Pebble wrote:You think election rules are not flouted right, left and centre? I think we only get to hear about it when the occasional one gets caught.

No doubt rules are flouted, but that is something to be deplored and opposed, not acquiesced to with a shrug.

Inflation gone up to 2.7%. Project Fear = Project reality?

UK inflation increases to 2.7% in April according to CPI index, reveals ONS

It was the fastest rate of increase in prices since September 2013, reflecting the slump in the pound in the wake of the Brexit vote

Inflation jumped unexpectedly to 2.7 per cent in April, the highest since September 2013, as the slump in the pound since last June's Brexit vote hit home.

The Consumer Price Index was up from an annual growth rate of 2.3 per cent in March and higher than the 2.6 per cent expansion City of London analysts had pencilled in.

Core inflation, which strips out volatile energy and food prices, jumped to 2.4 per cent, up from 1.8 per cent previously, and the biggest annual increase since March 2013.

More...

The UK economy heading for the shitter? What worth now are manifesto costings?

ronmcd wrote:

OlivierK wrote:If you dig around for the detail, it's possible to find the exact question wording for most if not all of the major opinion polls. It's usually pretty fair. The worst that's usually on offer is asking for voting intention after some selective/skewed questions on individual policies, but most polling is pretty straight-down-the-line "In the June 8 General election, which party do you intend to vote for?" sort of stuff.

The order of asking the questions, eg following a leading question, makes a huge diffference to the outcome even when it's technically the same quesiton asked, after the setup questions. afaik

Sure, as I said it's the worst that's on offer. It's not particularly common, though, and all the main polls don't do it.

GrahamH wrote:You raise valid issues, but are you really so resigned to the rich and unscrupulous buying elections? Are you unconcerned about a rich foreign national covertly funding two apparently separate campaigns?

There could be some confusion about what I was commenting on, which was not polling companies but the Observer/Guardian reposrts on EU referendum campaing funding / manipulation mentioned in the post immediatle preceding mine.

I'm not at all resigned to the rich buying office, 'cause that's not an inevitable consequence of unrestricted electoral speech. Over the Atlantic, Sanders raised more than Clinton of Wall St., and if his campaign had started earlier as a serious run, he may well have bagged the nom, and with it, the presidency. Odd as the example is, Trump spent less than Clinton, yet still won.

There should be vigorously-enforced rules on direct donations to candidates, to prevent the rich buying legislators. That, not some Victorian afterglow obsessed with biddable electors, is where the focus should be.

OlivierK wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

OlivierK wrote:If you dig around for the detail, it's possible to find the exact question wording for most if not all of the major opinion polls. It's usually pretty fair. The worst that's usually on offer is asking for voting intention after some selective/skewed questions on individual policies, but most polling is pretty straight-down-the-line "In the June 8 General election, which party do you intend to vote for?" sort of stuff.

The order of asking the questions, eg following a leading question, makes a huge diffference to the outcome even when it's technically the same quesiton asked, after the setup questions. afaik

Sure, as I said it's the worst that's on offer. It's not particularly common, though, and all the main polls don't do it.

That's the thing, the main pollsters are just businesses - they ask the questions their clients ask them to. And the next week, when a different client asks them to ask sensible questions, they do that too.

It's early days, but I've still no idea who to vote for in order to make a difference. The policies are clear, but that's not the problem. The problem, of course, is wasted votes.

Like a vulture:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Like a vulture:

Thats no vulture, thats a Python

Well the rich will be doing alright. That is a comfort.

Anyone else looking forward to the leaders-minus-the-main-two debate? I can't help but hope it'll be mostly Sturgeon, Lucas and Wood ripping Paul Nuttall into many different pieces.

minininja wrote:Anyone else looking forward to the leaders-minus-the-main-two debate? I can't help but hope it'll be mostly Sturgeon, Lucas and Wood ripping Paul Nuttall into many different pieces.

Just switched it on. Eddie Hitler was speaking. Almost switched off ... oh god, he's speaking again ...

Haven't heard Nicola get a word yet ...

True.

One thing you can tell from this debate is that if Sturgeon and Farron were in the same party, Sturgeon would be leader.

https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/8 ... 2631990272

ronmcd wrote:

minininja wrote:Anyone else looking forward to the leaders-minus-the-main-two debate? I can't help but hope it'll be mostly Sturgeon, Lucas and Wood ripping Paul Nuttall into many different pieces.

Just switched it on. Eddie Hitler was speaking. Almost switched off ... oh god, he's speaking again ...

It's good that he's speaking. He either completely discredits the UKIP movement, or he convinces Tory voters to vote for UKIP and splits the Tory vote.

Tzelemel wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

minininja wrote:Anyone else looking forward to the leaders-minus-the-main-two debate? I can't help but hope it'll be mostly Sturgeon, Lucas and Wood ripping Paul Nuttall into many different pieces.

Just switched it on. Eddie Hitler was speaking. Almost switched off ... oh god, he's speaking again ...

It's good that he's speaking. He either completely discredits the UKIP movement, or he convinces Tory voters to vote for UKIP and splits the Tory vote.

No doubt. His attempts to speak, and remember that Leanne Wood isn't called Natalie Wood, did UKIP no favours at all. The others were literally laughing at him at times.

He's certainly putting the "nut" into Nuttall.

Corbyn really should agree to take part in any further TV debates. Missing this one was a big mistake.

Matt_B wrote:He's certainly putting the "nut" into Nuttall.

He's certainly Nutall there.

Didn't watch the leaders' debate, but I imagine it was artificial and boring.
I'm sure they pretended to be friends even when they dislike each other.
What do I do? I'm not any political colour, like many, but I feel obliged to vote.
In the past I've voted for various parties, but what difference does my vote make anyway?
I voted Lib in 2010, Tory in 2015 and for Brexit in 2016. Now I'm being asked to vote again.
France votes in a new party. I'd consider that.
If I don't vote why should I not have a right to criticize the winning party?

chairman bill wrote:Corbyn really should agree to take part in any further TV debates. Missing this one was a big mistake.

Yup. The debate could be dismissed - as Sam Coates of the Times just did on Daily Politics - on the basis none of the potential PMs were there. If Corbyn had been there, the debate would have been potentially awkward for Corbyn, being a target of the others, but May would have lost big.