Monday 9th March 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:33 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh dear, the England cricket team

Rule of 3: Cricket team are rubbish, football team are rubbish. Ergo: we're going to win the rugby world cup.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:38 pm

adam wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I suspect the "Dave to get his own show" thing was just a bit of kite flying that will go nowhere, tbh.
I expect him to change his mind about the debates at the last moment, doing as much as possible to make sure that his appearance becomes the story, but if that doesn't happen, then as an alternative I expect the tories to demand that each section of the debate is concluded by David Dimbleby, or possiblly Benedict Cumberbatch, Emily from Bagpuss or The Queen, reading a statement written by the tories, with no comment or right to reply for anyone else.

Or God even.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:42 pm

refitman wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh dear, the England cricket team
Rule of 3: Cricket team are rubbish, football team are rubbish. Ergo: we're going to win the rugby world cup.

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?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:43 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I suspect the "Dave to get his own show" thing was just a bit of kite flying that will go nowhere, tbh.

I said the same after reading it at the weekend. The Sindy was full of 'source' 'might' 'may' and so on & not a single attributable quote.

Sad to see even the Sindy dancing to a tory tune though

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:10 pm

I'm glad England have messed it up. The way they treated Cook was a disgrace and destabilised the side in a search for easy answers to the problem of not being bothered much by one day cricket for years and years.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:26 pm

Labour candidate for Torfaen chosen, a barrister who wrote the recent biog of Nye Bevan as well as one on Atlee.

Locally born, a fine mind, no doubt he'll get attacked by the 'I'm a real lefty me' usual suspects because he went to Oxford and has lectured there on politics, but he has been a Labour activist in Torfaen for 17 years & is secretary of the local party.

Outgoing MP Paul Murphy says of him:

“I have known Nick for many years now and know he would make an excellent MP for Torfaen. As well as his work as a barrister, Nick is a distinguished academic and historian – his recent book on Aneurin Bevan is excellent. Most importantly of all though, Nick is rooted in our community - having been raised in Blaenavon, he now lives with his wife and daughters in Abersychan.

“Those local roots were very evident in his speech at the selection conference, where he talked with great passion about how his upbringing as the son of a steelworker moulded his politics. I could not think of a more worthy successor and would urge Torfaen voters to put their trust in Nick on 7th May, just as they gave me such loyal support in my time as their MP.”

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/g ... _selected/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:31 pm

"Grant Shapps has arranged a David Cameron photo shoot at Downing Street with the England Cricket team upon their return to the UK."

After being humiliated by Bangladesh

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:32 pm

Grant Shapps accuses Ed Balls of talking 'nonsense' (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)

I have nothing further to say on this.

(Well, apart from to wonder about the Cromwell reference in Shapps' waffle. I didn't hear Ed Balls' speech - did he mention Cromwell? I can't see it cited in any written report, that I've seen so far, of the speech.)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:34 pm

mikems wrote:I'm glad England have messed it up. The way they treated Cook was a disgrace and destabilised the side in a search for easy answers to the problem of not being bothered much by one day cricket for years and years.

Have to disagree - Cook staying on for too long was part of the problem.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:56 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Grant Shapps accuses Ed Balls of talking 'nonsense' (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)
I have nothing further to say on this.

(Well, apart from to wonder about the Cromwell reference in Shapps' waffle. I didn't hear Ed Balls' speech - did he mention Cromwell? I can't see it cited in any written report, that I've seen so far, of the speech.)

Cromwell gets two mentions in EB's speech:

At a time when there is such instability on Russia’s borders, the Middle East is in turmoil and the Jihadist threat from Africa is growing, huge cuts in the defence budget - the equivalent of 34,500 fewer soldiers in the Army, and 60,800 fewer personnel in the Armed Forces. This would be our smallest Army since Cromwell and the smallest Armed Forces since 1750.

If he is to deliver on his Autumn Statement plans for a £23 billion overall budget surplus, as he says, through a Budget with no fiscal loosening, while promising unfunded tax cuts in the next Parliament, then he is going to have to deliver these colossal cuts, which would lead to:

- the smallest police force since comparable records began;

- the smallest army since Cromwell; and

- over a third of older people receiving social care losing their entitlement to it.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1131564 ... -rsa-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for Shapps & talking nonsense, I suspect that may have come from the contents of one of the books he used to sell

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Bloody good Rowson cartoon this morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tin-rowson

Superb!

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Grant Shapps accuses Ed Balls of talking 'nonsense' (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)
I have nothing further to say on this.

(Well, apart from to wonder about the Cromwell reference in Shapps' waffle. I didn't hear Ed Balls' speech - did he mention Cromwell? I can't see it cited in any written report, that I've seen so far, of the speech.)

He pointed out that defence cuts are getting us to the point where it will be "our smallest Army since Cromwell and the smallest Armed Forces since 1750."

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1131564 ... -rsa-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 1:58 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
mikems wrote:I'm glad England have messed it up. The way they treated Cook was a disgrace and destabilised the side in a search for easy answers to the problem of not being bothered much by one day cricket for years and years.
Have to disagree - Cook staying on for too long was part of the problem.

I agree with Anatoly, but either way, Alastair's well out of it.

Remember the story of Fletcher telling Strauss 'you'll thank me one day' when Flintoff was given the captaincy?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:04 pm

IFS director [Paul Johnson] says Balls right about big gap between parties, but won't back £70bn figure

[Paul Johnson says] "I don’t know about the £70bn. You can talk about all sorts of different numbers. The £70bn takes a particular set of assumptions, and in particular says that the Conservatives will do what the autumn statement numbers say they will do, which is a bit different actually to the fiscal rules the Conservatives have set themselves. But there is a difference of around about £25bn or £30bn between the two parties in terms of the level of fiscal consolidation and therefore the sorts of level of spending cuts they are talking about. So Labour would introduce less in the way of spending cuts than the Conservatives. Of course, there’s a flipside of that, in terms of the debt and the deficit."(Andrew Sparrow, Guardian - my bold. There isn't a "What?" bold because if there were, I'd have used it.)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:08 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Grant Shapps accuses Ed Balls of talking 'nonsense' (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)
I have nothing further to say on this.

(Well, apart from to wonder about the Cromwell reference in Shapps' waffle. I didn't hear Ed Balls' speech - did he mention Cromwell? I can't see it cited in any written report, that I've seen so far, of the speech.)
He pointed out that defence cuts are getting us to the point where it will be "our smallest Army since Cromwell and the smallest Armed Forces since 1750."

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1131564 ... -rsa-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah - thank you. I did think that even Grant Shapps possibly couldn't be so stupid as to think that Cromwell was a figure from the 1930s.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:12 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Ah - thank you. I did think that even Grant Shapps possibly couldn't be so stupid as to think that Cromwell was a figure from the 1930s.

Oh I don't know though.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:13 pm

PorFavor wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote: I have nothing further to say on this.

(Well, apart from to wonder about the Cromwell reference in Shapps' waffle. I didn't hear Ed Balls' speech - did he mention Cromwell? I can't see it cited in any written report, that I've seen so far, of the speech.)
He pointed out that defence cuts are getting us to the point where it will be "our smallest Army since Cromwell and the smallest Armed Forces since 1750."

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1131564 ... -rsa-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ah - thank you. I did think that even Grant Shapps possibly couldn't be so stupid as to think that Cromwell was a figure from the 1930s.

I have learned never to underestimate this man's levels of stupidity.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:13 pm

Sorry, pk1. Thank you, too, of course. I didn't spot your response in time.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:18 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:And the benefits of a privatised Royal Mail start to appear:

ROYAL Mail is planning to cut collection times at thousands of post boxes across the country.
The scheme is being rolled out to 3,300 boxes north of the Border which carry 50 items or less a day as they do not cover their costs.
Collection times have been cut by up to nine hours with the last daily pick-up at some boxes now 9am Monday to Friday when it was previously 6pm.
The changes mean that first class letters posted later than 9am are unlikely to be collected until the next day.
On Saturdays those times have been cut, in some areas, to 7am when customers previously had until 12 noon to post letters.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/t ... -1-3713022

Bastards. What next?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:24 pm

yahyah wrote:Labour candidate for Torfaen chosen, a barrister who wrote the recent biog of Nye Bevan as well as one on Atlee.

Locally born, a fine mind, no doubt he'll get attacked by the 'I'm a real lefty me' usual suspects because he went to Oxford and has lectured there on politics, but he has been a Labour activist in Torfaen for 17 years & is secretary of the local party.

Outgoing MP Paul Murphy says of him:

“I have known Nick for many years now and know he would make an excellent MP for Torfaen. As well as his work as a barrister, Nick is a distinguished academic and historian – his recent book on Aneurin Bevan is excellent. Most importantly of all though, Nick is rooted in our community - having been raised in Blaenavon, he now lives with his wife and daughters in Abersychan.

“Those local roots were very evident in his speech at the selection conference, where he talked with great passion about how his upbringing as the son of a steelworker moulded his politics. I could not think of a more worthy successor and would urge Torfaen voters to put their trust in Nick on 7th May, just as they gave me such loyal support in my time as their MP.”

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/g ... _selected/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hurrah!
Did you enjoy the Bevan biography Thomas-Symonds wrote?
I liked the clear explanations of Bevan quotes often taken out of context.
Bevan - on Tories being lower than vermin - no one Tory was ever singled out as personally lower than vermin - Bevan was certain individual Tories were quite capable of telling the truth.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:29 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93895.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Cameron described himself as a “classic” member of the Church of England in the article.

So that's someone who doesn't believe in a god, doesn't follow the bible's 'ten commandments' let alone any of the wider expectations of modern Christianity, but wraps themselves in its cloak by turning up at the big occasions, making ostentatious donations when the plate's sent around, relishes invitations to read the lesson or whatever it is that the local worthies get invited to do, and sends their children to Sunday School and turns up at regular services for at least as long as it takes to get those kids into the local church-run school...

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:40 pm

Sincere apologies for this but I had to share the image that greeted me when I turned my TV on.

I'm sure the sweating that is much in evidence in this image had nothing to do with the level of heating in the school spamface was lecturing at.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:45 pm

Economic Review, March 2015
04 March 2015

"Over a longer time period, movements in real wages on this measure are matched by findings based on the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE).
These data suggest that median real earnings fell between 2009 and 2013.
The most recent ASHE data (for April 2014), suggest that real earnings fell by 1.6% between 2013 and 2014, a movement partly explained by changes in the composition of the labour force over this period."

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/econ ... age-growth

"On this more detailed basis, the distribution of earnings growth is relatively broad and has varied substantially over time.

Figure 10 [image included above] shows the distribution of real hourly earnings growth for matched full-time employees for whom data is available from ASHE in each pair of years between 2002 and 2014, presented in the form of a ‘fan chart’.

The orange line shows the median rate of earnings growth for these employees, while the shaded regions show the distribution of earnings increases, with the darker (lighter) areas denoting the centre (extremes) of the distribution.

In times when the median growth rate is positive, a majority of these workers experienced an increase in their real earnings, and conversely when the median growth rate is negative, a majority of these workers experienced a reduction in their real earnings. The shaded regions consequently yield information about the variety of experiences of workers."

I'm having difficulty sorting out the graph & the accompanying narrative from the ONS on this release.

Any help would be appreciated.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:53 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: He pointed out that defence cuts are getting us to the point where it will be "our smallest Army since Cromwell and the smallest Armed Forces since 1750."

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1131564 ... -rsa-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ah - thank you. I did think that even Grant Shapps possibly couldn't be so stupid as to think that Cromwell was a figure from the 1930s.
I have learned never to underestimate this man's levels of stupidity.

He has a worryingly tenuous grip on reality.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:53 pm

IDS replying to a Labour member (sorry missed the name) just a few minutes ago, who questioned the Conservative proposal to reduce the benefit cap, after he'd just extolled the virtues of the existing one of £26,000 as reflecting average wages in his previous answer to someone on his own side. He told her (the Labour MP) that the benefit cap was only being reduced to £23,000 to bring it more in line with average wages which are now £22,900. This answer is a glossing (toshing!) over of the fact that, under this Coalition Government, average earnings have fallen by approximately £3,000 per annum!

Edit to add: The lady's question had actually been about 3 and 4 bedroom houses becoming unaffordable for any claimants once the proposed reduction of the cap is brought in. IDS did not answer that particular question, preferring to simply, and proudly, justify the reduction because wages have fallen...

Second edit to correct: "The lady had..." to "The lady's question had..."

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 2:57 pm

pk1 wrote:Sincere apologies for this but I had to share the image that greeted me when I turned my TV on.

I'm sure the sweating that is much in evidence in this image had nothing to do with the level of heating in the school spamface was lecturing at.

We must have synchronised our TV-switching-on. Gave me a turn, I can tell you. So much so that I took all of 20 seconds to hit the off-button. And 20 seconds can seem like a very long time.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:00 pm

PorFavor wrote:
pk1 wrote:Sincere apologies for this but I had to share the image that greeted me when I turned my TV on.

I'm sure the sweating that is much in evidence in this image had nothing to do with the level of heating in the school spamface was lecturing at.
We must have synchronised our TV-switching-on. Gave me a turn, I can tell you. So much so that I took all of 20 seconds to hit the off-button. And 20 seconds can seem like a very long time.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:01 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:IDS replying to a Labour member (sorry missed the name) just a few minutes ago, who questioned the Conservative proposal to reduce the benefit cap, after he'd just extolled the virtues of the existing one of £26,000 as reflecting average wages in his previous answer to someone on his own side. He told her (the Labour MP) that the benefit cap was only being reduced to £23,000 to bring it more in line with average wages which are now £22,900. This answer is a glossing (toshing!) over of the fact that, under this Coalition Government, average earnings have fallen by approximately £3,000 per annum!

The mess of ONS data is perfectly clear now.
It's not pleasant.
At all.
Those numbers are correct.
It's truly an outrageous plummet.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:03 pm

Current government are losers.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:07 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:IDS replying to a Labour member (sorry missed the name) just a few minutes ago, who questioned the Conservative proposal to reduce the benefit cap, after he'd just extolled the virtues of the existing one of £26,000 as reflecting average wages in his previous answer to someone on his own side. He told her (the Labour MP) that the benefit cap was only being reduced to £23,000 to bring it more in line with average wages which are now £22,900. This answer is a glossing (toshing!) over of the fact that, under this Coalition Government, average earnings have fallen by approximately £3,000 per annum!

And the logical conclusion to that - unless you're a Conservative - is that by constantly finding ways to cut benefits and supposedly aligning them with the average wage, there is no incentive to see those wages grow to any extent. At least not for the ninety %.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:13 pm

Tristram Hunt
"Creationism, waste and bad teaching are all things you can expect in David Cameron’s Free Schools"
Imagine you’d created a policy that was expensive, wasteful and failing young people. Would you scrap it and move on, or ignore the evidence and carry on regardless? David Cameron is going with “carry on regardless” with his wasteful and failing Free Schools programme.
Here are eleven things you should know about David Cameron’s Free Schools programme. You might be surprised at just how bad it is...

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/cre ... ee_schools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:14 pm

From Andrew Sparrow's blog:

During the Q&A Cameron was asked by the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves about grammar schools. Groves said he once said grammar schools were an “albatross” for his party. Did he still think that?

Cameron replied:

I have never said that grammar schools are an albatross. Grammar schools are good schools. And I like good schools.

But that is very hard to square with what he said in 2007.

I suppose, if you were being very charitable, you could argue that Cameron was saying then that it was a pledge to build more grammar schools that would be an albatross, not that the schools themselves were albatrosses. Or perhaps his memory failed him (although the Daily Mail printed the quote this morning, so he might have seen it.)

A more simple explanation would be that he was not telling the truth.

(my bold)

Wow, in saying that I'm shocked at how bold AS has been !

He will get the full whack of tory twitter accounts heaping abuse upon him

Hmm, AS has amended that final sentence so that it now reads:

A more simple explanation would be that, when responding to the question, Cameron was not being truthful.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:17 pm

"I was waiting to see a Cameron in someone's pocket picture; thanks to @martinstiff for this one HT @paz_parish "
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:20 pm

re citizen's graph.
The delay in posting was due to mr gilsey turning the power off while he fiddled with the lights.

Clear as mud, isn't it.

On the right-hand scale is % growth in median earnings, currently 0. If median earnings are growing, the orange line is above zero, as in the graph up to 2009. The distribution around the mean is the left-hand scale, and up to 2009 the distribution is wider than after 2010, that much we can see, but does it tell us anything useful?

For example, median earnings rise (say) 3%, rises for individuals range from -10% to +25%.
Median earnings fall 2%, the range is from -12% to +13%.

It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:23 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:"I was waiting to see a Cameron in someone's pocket picture; thanks to @martinstiff for this one HT @paz_parish "
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:29 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:IDS replying to a Labour member (sorry missed the name) just a few minutes ago, who questioned the Conservative proposal to reduce the benefit cap, after he'd just extolled the virtues of the existing one of £26,000 as reflecting average wages in his previous answer to someone on his own side. He told her (the Labour MP) that the benefit cap was only being reduced to £23,000 to bring it more in line with average wages which are now £22,900. This answer is a glossing (toshing!) over of the fact that, under this Coalition Government, average earnings have fallen by approximately £3,000 per annum!
And the logical conclusion to that - unless you're a Conservative - is that by constantly finding ways to cut benefits and supposedly aligning them with the average wage, there is no incentive to see those wages grow to any extent. At least not for the ninety %.

Yep. And you can bet your bottom dollar that had average wages risen by £3,000 per annum the Tories would not be raising the benefit cap to match that!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:41 pm

gilsey wrote:re citizen's graph.
The delay in posting was due to mr gilsey turning the power off while he fiddled with the lights.

Clear as mud, isn't it.

On the right-hand scale is % growth in median earnings, currently 0. If median earnings are growing, the orange line is above zero, as in the graph up to 2009. The distribution around the mean is the left-hand scale, and up to 2009 the distribution is wider than after 2010, that much we can see, but does it tell us anything useful?

For example, median earnings rise (say) 3%, rises for individuals range from -10% to +25%.
Median earnings fall 2%, the range is from -12% to +13%.

It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that.

Many thanks for your help. I'm grateful to the ONS, I appreciate their work. But the information they're conveying here isn't clear, it's bogged down in minutia. I've found the earnings tables spreadsheets - that information is clearer.

Median earnings in 2007 = £20,000
Median earnings in ~~2015~~2014 = £22,044

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 4 Digit Occupational Gross Annual data 1999-2014 (Excel sheet 6461Kb)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/bus ... -ashe-.xls

Lots of words went into explaining how those numbers were arrived at.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:45 pm

The ONS data in the spreadsheet boldly indicates the jobs count estimate isn't reliable.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 3:55 pm

"Gulliver says the HSBC bank was regulated by top-notch regulators.

That meant there was a limit to what further checks HCBC could make when it bought the Swiss operation.

HSBC bought this bank, and others, because it did not want to be over-exposed to Asia, he says."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... eddbeef016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alice follows the rabbit.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:00 pm

I've just seen the 'business report' on Sky News. It's just the stock markets (FTSE, CAC, DAX, and Nasdaq) and the currencies BUT (and I'm sorry for shouting so loudly) it's "brought to you by 'Business Is Great Britain'" - ie., this bloody government is sponsoring a segment on Sky News!!! https://www.gov.uk/britainisgreat (Although I think the splash page on Sky had it as britainisgreat.gov.uk which doesn't exist...)

Edit to add: I think it might have been the DOW, not the DAX. But the point still stands.

I'm not trying to break PF's world-of-FTN record for editing, honest!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:03 pm

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)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:05 pm

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)

Lot's wife alert.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:08 pm

' The groups had noticed the latest frenzy over TV debates, but remained unmoved. In previous rounds people have said they would watch the debates if they happened, but those most apt to criticise David Cameron for his reluctance to take part were those already least inclined to vote for him. This week again we found nothing to suggest Cameron would be seriously damaged if the debates did not go ahead and he was blamed: “he should spend his time running the country rather than standing on stage”. Indeed since the leaders only seem to “act like children” when they get together, the event would probably not be very enlightening anyway. '

Yes, keep telling yourself that, especially when the debates start!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:09 pm

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)

I usually take polls as they come. But I really just don't believe this one. Even if I were a life-long Conservative voter with UKIP tendencies, I simply wouldn't believe it.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:11 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
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)
Lot's wife alert.

Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:13 pm

PorFavor wrote:
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)

I usually take polls as they come. But I really just don't believe this one. Even if I were a life-long Conservative voter with UKIP tendencies, I simply wouldn't believe it.

Cons & Lab are both within the margin of error but like you, I don't believe Labour has only gained 1% on it's 2010 vote share.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:15 pm

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).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:17 pm

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
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)
Lot's wife alert.
Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?

I'm not sure, either. Advising people to take it with a large pinch of salt?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:17 pm

Further to my last post, you could claim inequality has risen, but to do that you have to focus on the top 1%, not the top 10% as in that graph.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:20 pm

pk1 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
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)

I usually take polls as they come. But I really just don't believe this one. Even if I were a life-long Conservative voter with UKIP tendencies, I simply wouldn't believe it.
Cons & Lab are both within the margin of error but like you, I don't believe Labour has only gained 1% on it's 2010 vote share.

Presumably this is another tiny sample.

Didn't his last poll with a decent sample size show a decent Labour lead?