Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
Past performance is no indication of electoral success.
We have the Ukip joker in the pack, the other joker Ed Miliband in play. The knave of spades still encamped as Shadow Chancellor and as the months roll by the economic aces fall into the Coalition hand.
Perhaps Mike thinks this game is snap rather than the 5 year poker game that Cameron and Clegg have been playing.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
This should get the blood racing for a few on here, Mike, so be prepared...
It's hard to fault your logic - even the poll showing the gap closed to 2% which excited so many on here would still give Labour a narrow majority.
On the one side the view is that a recovering economy and improved personal and family economic circumstances (aided by the daily propaganda of statistics) will convince many that the Coalition in general and the Conservatives in particular have done a good job and deserve another five years and that the risk of allowing Labour in to wreck the economy again is too great.
On the other is the view that the events of 2010 must never be forgiven or forgotten and the only hope for those who care about public servivces, the elederly, social justice and an economy not just run for the benefit of the wealthy lies with bringing Labour back to office. Yes, it didn't go well last time but allowing the Conservatives and their lick-spittle Lib Dem allies the opportunity to pound the poor into the dirt for another five years would be a betrayal of the people of this country.
Truth, I'd like you to meet my two friends, Rock and Hard Place. I'm sure you'll all get along just fine.
Ladbrokes are 13-8 on No Overall Majority. That is a better price than Betfair.
Backed Labour Majority with Betfair, Backed NOM with Ladbrokes. I Suppose it could theoretically cost some liquidity but can't have everything in life !
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
Tim has been free to post since Sunday.
I wouldn't blame him if he gave up on PB altogether. The treatment of certain posters on here is utterly despicable, whereas certain other cretins get to post their nonsense unfettered.
The problem with these multiple threads about the Con maj price is that there are never any posters putting the counter argument - there is never a single post giving logic to the price nor backing a con maj (which has been drifting out from sub 4 to 4.2...).
UK unemployment numbers excellent, dropping from 7.6% to 7.4%. An improvement was expected, but this is much better (36,700 people) than anyone had hoped for.
Also very good this morning were the German business confidence and 'current production' numbers, which remain firmly in the 'growth' camp.
Finally out this morning were Spanish bad debt numbers, which I haven't had time to plough through yet. However, as all the Spanish bank share prices are up, I think we can conclude they were OK.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
The employment rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for August to October 2013 was 72.0%, up 0.4 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 30.09 million people in employment aged 16 and over, up 250,000 from May to July 2013.
The unemployment rate for August to October 2013 was 7.4% of the economically active population, down 0.3 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 2.39 million unemployed people, down 99,000 from May to July 2013.
The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for August to October 2013 was 22.1%, down 0.1 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 8.92 million economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64, down 45,000 from May to July 2013.
Between August to October 2012 and August to October 2013 total pay rose by 0.9% and regular pay rose by 0.8%.
Past performance is no indication of electoral success.
We have the Ukip joker in the pack, the other joker Ed Miliband in play. The knave of spades still encamped as Shadow Chancellor and as the months roll by the economic aces fall into the Coalition hand.
Perhaps Mike thinks this game is snap rather than the 5 year poker game that Cameron and Clegg have been playing.
The UKIP joker is actually the Ace that Cammo needs, JackW, and you know what; he won't get it. Cammo and Cleggover are lousy at poker; always showing up each others hands.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other poster to reveal his identity.
Er, his identity was already known - after he was unmasked, years ago, as not being the Cheshire farmer he pretended, but someone else entirely.
You cannot reveal what is already revealed.
Wait!!!! Are you telling me tim isn't a farmer????
Past performance is no indication of electoral success.
We have the Ukip joker in the pack, the other joker Ed Miliband in play. The knave of spades still encamped as Shadow Chancellor and as the months roll by the economic aces fall into the Coalition hand.
Perhaps Mike thinks this game is snap rather than the 5 year poker game that Cameron and Clegg have been playing.
The UKIP joker is actually the Ace that Cammo needs, JackW, and you know what; he won't get it. Cammo and Cleggover are lousy at poker; always showing up each others hands.
Think on old fruit. Not too good at this poker lark are you ??
"Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other poster to reveal his identity."
And why wasn't the other poster (SeanT) banned?
Roger stop being a tit. Most posters on here are either known already or known to other posters. If anyone is really that desperate to find out who a poster is it's fairly straightforward, just ask someone of PB who has met them at a get together.
Talking about employment or unemployment is complex - some just run off to the statistics and often just the headlines. The reality of employment in 2013-14 is very different - often part time, often not well paid realtive to the cost of living.
I know many people who have two part-time jobs and even that doesn't seem to make them happy, contented or give them an overall sense of prosperity.
We "seem" to be working longer hours but are we doing any more with or in those hours? I'm not badly paid for what I do but I know I'm worse off than I was in 2010 - I work harder and longer hours but I'm no better off.
Yes here it is .... you've been waiting for it .... agitating away through the evening .... tossing and turning all night .... burrowing through your political almanacs all morning !!!
The JackW Chrimbo Quiz Question is here to titillate your little grey cells .... off we go for all of minutes of unadulterated pleasure :
Who are these political luminaries and what connects them :
a. Funny dough but did Sam not fancy a beer in over 40 years as MP ?
b. He was succeeded by an EU regulated fruit this son-in-law of This Sceptered Isle.
c. A superhero - The $6M man ? .... More like $100M, this early Aunty man was shot from the Skeet trap in 1992.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
Agreed. I'm afraid we have here a case of callused sensibilities.
A Con majority is certainly not a 20/1 shot. Whilst it might be a big ask, with Labour helped by the disgraceful failure to correct the quite extraordinary fact that the constituencies are systematically biased in their favour, there is simply too much uncertainty over nearly 16 months to assume that the polling won't shift substantially. Historically, in many elections not just in the UK but elsewhere (eg Germany, 2013, Scotland, 2011), shifts of 5% or more in vote shares over such periods are not uncommon - and that is without even considering the possibility of some unexpected game-changer, which in politics is always something to bear in mind when placing your bets.
Of course, that can work either way; we certainly can't discount the possibility that there could be a shift in Labour's favour. For a number of reasons, though, that is less likely than a shift in the Conservatives' favour. These reasons include (a) the economy, (b) Ed Milband, (c) a likely shift back from UKIP as the forced choice becomes more stark, (d) the tendency of oppositions to become less popular as they fill in the blank piece of paper with actual manifesto proposals
The price of 23.8% is not "ludicrous" but is rather the price the market places on potential political volatility. It's rather like implied volatility in the options market. Implied volatility (a mathematical construct) can sometimes diverge markedly from actual observed volatility. When implied volatility is high (option premium is expensive) and actual volatility is much lower it can be tempting to sell options on the premise that because nothing much is moving at the present nothing ever will. This is often a losing trade. The recent post on the SNP turnaround in the last Holyrood election in effect makes this point.
Excellent unemployment numbers. Below 2 million by May 2105 ?? ... looks entirely possible.
Alex Belardinelli @abelardinelli Unemployment fall welcome though #costoflivingcrisis continues - prices rising faster than wages for 41 out of 42 months under David Cameron.
And wait! Britain is getting over 1000 immigrants a day, slipping over from Calais. And thats before the January rush. Not only that, Merkel wants ever closer European Union to hug to her bosom. Oh, oh, oh!
Yes here it is .... you've been waiting for it .... agitating away through the evening .... tossing and turning all night .... burrowing through your political almanacs all morning !!!
The JackW Chrimbo Quiz Question is here to titillate your little grey cells .... off we go for all of minutes of unadulterated pleasure :
Who are these political luminaries and what connects them :
a. Funny dough but did Sam not fancy a beer in over 40 years as MP ?
b. He was succeeded by an EU regulated fruit this son-in-law of This Sceptered Isle.
c. A superhero - The $6M man ? .... More like $100M, this early Aunty man was shot from the Skeet trap in 1992.
Excellent unemployment numbers. Below 2 million by May 2105 ?? ... looks entirely possible.
Alex Belardinelli @abelardinelli Unemployment fall welcome though #costoflivingcrisis continues - prices rising faster than wages for 41 out of 42 months under David Cameron.
And wait! Britain is getting over 1000 immigrants a day, slipping over from Calais. And thats before the January rush. Not only that, Merkel wants ever closer European Union to hug to her bosom. Oh, oh, oh!
Careful, or you'll turn into tim, desperate for bad news to reinforce your worldview.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
Agreed. But his identity was ALREADY known, on this site. Big difference.
Moreover tim was happy to comment, fairly snidely, on MY homelife - children, booze, domestic situation, etc. Generally I accept it as "tim being tim", and of course I have a journalistic profile which I reveal openly to the world, and I acknowledge that this has a price. But a few months ago he claimed I was "making my daughter live on benefits" - an allegation he later withdrew. But he overstepped.
So, just once, I showed him someone could easily google him and make him feel just a little uncomfortable in return. And now he runs away? Pfft.
SeanT: I'm not going to get involved in your issues with Tim. I was making a more general point, not least because I have not revealed - other than to Mike Smithson - my real identity (for reasons linked to my profession) and I would be crestfallen if someone were to try and identify me. Doubtless someone could find out (if they tried hard enough) but I think that we should not try and out people - or their families - without their consent or - as a matter of good manners - make insulting comments about people's children or family members.
Talking about employment or unemployment is complex - some just run off to the statistics and often just the headlines. The reality of employment in 2013-14 is very different - often part time, often not well paid realtive to the cost of living.
I know many people who have two part-time jobs and even that doesn't seem to make them happy, contented or give them an overall sense of prosperity.
We "seem" to be working longer hours but are we doing any more with or in those hours? I'm not badly paid for what I do but I know I'm worse off than I was in 2010 - I work harder and longer hours but I'm no better off.
"Average weekly earnings including bonus payments rose by 0.9% comparing August to October 2013 with the same period a year earlier. Average weekly earnings for the private sector increased by 1.3% but average weekly earnings for the public sector fell by 0.3%."
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
Agreed. But his identity was ALREADY known, on this site. Big difference.
Moreover tim was happy to comment, fairly snidely, on MY homelife - children, booze, domestic situation, etc. Generally I accept it as "tim being tim", and of course I have a journalistic profile which I reveal openly to the world, and I acknowledge that this has a price. But a few months ago he claimed I was making my daughter "live on benefits" - an allegation he later withdrew. But he overstepped.
So, just once, I showed him someone could easily google him and make him feel just a little uncomfortable in return. And now he runs away? Pfft.
Perhaps tim isn't off sulking, maybe he has just stopped believing in the Labour project? It can't be easy being a supporter with all the Labour MPs who have gone to jail for expense fiddling, seeing Unite take over the party and watching Miliband roll back all the advances of Tony Blair's New Labour. Given tim was never able to post anything positive about Ed, keeping the faith must have been a real challenge.
Yes here it is .... you've been waiting for it .... agitating away through the evening .... tossing and turning all night .... burrowing through your political almanacs all morning !!!
The JackW Chrimbo Quiz Question is here to titillate your little grey cells .... off we go for all of minutes of unadulterated pleasure :
Who are these political luminaries and what connects them :
a. Funny dough but did Sam not fancy a beer in over 40 years as MP ?
b. He was succeeded by an EU regulated fruit this son-in-law of This Sceptered Isle.
c. A superhero - The $6M man ? .... More like $100M, this early Aunty man was shot from the Skeet trap in 1992.
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Excellent unemployment numbers. Below 2 million by May 2105 ?? ... looks entirely possible.
Alex Belardinelli @abelardinelli Unemployment fall welcome though #costoflivingcrisis continues - prices rising faster than wages for 41 out of 42 months under David Cameron.
And wait! Britain is getting over 1000 immigrants a day, slipping over from Calais. And thats before the January rush. Not only that, Merkel wants ever closer European Union to hug to her bosom. Oh, oh, oh!
Your point about falling unemployment being ??
And is it possible that Ukip might issue an economic policy not straight out of comedy central that doesn't have us rolling in the aisles crying with laughter ??
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
That is utter rubbish. The PB gatherings attract only a small proportion of posters. Many people are not in a position to reveal their identity and anyone who attempts to do so should be banned.
A Con majority is certainly not a 20/1 shot. Whilst it might be a big ask, with Labour helped by the disgraceful failure to correct the quite extraordinary fact that the constituencies are systematically biased in their favour, there is simply too much uncertainty over nearly 16 months to assume that the polling won't shift substantially. Historically, in many elections not just in the UK but elsewhere (eg Germany, 2013, Scotland, 2011), shifts of 5% or more in vote shares over such periods are not uncommon - and that is without even considering the possibility of some unexpected game-changer, which in politics is always something to bear in mind when placing your bets.
Of course, that can work either way; we certainly can't discount the possibility that there could be a shift in Labour's favour. For a number of reasons, though, that is less likely than a shift in the Conservatives' favour. These reasons include (a) the economy, (b) Ed Milband, (c) a likely shift back from UKIP as the forced choice becomes more stark, (d) the tendency of oppositions to become less popular as they fill in the blank piece of paper with actual manifesto proposals
Mike has been through this ludicrous assertion time and again. It is hardly Labour's fault that the Tories pile up vast majorities in their heartlands. This is FPP - if you want PR campaign for it. Ask the Liberals about unfairness in the existing system.
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Don't forget unemployment down too !!
"everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed".....now now, get with it. There will be no unemployment. All shirkers to be shot.
The problem with these multiple threads about the Con maj price is that there are never any posters putting the counter argument - there is never a single post giving logic to the price nor backing a con maj (which has been drifting out from sub 4 to 4.2...).
There are very rarely any betting posts whatsoever in the actual threads. I would guesstimate that only about 20% of regular posters understand betting, and of those, very few are high stakes, involved punters. Most have an odd flutter and thus don't really care about value or even about logic.
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Don't forget unemployment down too !!
"everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed".....now now, get with it. There will be no unemployment. All shirkers to be shot.
Well the first part is nearly there - so there will be nobody left to shoot
Rejoice Pouty - the socialist dream of full employment is nearly upon us.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
That is utter rubbish. The PB gatherings attract only a small proportion of posters. Many people are not in a position to reveal their identity and anyone who attempts to do so should be banned.
They might attract a small proportion of posters but networks exist within PB which any half intelligent regular can use. As for blanket banning if you're that embarassed by your opinions that you won't stand behind them why on earth are you on posting on an open and public site ?
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
I can't remember who it was who revealed tim's identity: it happened about three years ago, AND IT WASN'T ME. Capisce?
I didn't say it was you! I merely asked the question who was responsible. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Don't forget unemployment down too !!
"everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed".....now now, get with it. There will be no unemployment. All shirkers to be shot.
Well the first part is nearly there - so there will be nobody left to shoot
Rejoice Pouty - the socialist dream of full employment is nearly upon us.
This time next year the penny will begin to drop with quite a few PB Hodges as the realisation of the Labour percentage of 37%-40% not reducing hits home. Some will blame Cameron, some will blame Gideon. Though obviously there will be those that will still proclaim:
Swingback, swingback ........my kingdom for any swingback.
The problem with these multiple threads about the Con maj price is that there are never any posters putting the counter argument - there is never a single post giving logic to the price nor backing a con maj (which has been drifting out from sub 4 to 4.2...).
There are very rarely any betting posts whatsoever in the actual threads. I would guesstimate that only about 20% of regular posters understand betting, and of those, very few are high stakes, involved punters. Most have an odd flutter and thus don't really care about value or even about logic.
Some truth in that but that did change as we approached the 2010 GE.
We can't all be tossing around big wagers day in day out.
As for betting - should I be laying off my Susanna Reid for Strictly and Oz 5-0 bets ?
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I always find the forum more civilised and grown up and less aggressive and loutish without Tim. So I hope he stays away. I have no idea who he is or want to know . I just find his negativity and sneering tedious and his personal attacks on people here but more generally in politics enough of a reason to think the site should ban him
"The chaps in charge of government realise they have a problem. What to do? Ah … here comes a delegation of civil servants with the answer. The mandarins suggest an independent report on airport capacity – to be published after the next election (see what they did there?)
And they have identified just the chap to write it. He's a nice chap but he has been a bit down on his luck, what with having established the catastrophic Financial Services Authority, run the euro-loving CBI and then having had to step aside at the London School of Economics after rebranding it as the Libyan School of Economics. So he'll jump at this airport gig."
FAO of Mr Smithson - Do you not realise there is going to be a polling crossover by Xmas (or was it May) which will give the Tory Party seventeen months to get their 7-8% lead. By May 2015 the economy will be booming, house price rises will be 10% annum for everyone, wages will outstrip inflation, the price of petrol will be down, the Universal Credit will have been proven to be a major success, there will be a huge fall in immigrants, Dave will have offered us an in/out referendum on Europe, interest rate will be sill be low, everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed....get with the PB Hodges line. TORY MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Don't forget unemployment down too !!
"everyone who wants a job will get one and those that don't take one will be executed".....now now, get with it. There will be no unemployment. All shirkers to be shot.
Well the first part is nearly there - so there will be nobody left to shoot
Rejoice Pouty - the socialist dream of full employment is nearly upon us.
This time next year the penny will begin to drop with quite a few PB Hodges as the realisation of the Labour percentage of 37%-40% not reducing hits home. Some will blame Cameron, some will blame Gideon. Though obviously there will be those that will still proclaim:
Swingback, swingback ........my kingdom for any swingback.
My view at the beginning of 2013 was that this would be the year the economy recovered despite the efforts of GO and that he would claim the credit for it but doesn't deserve it.
My view for 2014 is this will be the year the Labour polling slips below 35% and leaves us looking at a HP in 2015. The 38% just won't hold.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
That is utter rubbish. The PB gatherings attract only a small proportion of posters. Many people are not in a position to reveal their identity and anyone who attempts to do so should be banned.
They might attract a small proportion of posters but networks exist within PB which any half intelligent regular can use. As for blanket banning if you're that embarassed by your opinions that you won't stand behind them why on earth are you on posting on an open and public site ?
I am not in a position to be able to reveal my identity and nor is Cyclefree. Are you saying I should quit the site unless I post publicly? If that is the consensus view, I will leave now and never return.
The problem with these multiple threads about the Con maj price is that there are never any posters putting the counter argument - there is never a single post giving logic to the price nor backing a con maj (which has been drifting out from sub 4 to 4.2...).
There are very rarely any betting posts whatsoever in the actual threads. I would guesstimate that only about 20% of regular posters understand betting, and of those, very few are high stakes, involved punters. Most have an odd flutter and thus don't really care about value or even about logic.
Some truth in that but that did change as we approached the 2010 GE.
We can't all be tossing around big wagers day in day out.
As for betting - should I be laying off my Susanna Reid for Strictly and Oz 5-0 bets ?
We agree on something(I may need to have a lie down), I don't bet, I only come on here to marvel at the PB Hodges and their ignorance of polls they do not like and their belief in a Tory majority. It is quite entertaining.
Mike has been through this ludicrous assertion time and again. It is hardly Labour's fault that the Tories pile up vast majorities in their heartlands. This is FPP - if you want PR campaign for it. Ask the Liberals about unfairness in the existing system.
Yes, we have been through it many times, and still you don't seem to be able to understand that there are more than one effect, one of which is that constituencies in Labour heartlands are systematically smaller than average, thereby systematically giving Labour an advantage which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to with a more efficient vote distribution or FPP. It is that particular bias - not the more efficient vote distribution - which is a national disgrace.
For example, the average size of constituencies in Wales is 56,628 and in Scotland 65,475, whereas the average size in England is 71,858. Within England there is a similar pro-Labour bias. How anyone could possibly think that even vaguely acceptable is utterly incomprehensible (and that's even without considering the West Lothian question).
I'd be tempted but the odds are just not worth it. The economic news is getting better and better and while people generally don't like the Tories they like being better off.
As an example this morning I bet a few quid on SA winning both tests against India at 2.94, that's after they convincingly won the one day series, on which I made money on the series bet and the matches. 2-0 is now 2.1.
"The chaps in charge of government realise they have a problem. What to do? Ah … here comes a delegation of civil servants with the answer. The mandarins suggest an independent report on airport capacity – to be published after the next election (see what they did there?)
And they have identified just the chap to write it. He's a nice chap but he has been a bit down on his luck, what with having established the catastrophic Financial Services Authority, run the euro-loving CBI and then having had to step aside at the London School of Economics after rebranding it as the Libyan School of Economics. So he'll jump at this airport gig."
Boris is the Gazza, the Pele, the Maradona, the Suarez, the Messi, the Ronaldo - even gasp the Brian Laudrup of the political age - only he can deliver a project like the estuary airport which is totally required.
Hence why I will be putting both my kidneys on him being next Con leader.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I've heard that time and again and yet most posters sort of know who the other person is and over time become relaxed about it. If you're not comfortable or your job depends on it them why are you on a public forum ? The longer you're on here the more you tell us about yourself.
I'd be tempted but the odds are just not worth it. The economic news is getting better and better and while people generally don't like the Tories they like being better off.
As an example this morning I bet a few quid on SA winning both tests against India at 2.94, that's after they convincingly won the one day series, on which I made money on the series bet and the matches. 2-0 is now 2.1.
So tell me, when inflation outstrips wage rises who are these people you mention that are better off?
PS why is Ronnie Bigg's death getting major coverage on the BBC and other media? On Radio 4 this morning they ran their first feature after 8 o clock on him relegating the much more deserving story of the death of the doctor in Syria to second? They even had self confessed friends being interviewed FGS ? I know its newsworthy but surely a one sentence approach to announce his death would be enough for him?
A Con majority is certainly not a 20/1 shot. Whilst it might be a big ask, with Labour helped by the disgraceful failure to correct the quite extraordinary fact that the constituencies are systematically biased in their favour, there is simply too much uncertainty over nearly 16 months to assume that the polling won't shift substantially. Historically, in many elections not just in the UK but elsewhere (eg Germany, 2013, Scotland, 2011), shifts of 5% or more in vote shares over such periods are not uncommon - and that is without even considering the possibility of some unexpected game-changer, which in politics is always something to bear in mind when placing your bets.
Of course, that can work either way; we certainly can't discount the possibility that there could be a shift in Labour's favour. For a number of reasons, though, that is less likely than a shift in the Conservatives' favour. These reasons include (a) the economy, (b) Ed Milband, (c) a likely shift back from UKIP as the forced choice becomes more stark, (d) the tendency of oppositions to become less popular as they fill in the blank piece of paper with actual manifesto proposals
Mike has been through this ludicrous assertion time and again. It is hardly Labour's fault that the Tories pile up vast majorities in their heartlands. This is FPP - if you want PR campaign for it. Ask the Liberals about unfairness in the existing system.
No. I think Richard is correct. A Conservativ majority is more like an 11/2 shot - 20/1 it is not - for the reasons he state here and PeterC mentions.
However this is certainly longer than the current Betfair price of 4.2/4.3 suggests.
The value on the blue side has been in the constituency markets. Kingswood, Hastings and Rye, Elmet and Rothwell - All are, or have been overpriced wrt the Conservatives.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I've heard that time and again and yet most posters sort of know who the other person is and over time become relaxed about it. If you're not comfortable or your job depends on it them why are you on a public forum ? The longer you're on here the more you tell us about yourself.
FAIR ENOUGH. I QUIT. THE IDEA OF PEOPLE TRYING TO OUT ME (OR ANYONE ELSE) IS, FRANKLY, SICKENING. I MAY RETURN UNDER ANOTHER NAME AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THIS WILL BE THE LAST POST FROM BOBAJOB.
I think it unfortunate if people don't feel able to post here because they feel their identity may be exposed without their consent. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would not want to reveal their real name and we should - whatever our differences with a poster's political or other views - respect that.
That is utter rubbish. The PB gatherings attract only a small proportion of posters. Many people are not in a position to reveal their identity and anyone who attempts to do so should be banned.
They might attract a small proportion of posters but networks exist within PB which any half intelligent regular can use. As for blanket banning if you're that embarassed by your opinions that you won't stand behind them why on earth are you on posting on an open and public site ?
I am not in a position to be able to reveal my identity and nor is Cyclefree. Are you saying I should quit the site unless I post publicly? If that is the consensus view, I will leave now and never return.
That's a question you should ask yourself BaJ. But it's like saying should you stop driving because you can't accept the outside risk of being in a car accident.
PS why is Ronnie Bigg's death getting major coverage on the BBC and other media? On Radio 4 this morning they ran their first feature after 8 o clock on him relegating the much more deserving story of the death of the doctor in Syria to second? They even had self confessed friends being interviewed FGS ? I know its newsworthy but surely a one sentence approach to announce his death would be enough for him?
"SHADOW chancellor Ed Balls has been given nine months to save his job, The Sun can reveal.
Senior Labour sources say party boss Ed Miliband is ready to axe his right-hand man next Autumn unless he starts winning the economic argument with George Osborne."
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I've heard that time and again and yet most posters sort of know who the other person is and over time become relaxed about it. If you're not comfortable or your job depends on it them why are you on a public forum ? The longer you're on here the more you tell us about yourself.
FAIR ENOUGH. I QUIT. THE IDEA OF PEOPLE TRYING TO OUT ME (OR ANYONE ELSE) IS, FRANKLY, SICKENING. I MAY RETURN UNDER ANOTHER NAME AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THIS WILL BE THE LAST POST FROM BOBAJOB.
Moderator – this in an FYI.
The PB Hodges scorched earth policy of ridding this site of anyone who doesn't agree with them continues.
I'm one of the fantasists - as Aha once said, OGH - take on me!
But I've got money to burn thanks to computerash. It's all profit for a while...
PS - I thought it was we PBblues who are always told off for being obsessed about certain posters, bit rich with the PBlefties pining for their leader on here...
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I've heard that time and again and yet most posters sort of know who the other person is and over time become relaxed about it. If you're not comfortable or your job depends on it them why are you on a public forum ? The longer you're on here the more you tell us about yourself.
FAIR ENOUGH. I QUIT. THE IDEA OF PEOPLE TRYING TO OUT ME (OR ANYONE ELSE) IS, FRANKLY, SICKENING. I MAY RETURN UNDER ANOTHER NAME AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THIS WILL BE THE LAST POST FROM BOBAJOB.
Moderator – this in an FYI.
Really ? Has anyone actually tried to find out who you are ?
SeanT is actually Drexl Spivey, an entrepreneur from Detroit. He is no relation of Sean Thomas, a notorious misanthrope and prolific author, although he has been known to impersonate him in bars and in Internet chat rooms.
"SHADOW chancellor Ed Balls has been given nine months to save his job, The Sun can reveal.
Senior Labour sources say party boss Ed Miliband is ready to axe his right-hand man next Autumn unless he starts winning the economic argument with George Osborne."
PS why is Ronnie Bigg's death getting major coverage on the BBC and other media? On Radio 4 this morning they ran their first feature after 8 o clock on him relegating the much more deserving story of the death of the doctor in Syria to second? They even had self confessed friends being interviewed FGS ? I know its newsworthy but surely a one sentence approach to announce his death would be enough for him?
Strangely enough, the last thing I did before turning in last night (early hours of the morning) was to look up Wikipedia to see if Ronnie Biggs was still alive...
"Productivity - the economic output per unit of labour - rose 0.5pc between the first and second quarters of 2013. Of the 250,000 extra people in jobs in the August to October quarter, 155,000 of these were in full-time jobs. And the number of economically inactive people is falling"
The problem with these multiple threads about the Con maj price is that there are never any posters putting the counter argument - there is never a single post giving logic to the price nor backing a con maj (which has been drifting out from sub 4 to 4.2...).
There are very rarely any betting posts whatsoever in the actual threads. I would guesstimate that only about 20% of regular posters understand betting, and of those, very few are high stakes, involved punters. Most have an odd flutter and thus don't really care about value or even about logic.
Some truth in that but that did change as we approached the 2010 GE.
We can't all be tossing around big wagers day in day out.
As for betting - should I be laying off my Susanna Reid for Strictly and Oz 5-0 bets ?
We agree on something(I may need to have a lie down), I don't bet, I only come on here to marvel at the PB Hodges and their ignorance of polls they do not like and their belief in a Tory majority. It is quite entertaining.
ROFL - if that's why you come on here the only appropriate response would be to get a life ... and quick. Try trolling ConHome instead.
Still no Tim? I suggest banning the moderator whose actions the other night make Lord Denning's judgement on the Christine Keeler affair seem a model of impartiality
He's probably doing his Xmas shopping. I'm sure finding a swarovski crystal udder pouch for each of those 100 cows is troublesome.
Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other posters to reveal his identity.
Which posters were these then? That is despicable behaviour and should, IMO, be one of the very few things that deserves an instant ban.
Everybody appears in banning mode today, and yet tim's not actually banned.
Listen - trying to reveal someone's identity is the lowest of the low. Many of us are simply not in a position to be able to do that. If there is any chance of it, many posters would have to leave. It's disgraceful behaviour. One of the VERY FEW things that deserves a ban IMO.
I've heard that time and again and yet most posters sort of know who the other person is and over time become relaxed about it. If you're not comfortable or your job depends on it them why are you on a public forum ? The longer you're on here the more you tell us about yourself.
FAIR ENOUGH. I QUIT. THE IDEA OF PEOPLE TRYING TO OUT ME (OR ANYONE ELSE) IS, FRANKLY, SICKENING. I MAY RETURN UNDER ANOTHER NAME AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THIS WILL BE THE LAST POST FROM BOBAJOB.
Moderator – this in an FYI.
The PB Hodges scorched earth policy of ridding this site of anyone who doesn't agree with them continues.
Comments
Past performance is no indication of electoral success.
We have the Ukip joker in the pack, the other joker Ed Miliband in play. The knave of spades still encamped as Shadow Chancellor and as the months roll by the economic aces fall into the Coalition hand.
Perhaps Mike thinks this game is snap rather than the 5 year poker game that Cameron and Clegg have been playing.
This should get the blood racing for a few on here, Mike, so be prepared...
It's hard to fault your logic - even the poll showing the gap closed to 2% which excited so many on here would still give Labour a narrow majority.
On the one side the view is that a recovering economy and improved personal and family economic circumstances (aided by the daily propaganda of statistics) will convince many that the Coalition in general and the Conservatives in particular have done a good job and deserve another five years and that the risk of allowing Labour in to wreck the economy again is too great.
On the other is the view that the events of 2010 must never be forgiven or forgotten and the only hope for those who care about public servivces, the elederly, social justice and an economy not just run for the benefit of the wealthy lies with bringing Labour back to office. Yes, it didn't go well last time but allowing the Conservatives and their lick-spittle Lib Dem allies the opportunity to pound the poor into the dirt for another five years would be a betrayal of the people of this country.
Truth, I'd like you to meet my two friends, Rock and Hard Place. I'm sure you'll all get along just fine.
@itvnews
Unemployment fell by 99,000 between August and October to 2.39 million, official figures showed http://itv.co/19RX4I0
Rate drops to 7.4%.
Biggest fall for many years.
Backed Labour Majority with Betfair, Backed NOM with Ladbrokes. I Suppose it could theoretically cost some liquidity but can't have everything in life !
In which case I suggest he is suffering a fit of pique which under the circumstances is quite understandable.
UK unemployment numbers excellent, dropping from 7.6% to 7.4%. An improvement was expected, but this is much better (36,700 people) than anyone had hoped for.
Also very good this morning were the German business confidence and 'current production' numbers, which remain firmly in the 'growth' camp.
Finally out this morning were Spanish bad debt numbers, which I haven't had time to plough through yet. However, as all the Spanish bank share prices are up, I think we can conclude they were OK.
I mean that could come in WITHOUT a conservative majority !
The employment rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for August to October 2013 was 72.0%, up 0.4 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 30.09 million people in employment aged 16 and over, up 250,000 from May to July 2013.
The unemployment rate for August to October 2013 was 7.4% of the economically active population, down 0.3 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 2.39 million unemployed people, down 99,000 from May to July 2013.
The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for August to October 2013 was 22.1%, down 0.1 percentage points from May to July 2013. There were 8.92 million economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64, down 45,000 from May to July 2013.
Between August to October 2012 and August to October 2013 total pay rose by 0.9% and regular pay rose by 0.8%.
"Can I make it absolutely clear that Tim is not banned. He is not posting following efforts by other poster to reveal his identity."
And why wasn't the other poster (SeanT) banned?
And his wife's profession?
Or was it a farmer from Cheshire ?
I know many people who have two part-time jobs and even that doesn't seem to make them happy, contented or give them an overall sense of prosperity.
We "seem" to be working longer hours but are we doing any more with or in those hours? I'm not badly paid for what I do but I know I'm worse off than I was in 2010 - I work harder and longer hours but I'm no better off.
That's my experience - I suspect I'm not alone.
The JackW Chrimbo Quiz Question is here to titillate your little grey cells .... off we go for all of minutes of unadulterated pleasure :
Who are these political luminaries and what connects them :
a. Funny dough but did Sam not fancy a beer in over 40 years as MP ?
b. He was succeeded by an EU regulated fruit this son-in-law of This Sceptered Isle.
c. A superhero - The $6M man ? .... More like $100M, this early Aunty man was shot from the Skeet trap in 1992.
Of course, that can work either way; we certainly can't discount the possibility that there could be a shift in Labour's favour. For a number of reasons, though, that is less likely than a shift in the Conservatives' favour. These reasons include (a) the economy, (b) Ed Milband, (c) a likely shift back from UKIP as the forced choice becomes more stark, (d) the tendency of oppositions to become less popular as they fill in the blank piece of paper with actual manifesto proposals
Alex Belardinelli
@abelardinelli
Unemployment fall welcome though #costoflivingcrisis continues - prices rising faster than wages for 41 out of 42 months under David Cameron.
And wait! Britain is getting over 1000 immigrants a day, slipping over from Calais. And thats before the January rush. Not only that, Merkel wants ever closer European Union to hug to her bosom. Oh, oh, oh!
"http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2013/sty-earnings.html"
"Average weekly earnings including bonus payments rose by 0.9% comparing August to October 2013 with the same period a year earlier. Average weekly earnings for the private sector increased by 1.3% but average weekly earnings for the public sector fell by 0.3%."
Perhaps tim isn't off sulking, maybe he has just stopped believing in the Labour project? It can't be easy being a supporter with all the Labour MPs who have gone to jail for expense fiddling, seeing Unite take over the party and watching Miliband roll back all the advances of Tony Blair's New Labour. Given tim was never able to post anything positive about Ed, keeping the faith must have been a real challenge.
"is c Greg Dyke?"
LOL .... Er No .... ROFLOL !!!!
And is it possible that Ukip might issue an economic policy not straight out of comedy central that doesn't have us rolling in the aisles crying with laughter ??
Sample size: 1000
Fieldwork: before White Paper
Net "Like"/"Dislike" (on a scale of 1 to 10, where scores of 1 to 4 equated to "dislike", 5 to 6 was "neutral", and 7 to 10 was "like)
Alex Salmond 4.8
Nicola Sturgeon 4.8
Alistair Darling 4.3
Johann Lamont 4.3 (but 40% of voters do not know who she is)
David Cameron 3.6
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-campaign-struggling-to-attract-women-voters.22987540
@Alanbrooke
That is utter rubbish. The PB gatherings attract only a small proportion of posters. Many people are not in a position to reveal their identity and anyone who attempts to do so should be banned.
Sorry not Chris Patten.
Rejoice Pouty - the socialist dream of full employment is nearly upon us.
I didn't say it was I didn't say it was you! I merely asked the question who was responsible. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
Yougov
#LIBDEM voters of #GE2010
42% now vote #LABOUR
28% stayed #LIBDEM
14% now vote #CONSERVATIVE
10% vote #UKIP
3% vote 'GREEN
Swingback, swingback ........my kingdom for any swingback.
We can't all be tossing around big wagers day in day out.
As for betting - should I be laying off my Susanna Reid for Strictly and Oz 5-0 bets ?
More extraordinary good news and confirmation that the economy is really picking up speed.
Merry Christmas David Blanchflower.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100250938/to-stop-this-heathrow-madness-boris-is-just-going-to-have-to-become-prime-minister/
"The chaps in charge of government realise they have a problem. What to do? Ah … here comes a delegation of civil servants with the answer. The mandarins suggest an independent report on airport capacity – to be published after the next election (see what they did there?)
And they have identified just the chap to write it. He's a nice chap but he has been a bit down on his luck, what with having established the catastrophic Financial Services Authority, run the euro-loving CBI and then having had to step aside at the London School of Economics after rebranding it as the Libyan School of Economics. So he'll jump at this airport gig."
My view for 2014 is this will be the year the Labour polling slips below 35% and leaves us looking at a HP in 2015. The 38% just won't hold.
For example, the average size of constituencies in Wales is 56,628 and in Scotland 65,475, whereas the average size in England is 71,858. Within England there is a similar pro-Labour bias. How anyone could possibly think that even vaguely acceptable is utterly incomprehensible (and that's even without considering the West Lothian question).
Dead-man-walking Gordon Brown pulled it back to around 5% (the TV debates saw it slip to 7% by polling day).
So a similar swingback would put the Tories 5-7% ahead by May 2015...
FWIW, this accords with the current output of the L&N model, which generates a 35% chance of a Tory majority.
Far from being 'ludicrous', Betfair's odds seem eminently reasonable.
As an example this morning I bet a few quid on SA winning both tests against India at 2.94, that's after they convincingly won the one day series, on which I made money on the series bet and the matches. 2-0 is now 2.1.
Tony Blair had plenty of that Vision thing, I'm not sure how well that turned out for the country.
Hence why I will be putting both my kidneys on him being next Con leader.
However this is certainly longer than the current Betfair price of 4.2/4.3 suggests.
The value on the blue side has been in the constituency markets. Kingswood, Hastings and Rye, Elmet and Rothwell - All are, or have been overpriced wrt the Conservatives.
'Major bonus for Labour there being the people who lost that 17% lead are still running the show for the Conservatives.'
And the key people that delivered Labour's second worst GE result are now running Labour.
Moderator – this in an FYI.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5330866/Ed-Balls-nine-months-save-job.html
"SHADOW chancellor Ed Balls has been given nine months to save his job, The Sun can reveal.
Senior Labour sources say party boss Ed Miliband is ready to axe his right-hand man next Autumn unless he starts winning the economic argument with George Osborne."
"Applying the L&N model to IPSOS we have:-
(Central forecast)
Con vote lead 7.3%
Con seat lead 57 seats
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of Tory vote lead: 99.9%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 97.4%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 63.5%
Chance of a Tory majority: 36.5%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%"
But I've got money to burn thanks to computerash. It's all profit for a while...
PS - I thought it was we PBblues who are always told off for being obsessed about certain posters, bit rich with the PBlefties pining for their leader on here...
You heard it here first.
"Productivity - the economic output per unit of labour - rose 0.5pc between the first and second quarters of 2013. Of the 250,000 extra people in jobs in the August to October quarter, 155,000 of these were in full-time jobs. And the number of economically inactive people is falling"
ROFL - if that's why you come on here the only appropriate response would be to get a life ... and quick. Try trolling ConHome instead.
Really? No-ones's 'outing' Blohardbob.