Ohh, save some for me.ohsocynical wrote:I make my own puff pastry and have some left over so I daresay there'll be more goodies tomorrow....daydreamer wrote:@Ohso,
I suppose I'm too late for Bakewell and Peanut Brittle
![Dance :dance:](./images/smilies/Dance.gif)
Ohh, save some for me.ohsocynical wrote:I make my own puff pastry and have some left over so I daresay there'll be more goodies tomorrow....daydreamer wrote:@Ohso,
I suppose I'm too late for Bakewell and Peanut Brittle
OxbridgeRebecca wrote:The thing is,if people using social media to voice their opinions are not the general public ,who are they?And why are the voices of thousands of 'not the general public' people worth less than those of well paid journalists writing for unashamedly biased media outlets?TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Nice to see Andrew and his colleagues have abandoned any pretence of even handedness; if social media is supporting Labour/Miliband that couldn't possibly be a reflection of how the unwashed masses really feel, could it. I know I've said it before, but the MSM have lost much of their influence although they refuse to admit it; I think AK pointed out yesterday, the Tories haven't won a majority post-internet age.pk1 wrote:From AS blog:
So if you doubt social media is too telling of general public opinion though, how come hacks everywhere publish so many articles that were created on twitter ?
I wonder if my house will be clean and tidy after thee election,12.30 and I haven't even washed the dishes.
However, a Labour-led government is likely to pursue a much looser fiscal policy (not least because infrastructure spending will not be included in the arithmetic to balance the budget and the SNP is anti-austerity). Additionally, we see a high probability of increases in public sector wages (with 72% of Labour funding coming from the Trade Unions), as well as a rise in the minimum wage (which Labour plans to increase to £8 per hour by 2020, from £6.50 currently). In such an event, we think that the pace of monetary tightening would be faster. Our Head of European economics, Neville Hill, believes that under a Labour minority government the UK policy rate would be 1.75% at the end of 2016 (compared to a forward curve predicting 82bp) against 1.25% under a Conservative minority government.
Stephen Tomkinson too - watching DCI Banks reminded me.yahyah wrote:The Indie has been very positive about the Ed interview too.
& just remembered some more famous Labour supporters for Ernst: Prunella Scales & Timothy West.
Where they do PPE, and where people know the Mediamacro stuff is bollocks.tinyclanger2 wrote: Oxbridge
Look at their prediction:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Credit Suisse's research department not exactly coming across as non-Tory here.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/credit-su ... 992-2015-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, a Labour-led government is likely to pursue a much looser fiscal policy (not least because infrastructure spending will not be included in the arithmetic to balance the budget and the SNP is anti-austerity). Additionally, we see a high probability of increases in public sector wages (with 72% of Labour funding coming from the Trade Unions), as well as a rise in the minimum wage (which Labour plans to increase to £8 per hour by 2020, from £6.50 currently). In such an event, we think that the pace of monetary tightening would be faster. Our Head of European economics, Neville Hill, believes that under a Labour minority government the UK policy rate would be 1.75% at the end of 2016 (compared to a forward curve predicting 82bp) against 1.25% under a Conservative minority government.
Excuse me for taking a sceptical opinion on a firm that cites the 1992 polling as the basis for their predictions.We expect a 45% probability of a Conservative minority (vs polls implying 35%) and a 40% probability of a Labour minority (vs polls implying 48%). These expectations are based on: the experience of the 1992 election, when polls swung in the week before polling day; the personal approval rating of David Cameron and the loss of support for UKIP.
Who he?Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago
Rumour is that Ladbrokes CEO may be withdrawing from Tory letter too, and apparently Tijane Thiam not happy either.
Man from the Pru who's moving to Credit Suisse or UBS or summat.rebeccariots2 wrote:Who he?Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago
Rumour is that Ladbrokes CEO may be withdrawing from Tory letter too, and apparently Tijane Thiam not happy either.
I used to see that duck too. But I can't any morediGriz wrote:It was unintentional but happy accident. A pre-existing photo I had to tweak in photoshop to size it as an avatar.PorFavor wrote:@ diGriz
I've been meaning to say this for some time now . . .
When I look at your picture\avatar thingy, I always see a side-on image of a black and white duck. It took time for me to realise that it was something different but, even now, the duck is the first thing I see and I have to crank my brain round (almost audibly) to move away from it. A bit like that old woman\young woman drawing, if you know the one I mean.
Message ends . . .
Ian @Mancman10 10 mins10 minutes agoTubby Isaacs wrote:Credit Suisse's research department not exactly coming across as non-Tory here.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/credit-su ... 992-2015-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, a Labour-led government is likely to pursue a much looser fiscal policy (not least because infrastructure spending will not be included in the arithmetic to balance the budget and the SNP is anti-austerity). Additionally, we see a high probability of increases in public sector wages (with 72% of Labour funding coming from the Trade Unions), as well as a rise in the minimum wage (which Labour plans to increase to £8 per hour by 2020, from £6.50 currently). In such an event, we think that the pace of monetary tightening would be faster. Our Head of European economics, Neville Hill, believes that under a Labour minority government the UK policy rate would be 1.75% at the end of 2016 (compared to a forward curve predicting 82bp) against 1.25% under a Conservative minority government.
rebeccariots2 wrote:Who he?Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago
Rumour is that Ladbrokes CEO may be withdrawing from Tory letter too, and apparently Tijane Thiam not happy either.
I'm getting confused now about Credit Suisse's stance. Although, as he is presumably not entitled to vote here, Mr Thiam should keep quiet, in any case. Although if he'd been conned, perhaps I'm being rather harsh.Tidjane Thiam (born 29 July 1962)[1] is a French Ivorian businessman and former politician who will become the Chief Executive of Credit Suisse in June 2015.[3] Born in Côte d'Ivoire, he holds dual Ivorian and French citizenship.Wikipedia)
Yes, exactly. There was a general flaw in methods, not some Damascene conversion in the polling booths.pk1 wrote:Look at their prediction:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Credit Suisse's research department not exactly coming across as non-Tory here.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/credit-su ... 992-2015-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, a Labour-led government is likely to pursue a much looser fiscal policy (not least because infrastructure spending will not be included in the arithmetic to balance the budget and the SNP is anti-austerity). Additionally, we see a high probability of increases in public sector wages (with 72% of Labour funding coming from the Trade Unions), as well as a rise in the minimum wage (which Labour plans to increase to £8 per hour by 2020, from £6.50 currently). In such an event, we think that the pace of monetary tightening would be faster. Our Head of European economics, Neville Hill, believes that under a Labour minority government the UK policy rate would be 1.75% at the end of 2016 (compared to a forward curve predicting 82bp) against 1.25% under a Conservative minority government.
Excuse me for taking a sceptical opinion on a firm that cites the 1992 polling as the basis for their predictions.We expect a 45% probability of a Conservative minority (vs polls implying 35%) and a 40% probability of a Labour minority (vs polls implying 48%). These expectations are based on: the experience of the 1992 election, when polls swung in the week before polling day; the personal approval rating of David Cameron and the loss of support for UKIP.
Everybody with an interest in polling knows that the polling then was so far out that each polling organisation has dramatically improved their methodology.
How much swing?AnatolyKasparov wrote:There *was* actually a late swing in 1992 (those of us active in that election generally agree there regardless of our political persuasion)
It was less than the polls suggested, though, due to their flawed methodology (as was also the case in 1970)
Btw people shouldn't think these things are only one way - most surveys prior to the first 1974 GE predicted a comfortable Tory win.
I don't think they have a view.PorFavor wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:Who he?Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago
Rumour is that Ladbrokes CEO may be withdrawing from Tory letter too, and apparently Tijane Thiam not happy either.
Hello!
I'm getting confused now about Credit Suisse's stance. Although, as he is presumably not entitled to vote here, Mr Thiam should keep quiet, in any case. Although if he'd been conned, perhaps I'm being rather harsh.Tidjane Thiam (born 29 July 1962)[1] is a French Ivorian businessman and former politician who will become the Chief Executive of Credit Suisse in June 2015.[3] Born in Côte d'Ivoire, he holds dual Ivorian and French citizenship.Wikipedia)
I don't think there was a particularly late swing in 92. I think the polls were wrong, and there was never the momentum on the ground. Many people wanted to vote Labour but perversely the economy was so buggered they daren't risk it.AnatolyKasparov wrote:There *was* actually a late swing in 1992 (those of us active in that election generally agree there regardless of our political persuasion)
It was less than the polls suggested, though, due to their flawed methodology (as was also the case in 1970)
Btw people shouldn't think these things are only one way - most surveys prior to the first 1974 GE predicted a comfortable Tory win.
There is certainly some truth in your last point - the inclinations of some back then to "cling to nurse" were rather depressingly obvious in retrospect.TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't think there was a particularly late swing in 92. I think the polls were wrong, and there was never the momentum on the ground. Many people wanted to vote Labour but perversely the economy was so buggered they daren't risk it.AnatolyKasparov wrote:There *was* actually a late swing in 1992 (those of us active in that election generally agree there regardless of our political persuasion)
It was less than the polls suggested, though, due to their flawed methodology (as was also the case in 1970)
Btw people shouldn't think these things are only one way - most surveys prior to the first 1974 GE predicted a comfortable Tory win.
Ladbrooks Tweeted that the signing and subsequent standing aside via letter, was in a purely personal capacity. I replied that if the press did their job properly such as showing or reading out the letter that's all over the Twittersphere, then there wouldn't be such confusion.TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't think they have a view.PorFavor wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote: Who he?
Hello!
I'm getting confused now about Credit Suisse's stance. Although, as he is presumably not entitled to vote here, Mr Thiam should keep quiet, in any case. Although if he'd been conned, perhaps I'm being rather harsh.Tidjane Thiam (born 29 July 1962)[1] is a French Ivorian businessman and former politician who will become the Chief Executive of Credit Suisse in June 2015.[3] Born in Côte d'Ivoire, he holds dual Ivorian and French citizenship.Wikipedia)
Their forecast is intended to give investors a view of probabilities and consequences of different governments. This is a purely financial view, not a political one.
All of the signaTories* stated they were signing in a personal capacity. This immediately raised my eyebrows because they are also leveraging their companies to make their personal view somehow important. If I did that in my company (say in a technology policy argument) I would need to have corporate approval to do so. The brand is bigger and more valuable than any individual (even the CEO), and reputational damage is a big deal.
So either this gentleman was misled into what he was signing, or his company have had a word in his ear. Ladbrokes and AZ seem to fall into the former category.
* copyright PaulfromYorkshire Ltd.
PorFavor wrote:Nick Clegg also said that at the last General Election we were asked to vote for what sort of coalition we wanted (I paraphrase - he was more wordy). That is simply and totally untrue.
Edited - brackets
Yeah, I can't bear to watch it either.Spacedone wrote:Turned it on for a second, heard Farage shouting about the country's "maxed out credit card" and switched off again.
ohsocynical wrote:That fucking Cameron read out the joke letter about sorry there's no money left.
ohsocynical wrote:Plaid repeating Labour voted for the 30 million austerity cut.