south of England or even the midlands and have a relatively small, or no, mortgage, you are a member of the financial elite and have no right to moan about anything, as you can always move to Hartlepool and live the life of Reilly!



    Ed is also more than just an asset millionaire, his family is well off in their own right, Ed earns a 6 figure salary as does his wife these are not poor people.

    And yes if you own a large house outright then you are also well off but with your assets tied up in bricks and mortar. There is nothing stopping you moving to Hartlepool or picking up a cheap place in Spain, it's your choice. A fair few people do take that option by selling up and downsizing for retirement or occasionally selling a flat in London to buy a house elsewhere to raise a family.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Quite surprised by this poll. However, given the bounceyness of such things around conference season and the fact the Lib Dems have just had theirs (and probably got a few percentage points from Labour) I don't think it means all that much really.

    F1: McLaren haven't confirmed their lineup for next year. Some suggest Di Resta may be off there:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/mclaren/motorsport/story/125485.html

    Personally, I'd be surprised if McLaren got rid of Button. With massive regulation changes next year an old hand (who is still outscoring his team mate by a sizeable margin) would probably be very handy to have.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    At the half-way stage of the Conference Season (TUC, UKIP and LDs done, LAB and Cons to come) it is time to see if the political parties and their associates have recognised the employment problems generated by the twin-terrors of IT and Globalisation and if they recognise the future problems which will be generated by the near-present and very fast moving Age of DNA/Microbiology.

    To date, without reading every word spoken at the Conferences, the TUC are still living in the early 20thC, demanding better wages and benefits for their clients (as they should) but have not faced reality. The LDs are fighting for survival and so are not able to lift their eyes unto the Horizon of Mankind on this quite small planet.

    The UK has over-priced labour in the world marketplace and so is unable to compete with the emerging economic powerhouses. The only way it can compete is by technical innovation and at the same time being self-sufficient in food and energy. Unfortunately, technical innovation and especially in the world of IT is not a large employer. So what will we do with the growing army of unemployed and unemployable as well as the growing number of graduates who cannot find a job relevant to their qualification. (Our office cleaner, from Poland, has a Masters in biology, but has settled for, in her words, "a simple life."

    The Crick-Watson discovery of the DNA molecule to the later development of the DNA code in 1966, has revolutionised criminology and is on the brink of discovering not only the causes but the prevention of diseases like cancer, and cell-replacement technology. So does the future beckon for extremely long lives and how will we cope with a rapidly growing population or will there be a scheduled lifetime according to a person's usefulness on earth, to make room for the new born - or will we stop procreation and and a certain few live a timeless existence served by robotic/slaves?

    I expect that none of the above will be mentioned by either Labour or the Cons - both having eyes only for 2015.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @MarkSenior

    "Look at the full figures in the Yougov poll
    Before weighting Con 455 voters Labour 549
    After weighting Con 507 voters Labour 507

    very neatly done to change a Labour lead of 8% into a dead heat"

    Are you suggesting skulduggery?
  • tim said:

    Plato said:

    RT @DJack_Journo: Fancy that! Ed Miliband has richest Labour top table ever with 20 millionaires, writes @tnewtondunn ow.ly/i/3bIh9

    Depends on how you define millionaire, of course. If you include a primary place of residence then many people who houses in the 0207 area of London would be classed as one, as would uite a few who own a sizeable property in the SE of England, especially if it comes with a bit of land. If you exclude primary home ownership, then the pool gets much smaller.

    With 10% house price inflation in London anyone who bought a four bedroomed house in the right area twenty years ago will find themselves on that list.

    Indeed - I know a fair few people who bought their Victorian council houses back in the 80s and 90s and who, according to the Sun, would now be classed as millionaires - even though they may be on average London wages and are not in a position to realise their asset without making themselves homeless. However, if primary property is to be included in a net wealth assessment no-one who owns a home in the home counties, Sussex, Hampshire etc could be classed as anything other than comfortably off.

    You don't need to make yourself homeless, just move somewhere cheaper.
    Indeed this causes a problem in other parts of the country where once affordable family homes are being snatched up by "wealthy" southerners pricing locals out of the market.
    A nice 3-4 bedroom house in Dunbar (easy commute to Edinburgh - 30 mins on the train) will set you back ~£200k - £250k... a nice lump-sum if your London property is priced in excess of a mil. But not really affordable for an average family.
    Don't even get me started about the cost of property in the Capital. The New Town is basically little Chelsea.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    This chap sounds familiar...

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridge-UKIP-candidate-David-Kendricks-role-in-horse-racing-betting-scam-revealed-20130919060500.htm

    "The businessman selected as UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Cambridge was banned from horse racing for four years for his role in a betting scam, it emerged last night.

    David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose."
  • tim said:

    "Andrew Charalambous, Ukip's housing spokesman"

    Wow, on about ten different levels.

    Wee-Timmy,

    Are you saying that people with foreign surnames should not have a say in UK politics? I know that Labour have had issues with your issues with women in the North-West but are you really Phil Woollas in disguise...?

    :discloure:

    My surname - via a foreign tongue - is a derivative of Mohammed.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Interesting debate on BBC last night , be keen to hear views of anyone else who watched it.
    My thoughts from it:
    Yes seemed to be predominant
    Lib Dems Booed over Royal Mail
    Still a fair few to make their mind up but they are not so inclined to NO
    Tories were just laughed at
    SNP & Green representatives were miles better than Tory and Lib Dems

    Looks far from what YouGov etc keep telling us
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The weightings,adjustments and assumptions in all polls dwarf the sampling errors in the possibility of error. Its only when confirmed in other polls and ballots that we willsee if their is validity in the methods.



    tim said:

    Look at the full figures in the Yougov poll
    Before weighting Con 455 voters Labour 549
    After weighting Con 507 voters Labour 507

    very neatly done to change a Labour lead of 8% into a dead heat

    Yesterdays figures were

    Before weighting Con 445 voters Labour 506
    After weighting Con 448 voters Labour 501
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited September 2013
    @Tim

    "Yesterdays figures were

    Before weighting Con 445 voters Labour 506
    After weighting Con 448 voters Labour 501"

    Shouldn't Peter Kellner be hauled infront of the PB Star Chamber to explain this somewhat bizarre inconsistency?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349

    The tightening of the polls might just help Ed during the conference. He's going nowhere, so the delegates might remember the saying about "hanging together or hanging separately".

    Expect orgasms over his speech and lots of supportive guff about anything that has even a tiny piece of policy. Sniping will be off the agenda for a week.

    Or am I being too logical?.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited September 2013
    Didn't take long for the PB Obornes to start questioning whether Kellner is a collaborator...
  • Paddy's are still offering 5/2 a Tory poll lead in H2 2013 - I'd say this should be about 4/7.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    To clarify in case some here aren't sure how the adjustments are done: YouGov look at the people responding to their survey (obviously they can't control which of us can be arsed to do it) and adjust up or down to match stated voting at the last GE (which you need to indicate when you join the panel - a strength of the panel approach as it prevents people forgetting/fibbing in retrospect). What's happened here is that not so many 2010 Tories responded to this one so their views have been given greater weight.

    In principle there's nothing wrong with this, but it should induce a certain wariness in over-interpretation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,541
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    This is going to save so much money

    "More than half the people hit by the so-called 'bedroom tax' have fallen into rent arrears in the first three months of the scheme, according to new figures."

    http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2013-09-19/60-000-in-west-midlands-affected-by-bedroom-tax/

    What happened when Labour introduced a similar policy for private tenants?

    (Edit: parish notices
    OGH, glad to hear you're okay. Sounds like it was a lucky escape.
    Sunil: hope everything went well. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
    )
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    One for Roger and resident wine sellers ?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/

    "Revealed: Ed Miliband's Bollinger bolsheviks"

    Despite the class-war rhetoric, Labour’s elite is still intensely comfortable with being filthy rich — and it’s becoming ever more so"
  • Paddy's are still offering 5/2 a Tory poll lead in H2 2013 - I'd say this should be about 4/7.

    That price didn't last long. 15/8 now. Still good value, even if you believe this to be an outlier.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. Following the Dow Jones all time high yesterday could I offer a big thank you to Hunchman for predicting this crash.

    No Hunchman. No Comment
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    To clarify in case some here aren't sure how the adjustments are done: YouGov look at the people responding to their survey (obviously they can't control which of us can be arsed to do it) and adjust up or down to match stated voting at the last GE (which you need to indicate when you join the panel - a strength of the panel approach as it prevents people forgetting/fibbing in retrospect). What's happened here is that not so many 2010 Tories responded to this one so their views have been given greater weight.

    In principle there's nothing wrong with this, but it should induce a certain wariness in over-interpretation.

    That is not the case in this poll , Nick . The 2010 Vote adjustment was Con 539 up to 544 just 5 the VI adjustment 455 to 507 , 10 times greater 52 and for Labour 474 down to 445 , 29 but VI 549 to 507 , 42 .
  • TGOHF said:

    One for Roger and resident wine sellers ?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/

    "Revealed: Ed Miliband's Bollinger bolsheviks"

    Despite the class-war rhetoric, Labour’s elite is still intensely comfortable with being filthy rich — and it’s becoming ever more so"

    IMO, there's nothing wrong in being filthy rich (providing those riches were attained by legal means). The problem comes with the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude.
  • Financier said:

    At the half-way stage of the Conference Season (TUC, UKIP and LDs done, LAB and Cons to come) it is time to see if the political parties and their associates have recognised the employment problems generated by the twin-terrors of IT and Globalisation and if they recognise the future problems which will be generated by the near-present and very fast moving Age of DNA/Microbiology. To date, without reading every word spoken at the Conferences, the TUC are still living in the early 20thC, demanding better wages and benefits for their clients (as they should) but have not faced reality. The LDs are fighting for survival ..... The UK has over-priced labour in the world marketplace and so is unable to compete with the emerging economic powerhouses. The only way it can compete is by technical innovation .........the future beckons for extremely long lives and how will we cope with a rapidly growing population ... I expect that none of the above will be mentioned by either Labour or the Cons - both having eyes only for 2015.

    Very true.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited September 2013
    antifrank said:

    15/8 now. Still good value, even if you believe this to be an outlier.

    If you don't believe it's an outlier the price should probably be 1/7 :-)

    EDIT: and now it's 6/5. Good to see some of you are tucking in.
  • TGOHF said:

    This chap sounds familiar...

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridge-UKIP-candidate-David-Kendricks-role-in-horse-racing-betting-scam-revealed-20130919060500.htm

    "The businessman selected as UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Cambridge was banned from horse racing for four years for his role in a betting scam, it emerged last night.

    David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose."

    '....It emerged last night'. Slightly disingenuous, as it was reported in their own paper in 2011?

    The BHA could (and did) impose the maximum penalty that they were empowered to do...a ban from their race-courses. For someone who never went racing, less than the value of a parking fine. I didn’t defend myself, because spending 12 days in court for avoiding the equivalent penalty of say, 1 point on my driving licence, was an inefficient use of my time. I am sure that the case against me would have been thrown out, especially had I spent an equivalent amount of money on legal assistance as did the BHA

    Doubtless, it will excite the whiter-than-white brigade.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited September 2013
    @TGOHF

    "Revealed: Ed Miliband's Bollinger bolsheviks"
    Despite the class-war rhetoric, Labour’s elite is still intensely comfortable with being filthy rich — and it’s becoming ever more so" "

    That was before we met 'Hunchman'

    "Big Issue" anyone......
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @David

    "David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose.""

    True or Tory dirty tricks?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
  • TGOHF said:

    This chap sounds familiar...

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridge-UKIP-candidate-David-Kendricks-role-in-horse-racing-betting-scam-revealed-20130919060500.htm

    "The businessman selected as UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Cambridge was banned from horse racing for four years for his role in a betting scam, it emerged last night.

    David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose."

    '....It emerged last night'. Slightly disingenuous, as it was reported in their own paper in 2011?

    The BHA could (and did) impose the maximum penalty that they were empowered to do...a ban from their race-courses. For someone who never went racing, less than the value of a parking fine. I didn’t defend myself, because spending 12 days in court for avoiding the equivalent penalty of say, 1 point on my driving licence, was an inefficient use of my time. I am sure that the case against me would have been thrown out, especially had I spent an equivalent amount of money on legal assistance as did the BHA

    Doubtless, it will excite the whiter-than-white brigade.
    Become a candidate: get googled by opponents. Colour me gobsmacked.
  • This Yougov is probably an outlier wthin a trend that is against Labour. But it is still fun to dream, oh deep joy. Having endured a few days of the LDs strutting around placing deposits on the Conservatives image, we now enter the time of Damien McBride followed shortly after by the smell around Hancock. Meanwhile the LD MP that has some dubious views on Jews - David Ward - has had the LD whip reinstated. Makes the use of the word Liberal in Lib Dems very ironic if not a miss-selling under the Trade Descriptions Act.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited September 2013
    Roger said:

    @David
    "David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose.""
    True or Tory dirty tricks?

    Looks more like Labour's antics - perhaps Mr Kendrick may clarify?

    Mr Kendrick I do feel a lot of sympathy and I like your attitude to it all. Unfortunately if you get into the bed of politics which is full of dogs with fleas, you will have a high chance of catching some.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    This chap sounds familiar...

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridge-UKIP-candidate-David-Kendricks-role-in-horse-racing-betting-scam-revealed-20130919060500.htm

    "The businessman selected as UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Cambridge was banned from horse racing for four years for his role in a betting scam, it emerged last night.

    David Kendrick, a member of Shepreth Parish Council, was linked to a group who laid bets on horse races using inside information, colluding with owners and jockeys who had deliberately ridden horses to lose."

    '....It emerged last night'. Slightly disingenuous, as it was reported in their own paper in 2011?

    The BHA could (and did) impose the maximum penalty that they were empowered to do...a ban from their race-courses. For someone who never went racing, less than the value of a parking fine. I didn’t defend myself, because spending 12 days in court for avoiding the equivalent penalty of say, 1 point on my driving licence, was an inefficient use of my time. I am sure that the case against me would have been thrown out, especially had I spent an equivalent amount of money on legal assistance as did the BHA

    Doubtless, it will excite the whiter-than-white brigade.
    I note your "whiter than white" Labour opponent waded in :

    "Labour candidate was under fire today for performing a Nazi salute while speaking at a students’ debate.
    Daniel Zeichner, 53, was appearing at the Cambridge University Union to discuss whether the Conservatives were ready to return to power.
    During his speech, when he accused the Tories of associating with ‘fascists’ such as the Polish Law and Justice Party, he made the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268389/Labour-candidate-performing-Nazi-salute-Cambridge-University-debate.html

    Could turn into an "entertaining" race :)

  • tim said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    @Tim
    It's probably an outlier. But if it's an outlier, then it only reflects a 3 to 4 % lead.
    What cost Labour 10% off it's lead in a year ?

    Did Labour have a 14% lead consistently, picking that figure is a little silly.
    The Omnishambles memory is clearly fading, thats the key polling event since the election, Labours invisibility over the summer won't have helped at the margins.
    What I would guess, from looking at the big picture, is that the Tories are winning back voters lost to UKIP, but Labour aren't.

    It is possible that UKIP are becoming a realistic alternative for those Labour voters pissed off about immigration, in the way that the Tories could never be, for various cultural and historical reasons.

    Next year's local elections in the Metropolitian boroughs could be very interesting.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    DavidL said:

    As OGH points out, in polling terms, essentially meaningless poll within MOE of a 4-5 point Labour lead.

    Further the two internals asked show bug jumps in favour of the govt, suggesting as Nick Palmer would put it a "Tory leaning" panel:

    Net approval: -21 (+5)
    Net support for coalition: -22 (+15)

    That said, the big jump in coalition support is from within the Coalition (Con +27, LibD +13), so there may be something else going on.....

    However, in terms of the media narrative......

    I wonder if, rather than a Lib Dem bounce, that has been at least partly a consequence of the Lib Dem conference who tried very hard to sell Coalitions as a "good thing".

    The poll is almost certainly an outlier and will no doubt be "corrected" by the next one but it is as bad a poll for the Lib Dems as it is for Labour. It is an important part of the tory victory strategy that the Lib Dems get at least 5% back from Labour by the election and I am getting slightly concerned that there is no sign of that happening. No sign at all. Labour are very slowly losing support but not to the Lib Dems.
    I agree with all of that, and think that the "Coalition is a good thing" narrative from the LibDems may have had some effect. There is a very small LD bounce in there and it's possible to imagine it getting bigger in tonight's poll as Clegg's speech got fairly good coverage. If he does pull back some LibDems then we might see a Tory lead, but a low labour lead is probably more likely.

    That said, we all need to keep cool during the conference season - it always produces interesting effects but they tend to cancel out.

    It won't be tonight's poll if it shows a Labour lead Nick. It will be tomorrow's...

  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Godders on the support for UKIP and how some people can't handle it and wish it would just go away...you know who you are!

    http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3947498
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,541
    edited September 2013
    Off-topic:

    I know there are some Apple fans on here (you fools!), so some of you might like this Guardian article on Apple's move to a 64-bit processor architecture on IOS.

    A fair warning: it was written by techies (actually, ex-colleagues of mine) who know the ARM chipset in a rather worryingly intimate way.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/18/iphone-5s-apple-a7-chip-64-bit-explained

    And an Anandtech review on the new iPhone 5S, which uses the new architecture. Apparently it's fast. Very fast.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    Yes - there are 8s in inner London now I believe along with 3s and 7s- the code for London is 020: why some people still think it has two codes a decade or so after it unified is beyond me.

  • This Yougov is probably an outlier wthin a trend that is against Labour. But it is still fun to dream, oh deep joy. Having endured a few days of the LDs strutting around placing deposits on the Conservatives image, we now enter the time of Damien McBride followed shortly after by the smell around Hancock. Meanwhile the LD MP that has some dubious views on Jews - David Ward - has had the LD whip reinstated. Makes the use of the word Liberal in Lib Dems very ironic if not a miss-selling under the Trade Descriptions Act.

    Polls notoriously bounce around at conference season and I doubt we’ll see a reliable YouGov poll until a week after the final party pitch – I agree with you that the YG poll giving Labour and the Conservatives 36% each is an outlier, until proved otherwise of course, but still would have expected to see a LibDem bouncet.

    No doubt Labour will regain the lead soon, maybe tomorrow, but the pre-conference season polls did reveal a trend and it will interesting to see if that continues after the shindigs are over.
  • Financier said:

    At the half-way stage of the Conference Season (TUC, UKIP and LDs done, LAB and Cons to come) it is time to see if the political parties and their associates have recognised the employment problems generated by the twin-terrors of IT and Globalisation and if they recognise the future problems which will be generated by the near-present and very fast moving Age of DNA/Microbiology.

    Minor point of order, the UKIP conference is not done. It doesn't actually start until tomorrow.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Bobajob said:

    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    isam said:

    Bobajob said:

    @Southam

    Point of order - there is no such thing as the "0207" area of London. The code for London is simply 020 and the 7s and 8s are part of the actual number. We have leading threes and all sorts now and the old 0171 0181 boundaries were blurred long ago.

    The idea that London has two phone codes is a myth. It has just one: 020.

    Aren't the 0207 numbers in the centre of London and the 0208s around the outer parts, or Greater London?

    Are there any 0208s in central London and vice versa?
    Yes - there are 8s in inner London now I believe along with 3s and 7s- the code for London is 020: why some people still think it has two codes a decade or so after it unified is beyond me.


    Fair enough, I knew there were 0203s.

    To be fair to @SouthamObserver, most people who have livedor worked in London over the last twenty years would know what he meant by the 0207 part of London
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    TGOHF said:

    One for Roger and resident wine sellers ?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/

    "Revealed: Ed Miliband's Bollinger bolsheviks"

    Despite the class-war rhetoric, Labour’s elite is still intensely comfortable with being filthy rich — and it’s becoming ever more so"

    So what? There's no contradiction in being well off and being a leftie. Are we saying that once we become wealthy we have to become rightwing and selfish?
  • Outliers:

    Considering that - with 95% confidence - one-in-twenty samples (based upon a reasonable population) will be an outlier this whole YouGov gazing is pointless. For YouGov to collect such data requires four weeks and, as with any time-series, much of it may well be out-of-date.

    Yet the obsession exists: It is mainly the left pokeing when they are down and fibrillating when they are up. The problem is - as any fule knows - that the time-series cannot predict when nor where the outlier exists. Today's YouGov looks absurd but it is the most recent: Against which historical survey should it be weighed (or weighted) against.

    So another day and the usual rant-fests. I doubt anyone cognisant - that excludes the Soho Sewer-rat and :tumbleweed: - is no better informed....

    This is true, but as long as you compare like against like, outliers can also provide useful information.

    For example, if you look at all the YouGov polls in May, then the outlier most in the Conservatives favour still had them 6% behind. That's quite a shift in four months.

    This is one of the advantages of the daily YouGov polling - it becomes clear which polls are outliers with only a little hindsight. With a monthly poll - such as from ICM - it is much harder to discriminate between real shifts in opinion and statistical outliers.
  • Off-topic:

    I know there are some Apple fans on here (you fools!), so some of you might like this Guardian article on Apple's move to a 64-bit processor architecture on IOS.

    A fair warning: it was written by techies (actually, ex-colleagues of mine) who know the ARM chipset in a rather worryingly intimate way.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/18/iphone-5s-apple-a7-chip-64-bit-explained

    And an Anandtech review on the new iPhone 5S, which uses the new architecture. Apparently it's fast. Very fast.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

    My immediate reaction to the 64bit news for the 5s was "wow, what's the point in that? Completely useless on this form factor, etc", but doing more research reveals it's not just for show.
    Still won't make me get a 5s yet, still v happy with my 5.

    Upgraded to iOS7 last night. MUCH better than iOS6. Some really nice features.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    When are we going to see an "outlier" with Lab on 44% ?
  • Syria: apparently ISIS (Islamic fundamentalists) and the FSA have been at each other's throats in a border town with Turkey, which is vital for supplies:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-rebels-turn-on-each-other-in-border-city-of-azaz-8825052.html

    I'm mildly surprised that Gulf states are reportedly shipping weapons to ISIS rather than the FSA. Depends which countries, of course, but several (Qatar, Bahrain etc) would seem to be of the pro-Western sort, and the most anti-Western country (Iran) is clearly in Assad's corner.
This discussion has been closed.