UK General Election 2015

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

That certainly is the view of some FiF.

yet the polling consistently shows him as a strength for the Tories: polls usually show he is seen as more trustworthy and more competent than any other leader (including those of the minor parties).

As usual, it's not what you say, but what you conveniently leave out which betrays the emptiness of your point.

In all cases it's a minority who are satisfied and the majority are dissatisfied with Cameron.
The next leader shows the same patter not so far behind and so on.

Seems like the argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Ukippers, is one of 'oh but look the others are so much worse. '

Waste of space.

Seems like an argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Anti-Kippers, is one of "I've been caught out because the facts don't support my biased assertion, so I'll throw some insults"

It is not just a case of "the others are so much worse", his ratings are unusually good for a PM at this time in an electoral and economic cycle. So most of the population see him as good, not just compared to Miliband, Farage and Clegg, but against other PMs.

So it is really hard to justify your assertion that he is bringing the Tory ratings down. You may think that badly of him, but the evidence is that population at large does not.

[Yazar]

Munter said:

ralphrj said:

Munter said:

PRTVR said:

More short termism, a quick fix to make the books look better, if somebody is prepared to pay good money for it ( a pension company at that) perhaps there was long term profits to be made.

More or less profit than the interest we'll not be paying on £750m. Was it £4m we got last year. Anybody know what the yearly interest is on £750m of Gov debt?

Approximately 2.5%. Therefore, the Government has avoided an additional £18.75m per annum of interest for the loss of circa £7m per annum of dividends.

So by selling it we are up about £11m per year compared to our previous situation. Seems a reasonable plan to me. I've seen worse.

Osbourne on the radio said it wasn't being used to pay down debt, will be splunked instead (This maybe my interpretation of a politician saying "part of it will be invested in infrastructure").

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Seems like an argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Anti-Kippers, is one of "I've been caught out because the facts don't support my biased assertion, so I'll throw some insults"

It is not just a case of "the others are so much worse", his ratings are unusually good for a PM at this time in an electoral and economic cycle. So most of the population see him as good, not just compared to Miliband, Farage and Clegg, but against other PMs.

So it is really hard to justify your assertion that he is bringing the Tory ratings down. You may think that badly of him, but the evidence is that population at large does not.

Yet despite this his party has polled between 2% and 7% less in every Ashcroft poll this year than they did at the 2010 election - Daves popularity clearly isn't availing them to much at all.

[ralphrj]

Yazar said:

Osbourne on the radio said it wasn't being used to pay down debt, will be splunked instead (This maybe my interpretation of a politician saying "part of it will be invested in infrastructure").

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31721334

George Osborne said:

This is a very good deal - it means we can cut the national debt, it means we can invest in our national infrastructure and it's fantastic value for British taxpayers.

If the money is used to reduce the borrowing requirement (i.e. not add so much to the national debt) then it is a good deal as the saving in interest exceeds the loss of income.

If the money is used for infrastructure investment then it is a good deal as the infrastructure project must have a better return than the 1% they were getting from Eurostar or they would never have done it.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Axionknight said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Seems like an argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Anti-Kippers, is one of "I've been caught out because the facts don't support my biased assertion, so I'll throw some insults"

It is not just a case of "the others are so much worse", his ratings are unusually good for a PM at this time in an electoral and economic cycle. So most of the population see him as good, not just compared to Miliband, Farage and Clegg, but against other PMs.

So it is really hard to justify your assertion that he is bringing the Tory ratings down. You may think that badly of him, but the evidence is that population at large does not.

Yet despite this his party has polled between 2% and 7% less in every Ashcroft poll this year than they did at the 2010 election - Daves popularity clearly isn't availing them to much at all.

Again not surprising given the economic and electoal cycle. But irrelevant because Fif was asserting that Cameron was bring the Tories down, despite his personal ratings being better than those of the party.

But I do note that the last 3 polls have put the Tories ahead. First time for years. Random chance? Beginnings of a trend? Pick your corner and lob your opinion in

Not sure how well this will work, but...

Date(s)
conducted Polling organisation/client Sample size Con Lab LD UKIP Green Others Lead
2–3 Mar YouGov/The Sun 1,701 36% 34% 5% 14% 6% 5% 2%
1–2 Mar YouGov/The Sun 1,866 35% 32% 7% 15% 6% 5% 3%
27 Feb–1 Mar Lord Ashcroft 1,003 34% 31% 7% 14% 7% 8%

[Axionknight]

Roughly how far ahead do they need to be ahead for them to claim a majority due to the boundry issues? Probably difficult to put a concrete figure on obviously, but has anyone worked it out of late?

[Yazar]

ralphrj said:

Yazar said:

Osbourne on the radio said it wasn't being used to pay down debt, will be splunked instead (This maybe my interpretation of a politician saying "part of it will be invested in infrastructure").

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31721334

George Osborne said:

This is a very good deal - it means we can cut the national debt, it means we can invest in our national infrastructure and it's fantastic value for British taxpayers.

If the money is used to reduce the borrowing requirement (i.e. not add so much to the national debt) then it is a good deal as the saving in interest exceeds the loss of income.

If the money is used for infrastructure investment then it is a good deal as the infrastructure project must have a better return than the 1% they were getting from Eurostar or they would never have done it.

We are talking about the same people whose best infrastructure project idea is HS1...

[ralphrj]

Axionknight said:

Roughly how far ahead do they need to be ahead for them to claim a majority due to the boundry issues? Probably difficult to put a concrete figure on obviously, but has anyone worked it out of late?

10%

[FiF]

JustAnotherLogin said:

FiF said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

That certainly is the view of some FiF.

yet the polling consistently shows him as a strength for the Tories: polls usually show he is seen as more trustworthy and more competent than any other leader (including those of the minor parties).

As usual, it's not what you say, but what you conveniently leave out which betrays the emptiness of your point.

In all cases it's a minority who are satisfied and the majority are dissatisfied with Cameron.
The next leader shows the same patter not so far behind and so on.

Seems like the argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Ukippers, is one of 'oh but look the others are so much worse. '

Waste of space.

Seems like an argument technique employed, so often criticised when used by Anti-Kippers, is one of "I've been caught out because the facts don't support my biased assertion, so I'll throw some insults"

It is not just a case of "the others are so much worse", his ratings are unusually good for a PM at this time in an electoral and economic cycle. So most of the population see him as good, not just compared to Miliband, Farage and Clegg, but against other PMs.

So it is really hard to justify your assertion that he is bringing the Tory ratings down. You may think that badly of him, but the evidence is that population at large does not.

Cameron at this stage of his first term in office 39% approval
Blair at same stage of his first term 48% approval.
But then Blair was opposed by Little Willy Hague and One for the road hic Kennedy so his lead of over those two was vast compared to Dave's mighty 9% lead over Nigel F.

Think you need to be careful of your accusations re facts not fitting assertions.

Your first paragraph makes no sense btw. Unless an accusation that something said by CMD's own staff isn't an insult but is when it's by someone on the Internet.

[HonestIago]

I am expecting a very strong General Election vote share for UKIP of 20%+ (possibly 25%) and hopefully a decent number of seats. IMO the likes of Yougov polling are designed to shape public opinion, not to reflect it. By deliberately downplaying UKIP support they attempt to give credence to the idea of it being a wasted vote or, worse, a vote for Labour.

[ralphrj]

Yazar said:

We are talking about the same people whose best infrastructure project idea is HS1...

I'm not really sure what your point is here.

1. HS1 was opened 8 years ago, what is your issue with that?

2. If you actually meant HS2 then what makes you think that it is the government's 'best infrastructure project'? Has the government claimed that it is their 'best infrastructure project'? If you define best as the project with the greatest rate of return then there are lots of infrastructure projects already approved or ongoing that probably have a higher rate of return than either HS2 or dividends from Eurostar.

Edited by ralphrj on Wednesday 4th March 14:34

[Munter]

Yazar said:

We are talking about the same people whose best infrastructure project idea is HS1...

Define best?
Also...HS1 exists already.

[Yazar]

Doh!

Meant to say HS2!!

[rovermorris999]

PRTVR said:

More short termism, a quick fix to make the books look better, if somebody is prepared to pay good money for it ( a pension company at that) perhaps there was long term profits to be made.

I suppose it depends whether you think governments should have stakes in private companies or not.

[Yazar]

ralphrj said:

2. If you actually meant HS2 then what makes you think that it is the government's 'best infrastructure project'? Has the government claimed that it is their 'best investment project'? If you define best as the project with the greatest rate of return then there are lots of infrastructure projects already approved or ongoing that probably have a higher rate of return than either HS2 or dividends from Eurostar.

Financially - a higher rate of return on smaller projects is pointless if these are then wasted on HS2.
Best - To ditch HS2, and instead look at a extended version of CrossRail2, not push the airport expansion decision to after the election like has been done, build a variant of a Hull-Liverpool line rather than Mps just going up to there to mention it whenever northern votes are sought.

[Bluebarge]

HonestIago said:

By deliberately downplaying UKIP support

Where is your evidence that Yougov is doing this?

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF said:

Cameron at this stage of his first term in office 39% approval
Blair at same stage of his first term 48% approval.
But then Blair was opposed by Little Willy Hague and One for the road hic Kennedy so his lead of over those two was vast compared to Dave's mighty 9% lead over Nigel F.

Think you need to be careful of your accusations re facts not fitting assertions.

Your first paragraph makes no sense btw. Unless an accusation that something said by CMD's own staff isn't an insult but is when it's by someone on the Internet.

So you pick Blair who was incredibly successful in polls as a comparison?

Also
Cameron 42% (above his party's rating, so he can't be dragging them down)
Farage 27&
a lead of 15% over Farage

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/14/op...


Even on your figures a big lead over farage, and he is still higher than the Tories, so hardly dragging them down

[Munter]

Bluebarge said:

HonestIago said:

By deliberately downplaying UKIP support

Where is your evidence that Yougov is doing this?

I think there is a "living in a bubble" problem around UKIP support online and the difference in the real world.

Online there appear to be plenty of rabid UKIP supporters willing to throw themselves on any sword going.

In the real world I meet people who emphasize with bit and bobs that UKIP talk about. But don't actually want to vote for them.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Oh, and you don't think "Waste of space" is an insult? The type of behaviour you long decried on these threads, but have no descended to?

odd.

[PRTVR]

rovermorris999 said:

I suppose it depends whether you think governments should have stakes in private companies or not.

But ît was not a private company in the true meaning of the word, the other owners are Goverments, I personal do not have a problem with state ownership, if done correctly, but the main reason for the sell off of state assets appears to be short term gain.