Re: Monday 9th March 2015
Posted: Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm
Why, the more the tories are exposed as deceitful, avoiding the truth, in bed with corrupt organisations do their poll ratings go up?
That's how much salt I'm taking this poll with. A pillar, not pinch!pk1 wrote:Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?StephenDolan wrote:Lot's wife alert.ohsocynical wrote:Patrick Wintour retweeted
Britain Elects @britainelects 4 mins4 minutes ago
Latest Ashcroft poll (06 - 08 Mar):
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 30% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
GRN - 8% (+1)
LDEM - 5% (-2)
Gotcha !StephenDolan wrote:That's how much salt I'm taking this poll with. A pillar, not pinch!pk1 wrote:Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?StephenDolan wrote: Lot's wife alert.
Same as with football.RogerOThornhill wrote:refitman wrote:Rule of 3: Cricket team are rubbish, football team are rubbish. Ergo: we're going to win the rugby world cup.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh dear, the England cricket team
Compare them to some of our young athletes - Katrina Johnson-Thompson's face when she crossed the line and realised she hadn't broken the world record was a classic - she'd just won the gold but she was gutted to think what might have been. That's the sort of attitude that's needed.
Cricket in England has been messed around with over the past decade - all that money that Sky were supposed to have brought in and for what result?
Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?[/quote]pk1 wrote: Lot's wife alert.
The graph shows the rate of increase in earnings, not earnings per se.SpinningHugo wrote:citizenJA, gilesy
"It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that."
I don't think that graph does show that. So, each shaded area represents 10% of the work force, the darker areas are at the center, lighter at the edges.
If the poor had got (relatively) poorer and the rich (relatively) richer you would expect the bottom sections to have fallen, and the top section to have risen.
Nearly the opposite is true. the top sections have fallen, the bottom sections stayed nearly the same.
This is what the ONS mean by compositional change. This is partly explained by job losses at the top end, mainly finance but also oil and gas extraction.
Unemployment has fallen, fairly sharply, but lots of the jobs are poorly paid. This has also dragged down the median wage level (ie the percentage of people who are in work and in very well paid employment has also fallen, even if the absolute number has not).
Incongruous is a nice name for this jackass government from hell.AnatolyKasparov wrote:What makes the debate issue so troublesome for Cameron is that he hopes to run a totally "presidential" campaign at this coming GE.
People might tell Ashcroft now that they aren't bothered if he doesn't attend, but it will look rather more incongruous with the above if it actually happens.
Bradford Council’s executive member for education Coun Ralph Berry has asked why the DfE agreed to rent of close to £6m for a site when the council was able to buy a land for a through-age school for just over £350,000 through a compulsory purchase order.
gilsey wrote:The graph shows the rate of increase in earnings, not earnings per se.SpinningHugo wrote:citizenJA, gilesy
"It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that."
I don't think that graph does show that. So, each shaded area represents 10% of the work force, the darker areas are at the center, lighter at the edges.
If the poor had got (relatively) poorer and the rich (relatively) richer you would expect the bottom sections to have fallen, and the top section to have risen.
Nearly the opposite is true. the top sections have fallen, the bottom sections stayed nearly the same.
This is what the ONS mean by compositional change. This is partly explained by job losses at the top end, mainly finance but also oil and gas extraction.
Unemployment has fallen, fairly sharply, but lots of the jobs are poorly paid. This has also dragged down the median wage level (ie the percentage of people who are in work and in very well paid employment has also fallen, even if the absolute number has not).
You're overthinking again Hugo.
I meant something much simpler, which is that even when median earnings are rising, there's a good proportion of the population going backwards.
I've often wondered that, along with thinking the pols are just fixedSpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.
Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.
I see Daisy Christodolou has got herself on there - any experience of primary teaching which is where the main problems are with this one? None whatsoever...I despair.Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.
There are no current classroom teachers involved.
What I couldn't understand was why Yougov felt the need to change their methodology after they were one of the closest on the Euro elections.AngryAsWell wrote:I've often wondered that, along with thinking the pols are just fixedSpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.
Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.
Agreed.SpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.
Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.
It's a farce. I was in the WeeBundle's Personal Education Plan meeting short while ago (all adopted and LAC have one of these) and the question was asked: what level is she at in English and maths? Last year (year 3) they could tell me; this year all they could do was shrug their shoulders. There was and is no metric for gauging how a child is doing, and, importantly, improving, which is absolutely vital to know about an adopted or looked after child. Without it, it's more or less impossible to know whether pupil premium money spent specifically on that child is actually producing the desired effect.Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.
There are no current classroom teachers involved.
This is the sort of poll a vested interest would applaud. I suspect after the election many of these polls will be revised with a 'whoops!' sort of attitude. Narrative created by 'mistake'.pk1 wrote:LAP polls this year:
Well, quite. It beggars belief that they'd ditch a universally used system in favour of...what...? Apparently the same sort of Byzantine stupidity that id the very hallmark of coalition education 'policy'. If it's fixed - make sure you break it.RogerOThornhill wrote:Regarding assessment levels at primary school.
As yet nobody has said how, if every school comes up with their own system of assessment, league tables are supposed to work given (i) progress between KS1 and KS2 is measured by levels and (ii) it will make comparability between schools impossible.
People could see this coming a mile off...
Lot and his wife had to run away from something and 'God' told him he had to go first and she'd follow after but they'd only be 'safe' it Lot didn't look back to check she was coming. Well, after a while, Lot did turn around to see she was following and 'God' promptly turned her into a 'pillar of salt' to punish Lot. So, we who are hoping for a Labour election victory, shouldn't be distracted from our path by losing trust and heart in our 'mission'. And here endeth the lesson...pk1 wrote:Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?StephenDolan wrote:Lot's wife alert.ohsocynical wrote:Patrick Wintour retweeted
Britain Elects @britainelects 4 mins4 minutes ago
Latest Ashcroft poll (06 - 08 Mar):
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 30% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
GRN - 8% (+1)
LDEM - 5% (-2)
If she ever goes on Twitter, she'll find herself called a damn sight worse than that.Toby Latimer wrote:Fun & games at DWP questions, McVey said Barry Sheerman was being sexist after comparing her to “a hard-hearted Hannah” Which is a song by Ella Fitzgerald.
When Sheerman pointed this out in a point of order afterwards McVey went on to say Labour had form on these sort of remarks after she claimed John McDonnell went to her constituency and said of her "Lynch the bitch"
John actually said "Why aren't we lynching the bastard?"
Thanks Robert for making these points.RobertSnozers wrote:Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?Spacedone wrote:Morning.
Apologies for continuing something from last night but I just want to respond to a point from 51A.
51A wrote: Do you know what, absolutely the worst of forum form. All the things you could have levelled at that useless, parasitic wanker and you go for how many children and what their names are. Be very ashamed of yourselves.
Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.
Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.
"When things go wrong in the public sector on your watch you resign. No one has deigned to accept responsibility," she added, saying that Ms Fairhead's performance at HSBC raised serious questions about her current position as chair of the BBC Trust.
"I think the government should sack you," she said.
Because it's a lie that's been repeated so many times over the last 40 years (probably longer) that it's now deeply ingrained. Am I right in thinking that overall Labour have performed better on the economy than the Tories? It's certainly no worse.Willow904 wrote:I find it interesting that this has come today alongside a feature on BBC about asbestos in schools:PorFavor wrote:Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?citizenJA wrote:@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.
Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31793017
It saddens me that the Future Schools programme under Labour that was in some cases replacing old schools with completely new built ones was scrapped and was replaced instead with the willy-nilly spending on free schools that has been used in some cases to convert old buildings which may have asbestos present. We had a great opportunity to make our schools fit for the future and its been thrown away and replaced with old offices without playgrounds in areas with plenty of school places already. Why does anyone think the Tories are competent or good with money? It really is beyond me.
That's if they can even tell who should be getting the pupil premium any more, having given everyone free school meals.ErnstRemarx wrote:It's a farce. I was in the WeeBundle's Personal Education Plan meeting short while ago (all adopted and LAC have one of these) and the question was asked: what level is she at in English and maths? Last year (year 3) they could tell me; this year all they could do was shrug their shoulders. There was and is no metric for gauging how a child is doing, and, importantly, improving, which is absolutely vital to know about an adopted or looked after child. Without it, it's more or less impossible to know whether pupil premium money spent specifically on that child is actually producing the desired effect.Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.
There are no current classroom teachers involved.
It. Is. Complete. Madness.
Well, I suppose that the Tories have managed to fuck up practically every other area of life, so best have a go at 8 year old girls too.
Well, it isn't an advert is it. They just want to silence people, take away our right to protest. We're living in a democracy don't you knowWillow904 wrote:I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?ohsocynical wrote:Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?RobertSnozers wrote:Council in Jeremy Hunt's constituency soending taxpayer's money to remove anti-TTIP signs from people's gardens
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
daydreamer wrote:Thanks Robert for making these points.RobertSnozers wrote:Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?Spacedone wrote:Morning.
Apologies for continuing something from last night but I just want to respond to a point from 51A.
Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.
Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.
I seem to have been criticised for merely pointing out, as tactfully as I could, that he had 4 children and not 3, as a couple of previous posters had missed the daughter. I refuse to be ashamed for that.
Simon Wren Lewis, as ever, is good on this.daydreamer wrote:Because it's a lie that's been repeated so many times over the last 40 years (probably longer) that it's now deeply ingrained. Am I right in thinking that overall Labour have performed better on the economy than the Tories? It's certainly no worse.Willow904 wrote:I find it interesting that this has come today alongside a feature on BBC about asbestos in schools:PorFavor wrote: Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31793017
It saddens me that the Future Schools programme under Labour that was in some cases replacing old schools with completely new built ones was scrapped and was replaced instead with the willy-nilly spending on free schools that has been used in some cases to convert old buildings which may have asbestos present. We had a great opportunity to make our schools fit for the future and its been thrown away and replaced with old offices without playgrounds in areas with plenty of school places already. Why does anyone think the Tories are competent or good with money? It really is beyond me.
Councils in the UK could be prevented from introducing selective licensing for private sector landlords unless there are specific reasons for doing so.
The Department of Local Government and Communities believes that for an area to be designated as subject to selective licensing it must contain a high proportion of properties in the private rented sector, in relation to the total housing accommodation in that area.
It has announced proposals that would mean that if an area has one or more of four specific conditions, the authority may consider introducing licensing. These include hazards caused by poor housing conditions, an influx of migration and if the area is suffering from a high level of deprivation which affects a significant number of the occupiers of properties.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;A leading Liberal Democrat grassroots group has said that members are being left in the dark about how the party’s policies would be paid for.
In a briefing ahead of the party’s spring conference in Liverpool this weekend, Liberal Reform described it as “regrettable that even at this final conference before the election, party members are being left in the dark as to how all of these plans are going to be funded”.
“The party is currently saying we want a 60:40 split between cuts and tax increases – that is tax rises of £30bn,” the briefing reads. “It is difficult to see how that can be funded without the basic income tax rate or VAT going up. And that is before the increases in spending to which the party is already committed.”
When asked about the comments at a press conference on Monday, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he had not heard of Liberal Reform, despite having written a forward to a major publication by the group in September 2013.
Absolutely.yahyah wrote:daydreamer wrote:Thanks Robert for making these points.RobertSnozers wrote: Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?
Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.
Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.
I seem to have been criticised for merely pointing out, as tactfully as I could, that he had 4 children and not 3, as a couple of previous posters had missed the daughter. I refuse to be ashamed for that.
51A must be under horrendous stress at the moment, so maybe we can cut her some slack ?
She has mentioned previously about her brother having been charged with the killing of their step mother and his court case has been reported in the Welsh press in the last week or so and I believe he is awaiting sentence.
If you are reading 51A, hope you have some support around you.
pk1 wrote:Trouble 't mill.....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;A leading Liberal Democrat grassroots group has said that members are being left in the dark about how the party’s policies would be paid for.
In a briefing ahead of the party’s spring conference in Liverpool this weekend, Liberal Reform described it as “regrettable that even at this final conference before the election, party members are being left in the dark as to how all of these plans are going to be funded”.
“The party is currently saying we want a 60:40 split between cuts and tax increases – that is tax rises of £30bn,” the briefing reads. “It is difficult to see how that can be funded without the basic income tax rate or VAT going up. And that is before the increases in spending to which the party is already committed.”
When asked about the comments at a press conference on Monday, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he had not heard of Liberal Reform, despite having written a forward to a major publication by the group in September 2013.
No comment facility enabled, naturally