There’s been plenty of comment about Paul Flynn’s claim that Plaid Cymru bloggers rigged the Total Politics ‘best Welsh blogs’ poll, where six of the top ten were Plaid.
As Menaiblog points out, I only wish someone had told me beforehand.
A different type of poll is under question in this week’s Glamorgan Gem, though.
The Gem suspended their online poll about whether or not the Labour Party in the Vale of Glamorgan should have an all-women shortlist for their general election candidate, citing voting irregularities when the results changed massively after they published their initial findings.
As a former tutor in social science methodology, I’m not sure that anyone should take too much notice of open access online polls, as even at best they can only ever be indicative rather than being truly representative.
But, if the Gem are right, then that looks rather more like someone trying to rig a ballot than the easier to explain results from the Total Politics poll.
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
New Year, Same Old Politics
The Conservatives' big new plan for 2009 is tax cuts of around £4bn by increasing the tax threshold by £2,000. Those able to take full advantage of this would save an extra £400.
They plan to pay for this through slowed public spending growth in all areas except health, education, defence and international development.
Labour's response, almost without thinking about it, was to argue that these savings would only be made through real-terms cuts to public services.
I can only imagine it's going to come from the same place, ultimately, as the £5bn in efficiency savings that Labour announced in the Pre-Budget Report back in November but whose details they would only flesh out in the Budget when it comes around in March.
Perhaps it could also come from the same place as the £37bn in public spending cuts to be made over the next five years that were slashed from budgets between the 2008 Budget and the PBR in November.
Let's also remember that Labour were more than happy to find £12bn to fund their bizarre 13-month VAT giveaway.
So far, so same old.
Except that Plaid made their ideas on this public back in November...and we costed it.
We called for an increase in the personal threshold for tax for all basic rate taxpayers of £2,000 - exactly what the Conservatives are doing now, except that ours would apply across the board, not just on savings.
We would effectively be putting £400 back into almost everybody's pocket - allowing them to save or spend this money as they liked, giving people the choice.
Those who spend would be stimulating the economy, those who save would be putting money into the banking system.
This would cost around £10bn, less than the cost of the VAT reduction offered by Labour, and covered by scrapping white elephant schemes such as ID cards.
A further suggestion made by Plaid back in November, to counter the difficulties faced by savers due to continued interest rate cuts, was an increase in the cash ISA from £3,600 to £7,200, giving savers the opportunity and incentive to save and invest money tax free - and giving them more money than the Conservatives plan will.
Nice to know they're listening to us - even if they're not prepared to be radical enough to make the real changes.
They plan to pay for this through slowed public spending growth in all areas except health, education, defence and international development.
Labour's response, almost without thinking about it, was to argue that these savings would only be made through real-terms cuts to public services.
I can only imagine it's going to come from the same place, ultimately, as the £5bn in efficiency savings that Labour announced in the Pre-Budget Report back in November but whose details they would only flesh out in the Budget when it comes around in March.
Perhaps it could also come from the same place as the £37bn in public spending cuts to be made over the next five years that were slashed from budgets between the 2008 Budget and the PBR in November.
Let's also remember that Labour were more than happy to find £12bn to fund their bizarre 13-month VAT giveaway.
So far, so same old.
Except that Plaid made their ideas on this public back in November...and we costed it.
We called for an increase in the personal threshold for tax for all basic rate taxpayers of £2,000 - exactly what the Conservatives are doing now, except that ours would apply across the board, not just on savings.
We would effectively be putting £400 back into almost everybody's pocket - allowing them to save or spend this money as they liked, giving people the choice.
Those who spend would be stimulating the economy, those who save would be putting money into the banking system.
This would cost around £10bn, less than the cost of the VAT reduction offered by Labour, and covered by scrapping white elephant schemes such as ID cards.
A further suggestion made by Plaid back in November, to counter the difficulties faced by savers due to continued interest rate cuts, was an increase in the cash ISA from £3,600 to £7,200, giving savers the opportunity and incentive to save and invest money tax free - and giving them more money than the Conservatives plan will.
Nice to know they're listening to us - even if they're not prepared to be radical enough to make the real changes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Identity Cards
I've just listened to Jacqui Smith's statement on identity cards for non-EU students and marriage visa holders.
To be honest, given the government's record on identity data loss in the past year or so, it seems difficult to believe that they are going ahead with this.
But not just that they're going ahead with the plan, but the step-by-step process through which they're introducing id cards.
As human rights organisation, Liberty, point out: "Picking on foreigners first is divisive politics; as costly to our race relations as our purses".
Like my party, I am, and always have been, against identity cards on principle. I don't believe that it is the role of government to snoop on their population - it is the role of government to ensure that support is available for those who cannot adequately support themselves. This falls well outside government's remit and its right to interfere in our daily lives.
How long before we get fined or jailed for refusing to identify ourselves to a policeman?
Welcome to Labour's Big Brother society.
To be honest, given the government's record on identity data loss in the past year or so, it seems difficult to believe that they are going ahead with this.
But not just that they're going ahead with the plan, but the step-by-step process through which they're introducing id cards.
As human rights organisation, Liberty, point out: "Picking on foreigners first is divisive politics; as costly to our race relations as our purses".
Like my party, I am, and always have been, against identity cards on principle. I don't believe that it is the role of government to snoop on their population - it is the role of government to ensure that support is available for those who cannot adequately support themselves. This falls well outside government's remit and its right to interfere in our daily lives.
How long before we get fined or jailed for refusing to identify ourselves to a policeman?
Welcome to Labour's Big Brother society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)