politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB hold the Cowdenbeath Holyrood by-election on a 12.5 per

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB hold the Cowdenbeath Holyrood by-election on a 12.5 percent swing from the SNP

Given that we are now only eight months away from the referendum in Scotland that will determine whether it stays in the UK or not the outcome of every election north of the border is being assessed in terms of what it says about September.

Read the full story here

redcliffe62

Good result for Labour, however a key problem for YES campaign that they want labour names in media started to be resolved with Sillars on QT.
The media link equating Yes as the SNP needs to be addressed, with other people involved, and conversely the link between NO and Tories needs to be exponentially increased for YES to win.

Having Tories fly in and fly out because Cameron knows a debate would cost many votes is a weakness and the MSM will eventually see it as such.

Either it is multi party on each side or presidential, one cannot be half pregnant.

That a third of the votes were postal in Cowdenbeath after the Glenrothes debacle next door is a concern. My guess is that there will be an attempt to get postals up to 30% plus from the NO campaign, as their support is soft and they need people to get help to vote NO.

I think postals should have been banned unless a valid excuse as plenty of room for skullduggery, or at least should be counted separately as some of us suspect that something Glenrothes-like may be attempted to keep the status quo.

JosiasJessop

Congratulations to the new MSP. I hope Mr Rowley serves his constituents first, and his party second.

felix

Pleasing to see the conservative vote edging up - might augur for a small overall Scotttish improvement - possibly at the expense of the LDs and maybe even the SNP if this decline trends.

Millsy

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

felix

redcliffe62 said:

Good result for Labour, however a key problem for YES campaign that they want labour names in media started to be resolved with Sillars on QT.
The media link equating Yes as the SNP needs to be addressed, with other people involved, and conversely the link between NO and Tories needs to be exponentially increased for YES to win.

Having Tories fly in and fly out because Cameron knows a debate would cost many votes is a weakness and the MSM will eventually see it as such.

Either it is multi party on each side or presidential, one cannot be half pregnant.

That a third of the votes were postal in Cowdenbeath after the Glenrothes debacle next door is a concern. My guess is that there will be an attempt to get postals up to 30% plus from the NO campaign, as their support is soft and they need people to get help to vote NO.

I think postals should have been banned unless a valid excuse as plenty of room for skullduggery, or at least should be counted separately as some of us suspect that something Glenrothes-like may be attempted to keep the status quo.

I'm unclear about the evidence that the potential No vote is any softer than the potential Yes vote. The demand for Cameron to participate in a debate when he is not allowed to vote is frankly absurd.

felix

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

david_herdson

redcliffe62 said:

Good result for Labour, however a key problem for YES campaign that they want labour names in media started to be resolved with Sillars on QT. The media link equating Yes as the SNP needs to be addressed, with other people involved,

Salmond and the SNP only have themselves to blame for that, by mixing the independence white paper up with an SNP manifesto - free childcare and all that. Those kind of issues are easy dividing lines for No to push into the Yes camp.

redcliffe62 said:

and conversely the link between NO and Tories needs to be exponentially increased for YES to win. Having Tories fly in and fly out because Cameron knows a debate would cost many votes is a weakness and the MSM will eventually see it as such. Either it is multi party on each side or presidential, one cannot be half pregnant.

It's for each campaign to decide how it wants to run its own campaign. If Yes wants to run a presidential one, that's its business - and given Salmond's strengths as a media performer, I can understand the attractiveness of doing so. But what Yes chooses to do should have little bearing on how No chooses to set up its campaign - and vice versa. Similarly, there are good arguments for debates, but each side should be able to decide who it nominates as its spokesman.

redcliffe62 said:

That a third of the votes were postal in Cowdenbeath after the Glenrothes debacle next door is a concern. My guess is that there will be an attempt to get postals up to 30% plus from the NO campaign, as their support is soft and they need people to get help to vote NO.

I'd agree with that but the rules are what they are and you campaign within them. Strong support from 25% of the electorate or less is always a weak position from which to launch a campaign in a referendum, if your opponents' support is a good deal wider, if shallower.

redcliffe62 said:

I think postals should have been banned unless a valid excuse as plenty of room for skullduggery, or at least should be counted separately as some of us suspect that something Glenrothes-like may be attempted to keep the status quo.

Please, spare us. Pretty much every poll has given No a substantial lead and it's clear that there's been a swing away from the SNP since 2011. Apart from the fact that it'd be logistically impossible to repeat the kind of irregularities from Glenrothes nationwide, due to the number of people who'd have to be in on it, and the allegiance of the politicians who'd have to be involved, there's absolutely no need to. On the contrary, there's every incentive to ensure Yes loses fair and square, without setting up a new we-was-robbed believe. (I originally wrote 'myth' rather than 'belief', but the 1979 case was a genuine grievance and I wouldn't want an unfounded myth to be equated with that).

TGOHF

Shocker for the SNP - Salmond to step down when the referendum is lost ?

SouthamObserver

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Most of those affected by changes to the working tax credit regime are, of course, in work.

The Tories need to be careful here: telling people they are better off when they don't feel they are may end up doing them more harm than good.

Mick_Pork

The Cowdenbeath Holyrood result overnight represented a sharp move away from the SNP in a seat that they had only just missed in May 2011."

A move comparable to the other recent by-elections swings.Yet what is crucially left out (for reasons best known to those who seem to have massive trouble whenever they blunder into this subject) was the SNP result last night saw them getting the same voteshare as 2007.

That would be the 2007 where the SNP won the Holyrood elections.

So to be clear, this supposed disaster for the SNP and Salmond is predicated on one MIDTERM by-election result in one of the SAFEST of Labour safe seats where the SNP voteshare would see the SNP WIN the coming Holyrood election and forming the next scottish government.

A disaster indeed.

*tears of laughter etc.*

david_herdson

Overall comments on the result:

Labour: very solid win, better than par score. Back above 50% (indeed, above 55%) and almost as many votes as in 2011. Will be very content that progress towards 2016 is on the right track.

SNP: disappointing. A loss of half the vote and almost a third of the vote share on 2011, and a double-digit swing against. Not the ideal position going into the referendum.

Con: pretty good. The only party to actually increase their vote on 2011, and while 9.4% is no great shakes, it's around par for the course in that area. Will be pleased that UKIP doesn't seem to have done much damage.

UKIP: reasonable. 3% is about in line with polls for a party whose progress in Scotland is about ten years behind its position south of the border. Fourth place will be pleasing for them.

Lib Dems: poor. Half their already small 2011 share and fifth place. Further evidence that outside their strongholds, they're an irrelevance in Scotland.

Others: publicity aside, why bother?

SouthamObserver

You can vote Labour or Tory and still vote Yes to independence.

AlastairMeeks

@SouthamObserver What's interesting is that this seems to be part of a concerted push by the Conservatives, being all of a piece with David Cameron's soundbite yesterday of a recovery for all.

I expect the messaging is intended to show the Conservatives as not a party just for the rich, rather than to persuade people that they've misunderstood their own finances.

But as you say, they need to be careful. People have a firm idea of how much money they have in their pocket.

SquareRoot

MIck POrk

I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Edin_Rokz

SouthamObserver said:

You can vote Labour or Tory and still vote Yes to independence.

You can even vote SNP and vote No to independence

SouthamObserver

david_herdson said:

Overall comments on the result:

Labour: very solid win, better than par score. Back above 50% (indeed, above 55%) and almost as many votes as in 2011. Will be very content that progress towards 2016 is on the right track.

SNP: disappointing. A loss of half the vote and almost a third of the vote share on 2011, and a double-digit swing against. Not the ideal position going into the referendum.

Con: pretty good. The only party to actually increase their vote on 2011, and while 9.4% is no great shakes, it's around par for the course in that area. Will be pleased that UKIP doesn't seem to have done much damage.

UKIP: reasonable. 3% is about in line with polls for a party whose progress in Scotland is about ten years behind its position south of the border. Fourth place will be pleasing for them.

Lib Dems: poor. Half their already small 2011 share and fifth place. Further evidence that outside their strongholds, they're an irrelevance in Scotland.

Others: publicity aside, why bother?

The LDs are going to be hammered in Scotland in 2015. There looks to be no way back for them. Who will survive? Charlie Kennedy and ... ?

SouthamObserver

Edin_Rokz said:

SouthamObserver said:

You can vote Labour or Tory and still vote Yes to independence.

You can even vote SNP and vote No to independence

True enough. The point being it is probably not a good idea to extrapolate anything about the referendum from this by-election.

Mick_Pork

SquareRoot said:

MIck POrk

I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Poor old PB tories never learn a thing. It's a fact. The SNP voteshare was the same as 2007. While PB tories seem keen to display they know next to nothing about such things, let me assure you, in 2007 the SNP WON and went on to form the scottish government.

Ewan Dow ‏@EwanDow 7h

Tonight's result takes state of constituency back to how it was in 2007. When SNP went into government. @ScotlandTonight #Cowdenbeath

AlastairMeeks

Off topic, the Mail has picked up on the Times's story about Ed Miliband's lack of popularity with the captains of industry and added some additional detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544566/Business-fears-economic-vandalism-Labours-plans-Ed-Miliband-Prime-Minister.html

I'm not sure that all those quoted would have expected exactly the interpretation put on their words by the Mail.

david_herdson

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

david_herdson

MickP:

The Cowdenbeath Holyrood result overnight represented a sharp move away from the SNP in a seat that they had only just missed in May 2011."

A move comparable to the other recent by-elections swings. Yet what is crucially left out (for reasons best known to those who seem to have massive trouble whenever they blunder into this subject) was the SNP result last night saw them getting the same vote share as 2007.

That would be the 2007 where the SNP won the Holyrood elections.

True, but.

While the SNP vote share yesterday was the same as in the predecessor seat in 2007, Labour's was 11% up on that result. And while the SNP did win overall in 2007, it was only by one seat over Labour. So yes, not a disaster by any means but the evidence that Labour's getting its act back together shouldn't be ignored either.

Mick_Pork

Meanwhile John Major David Cameron is having yet another spot of bother with his rebel backbenchers.

Gareth Thomas MP ‏@GarethThomasMP 19h

More trouble for Cameron over the EU from his backbenchers


Tory rebel pledges to reintroduce work restrictions on EU migrants
Nigel Mills heads for confrontation with PM over immigration bill amendment for controls on Romanian and Bulgarian migrants




http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/23/tory-rebel-immigration-bill-amendment-romanian-bulgarian-migrants?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Just imagine the concessions they will get from a panicking Cammie after the EU elections.

SouthamObserver

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

Alanbrooke

I see Mrs Kirchner is working her magic again. Stand by for more Falklands distractions.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/argentinian-peso-freefall-economic-crisis-deepens

Mick_Pork

david_herdson said:

So yes, not a disaster by any means but the evidence that Labour's getting its act back together shouldn't be ignored either.

In Cowdenbeath. The same part of the country represented at Westminster by a certain Gordon Brown MP. If they can't do well there in scotland then precisely where can they do well? It is of no consequence that so many PB tories think Brown is the devil incarnate. He quite clearly has strong local support as you would expect from a former PM and one of the two biggest figures in Labour since 1997.

The most recent Holyrood polling also shows a repeat of 2007 with the SNP winning and forming the government so this is hardly anything new. For a government in midterm however it is very revealing and about as far from a disaster as it gets. If the tories were getting polling and results comparable to what they got in 2010 you can be absolutely certain they would be losing no time at all in boasting about it.

Innocent_Abroad

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

There are two points here: one is that earnings may well go up but income doesn't - in this case, people are unlikely to feel gratitude. Especially from Tories: in my experience, the desire to bully is a major recruiter to the Tories and has been at least since William Pitt the Elder learnt to walk. Even when their leaders avoid bullying (and I think at least part of the reason Cameron runs ahead of his party is that he does try to avoid being an Old Etonian bully) it does them no favours with their hard-core support.

Secondly, David, that is an argument against redistributive taxation of any kind. May I take it that you were sorry to see John Major replace the Poll Tax with the Community Charge? Or at least sorry that he needed to?

Scott_P

felix said:

Pleasing to see the conservative vote edging up - might augur for a small overall Scotttish improvement - possibly at the expense of the LDs and maybe even the SNP if this decline trends.

A Scottish Tory Surge, as it were...

Monksfield

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

The Tories must think people are complete imbeciles. When increased household income is based on tax cuts rather than wage increases it's obvious that what's being given with one hand is being taken by another, as services are starved or removed. As many commentators have said, people who feel 10% poorer due to a lack of pay rises over a 5 year period are not going to appreciate being told by wealthy politicians that they are better off.

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

Innocent_Abroad

Separate point, so separate comment. I would hazard a guess that the losing side in almost any referendum has more passionate & noisy support than the winning one. Indeed, the political justification of many may indeed be to show that noise and numbers are two different things.

PBModerator

Mick Pork (and everyone else as well)

Can posters please not copy entire articles or a majority of that article from other sites.

Neil

It's difficult to squeeze a thread out of this by-election result. Not much going on there. From a quick glance at the odds not much going on in the referendum campaign either.

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.

SquareRoot

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

MIck POrk



I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Poor old PB tories never learn a thing. It's a fact. The SNP voteshare was the same as 2007. While PB tories seem keen to display they know next to nothing about such things, let me assure you, in 2007 the SNP WON and went on to form the scottish government.

Ewan Dow ‏@EwanDow 7h

Tonight's result takes state of constituency back to how it was in 2007. When SNP went into government. @ScotlandTonight #Cowdenbeath

Past performance is NO guarantee of future success. You are spinning like a top.

Alanbrooke

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.

Did you have a good time in the Fatherland ?

SouthamObserver

antifrank said:

Off topic, the Mail has picked up on the Times's story about Ed Miliband's lack of popularity with the captains of industry and added some additional detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544566/Business-fears-economic-vandalism-Labours-plans-Ed-Miliband-Prime-Minister.html

I'm not sure that all those quoted would have expected exactly the interpretation put on their words by the Mail.

I suspect EdM will be rather pleased with that report.

Mick_Pork

PBModerator said:

Mick Pork (and everyone else as well)

Can posters please not copy entire articles or a majority of that article from other sites.

The article is here.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/23/tory-rebel-immigration-bill-amendment-romanian-bulgarian-migrants

As you can see for yourself what was posted was five paragraphs of the article which give enough to summarise what is obviously a complex vote, procedure and who is moving it as well as why.

another_richard

antifrank said:

@SouthamObserver What's interesting is that this seems to be part of a concerted push by the Conservatives, being all of a piece with David Cameron's soundbite yesterday of a recovery for all.

I expect the messaging is intended to show the Conservatives as not a party just for the rich, rather than to persuade people that they've misunderstood their own finances.

But as you say, they need to be careful. People have a firm idea of how much money they have in their pocket.

That sounds like a votewinner - some inherited wealth politician telling you that you're too thick to realise you're better off even though you're certain you're worse off.

Nobody needed to explain to 'Loadsamoney' that he was better off during the 1980s - he already knew it and could show you the money to prove it.

DavidL

I think the point the tories are trying to get across is not that everyone is actually better off but that in tough times they have done what they can to help the lower paid by reducing their tax bills at the cost of the better off.

AIUI most of the reductions in WTC to date have been at the upper end with eligibility removed for those earning more than twice the average wage (!) and sharper tapering as a result. Of greater significance for the less well paid will be the new policies on HB which may, in some cases, mean that the working tenant has to find more of his or her rent from his or her earnings.

It is a complicated picture and I suspect that the tories will be content for the situation to be simply confused at the moment provided that real wages grow this year. For that to be achievable productivity needs to be increased. So far the evidence on that is weak. A possible game changer, though, is an increase in the minimum wage significantly above inflation. That would give real earnings quite a boost.

RobD

For the train needs, just saw the flying banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

SouthamObserver

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.

Did you have a good time in the Fatherland ?

I did indeed. Four days visiting world class companies producing high quality products developed on the back of a commitment to investing in R&D. And excellent beer. Must have put on half a stone between the lager, the dumplings and the pig fat!!

Mick_Pork

Farage seems pretty confident there won't be a tory surge at the EU elections.

Nigel Farage: Ukip Will Get Rid Of Me If We Fail In The European Elections

Nigel Farage has admitted if Ukip fails to perform well in the upcoming European elections then he would be ousted as leader of the party.

He also predicted that their parties could oust both David Cameron and Nick Clegg this summer if they led them to bad defeats in the polls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/23/nigel-farage-ukip-leader-european-elections_n_4654232.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Clegg and Cammie going straight after the EU elections? Bit of a bolder prediction that and one where he's likely to be disappointed. Or pleased considering it's Cammie and Osbrowne who have done so much to boost his and the kippers fortunes.

foxinsoxuk

Vote UKIP to restore traditional railway livery!

I kid you not. Who says UKIP doesn't have a full manifesto that addresses the real needs of the country?

http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/watch-farage-gets-brillod/

RobD said:

For the train needs, just saw the yellow banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.

Oooh, sarcasm.

But it's true: you're projecting thoughts onto the Conservatives. You *want* them to think of such people as 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'. Some will, but so will some Labour supporters and, I daresay, even some Labour MPs.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

Vote UKIP to restore traditional railway livery!

I kid you not. Who says UKIP doesn't have a full manifesto that addresses the real needs of the country?

http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/watch-farage-gets-brillod/

RobD said:

For the train needs, just saw the yellow banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

My mistake, it's most definitely yellow, but actually called the flying banana or New Meausurement Train to the suits. I presume UKIP will be enforcing bright yellow uniforms for the workers on this (almost) unique train

And oh dear, I meant nerds not needs!! Blasted autocorrect!

DavidL

Good Matt today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

Given how manipulated they are I rather expected Police crime figures to edge up if only to demonstrate what a devastating effect cuts on police were having. It appears the individual pressure on performance in each area creates too great a momentum.

Innocent_Abroad

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.

I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.

SO = IA

Wulfrun_Phil

Mick_Pork said:

The Cowdenbeath Holyrood result overnight represented a sharp move away from the SNP in a seat that they had only just missed in May 2011."

A move comparable to the other recent by-elections swings.Yet what is crucially left out (for reasons best known to those who seem to have massive trouble whenever they blunder into this subject) was the SNP result last night saw them getting the same voteshare as 2007.

That would be the 2007 where the SNP won the Holyrood elections.

So to be clear, this supposed disaster for the SNP and Salmond is predicated on one MIDTERM by-election result in one of the SAFEST of Labour safe seats where the SNP voteshare would see the SNP WIN the coming Holyrood election and forming the next scottish government.

A disaster indeed.

*tears of laughter etc.*

That's partial and misleading spinning. The wiki page for the constituency is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowdenbeath_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)

Change of vote compared to 2007 seat on new boundaries:
Lab +12.8%
SNP -0.1%
Con -4.8%
LD -12.1%
UKIP + 3.0%

Collapse of LD vote goes entirely to Labour.

In 2007 the SNP had just 1 more seat than Lab in the Scottish parliament. So "tears of laughter" indeed if you think that a result where Lab improves 13% on its vote share then could see the SNP forming the next Scottish government.

Mick_Pork

SquareRoot said:

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

MIck POrk



I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Poor old PB tories never learn a thing. It's a fact. The SNP voteshare was the same as 2007. While PB tories seem keen to display they know next to nothing about such things, let me assure you, in 2007 the SNP WON and went on to form the scottish government.

Ewan Dow ‏@EwanDow 7h

Tonight's result takes state of constituency back to how it was in 2007. When SNP went into government. @ScotlandTonight #Cowdenbeath

Past performance is NO guarantee of future success. You are spinning like a top.

The by-election result was last night you amusingly confused chap. While the Holyrood polling also pointing to an SNP win for 2007 is very recent too. Stick to spinning for Cast Iron Cammie as he heads for a no doubt 'stellar' performance at the coming May elections. Or better still you can cheer yourself up with Osbrowne trumpeting record unemployment figures that he proudly boasts were as good a drop as they were in Feb 1997. Under John Major. That would be the same John Major, who, three months after those unemployment figures, then went on to the most resounding and devastating tory defeat in modern political times.

Funny how examining past performance is forbidden unless it's to spin positively for the tories on PB.

foxinsoxuk

A no vote in the indy ref could help the Unionist parties at Westminster. Notably the SNP lost the majority of their seats in 1979 following the last failed eeferendum.

It is hard to see a swing to the LDs in Scotland, so it may well be that it is Labour and Conservatives that gain seats at Westminster, though even a handful would be a triumph for the Tories.

I am sure that our porcine friends will cry tears of laughter as they tuck into their acorns!

felix said:

Pleasing to see the conservative vote edging up - might augur for a small overall Scotttish improvement - possibly at the expense of the LDs and maybe even the SNP if this decline trends.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

Vote UKIP to restore traditional railway livery!

I kid you not. Who says UKIP doesn't have a full manifesto that addresses the real needs of the country?

http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/watch-farage-gets-brillod/

RobD said:

For the train needs, just saw the yellow banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

That's one of the barmier ideas. What is 'traditional'? The BR corporate blue that was hated whilst it was in use?

If I was made overlord, everything should be in Midland Railway crimson lake, just like 48624:
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/the-railway/locomotives/8624-2/
http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/LMidComp.htm

GWR green will be banned as an abomination, and Swindon will be concreted over to remove all traces of the broad-gauge heretics. ;-)

RobD

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

MIck POrk



I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Poor old PB tories never learn a thing. It's a fact. The SNP voteshare was the same as 2007. While PB tories seem keen to display they know next to nothing about such things, let me assure you, in 2007 the SNP WON and went on to form the scottish government.

Ewan Dow ‏@EwanDow 7h

Tonight's result takes state of constituency back to how it was in 2007. When SNP went into government. @ScotlandTonight #Cowdenbeath

Past performance is NO guarantee of future success. You are spinning like a top.

The by-election result was last night you amusingly confused chap. While the Holyrood polling also pointing to an SNP win for 2007 is very recent too. Stick to spinning for Cast Iron Cammie as he heads for a no doubt 'stellar' performance at the coming May elections. Or better still you can cheer yourself up with Osbrowne trumpeting record unemployment figures that he proudly boasts were as good a drop as they were in Feb 1997. Under John Major. That would be the same John Major, who, three months after those unemployment figures, then went on to the most resounding and devastating tory defeat in modern political times.

He was up agains Tony. Ed is not in the same league!

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

A no vote in the indy ref could help the Unionist parties at Westminster. Notably the SNP lost the majority of their seats in 1979 following the last failed eeferendum.

It is hard to see a swing to the LDs in Scotland, so it may well be that it is Labour and Conservatives that gain seats at Westminster, though even a handful would be a triumph for the Tories.

I am sure that our porcine friends will cry tears of laughter as they tuck into their acorns!

felix said:

Pleasing to see the conservative vote edging up - might augur for a small overall Scotttish improvement - possibly at the expense of the LDs and maybe even the SNP if this decline trends.

Careful now. I hear Scottish Tory Surger alarms going off all over!!! ;-)

JosiasJessop

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Vote UKIP to restore traditional railway livery!

I kid you not. Who says UKIP doesn't have a full manifesto that addresses the real needs of the country?

http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/watch-farage-gets-brillod/

RobD said:

For the train needs, just saw the yellow banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

My mistake, it's most definitely yellow, but actually called the flying banana or New Meausurement Train to the suits. I presume UKIP will be enforcing bright yellow uniforms for the workers on this (almost) unique train

And oh dear, I meant nerds not needs!! Blasted autocorrect!

Ah, but which one? The one based on HST stock, or the one based on a 150 DMU?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_950

Mick_Pork

RobD said:

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

Mick_Pork said:

SquareRoot said:

MIck POrk



I think you had better sit down asap, all that spin will make you dizzy.

Poor old PB tories never learn a thing. It's a fact. The SNP voteshare was the same as 2007. While PB tories seem keen to display they know next to nothing about such things, let me assure you, in 2007 the SNP WON and went on to form the scottish government.

Ewan Dow ‏@EwanDow 7h

Tonight's result takes state of constituency back to how it was in 2007. When SNP went into government. @ScotlandTonight #Cowdenbeath

Past performance is NO guarantee of future success. You are spinning like a top.

The by-election result was last night you amusingly confused chap. While the Holyrood polling also pointing to an SNP win for 2007 is very recent too. Stick to spinning for Cast Iron Cammie as he heads for a no doubt 'stellar' performance at the coming May elections. Or better still you can cheer yourself up with Osbrowne trumpeting record unemployment figures that he proudly boasts were as good a drop as they were in Feb 1997. Under John Major. That would be the same John Major, who, three months after those unemployment figures, then went on to the most resounding and devastating tory defeat in modern political times.

He was up agains Tony. Ed is not in the same league!


Quite obviously not but those improving economy stats did sweet F A for John Major for the same reason they will not help Osbrowne. The voter doesn't care about out of touch idiots spinning economic stats. The voter knows perfectly well if they are better off or not. The voter also knows full well that labour smashed the economy along with the banks since they watched it happen and no amount of economic stats will change that fact either.
So it's not hard to see how the election will look in 2015.

"Cost of living crisis" Vs "Don't let Labour ruin it again".

Something those with any common sense have known long, long before now. That's a battle that can only be won (or more likely lost) on trust. Like so many other elections have been.

RobD

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Vote UKIP to restore traditional railway livery!

I kid you not. Who says UKIP doesn't have a full manifesto that addresses the real needs of the country?

http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/watch-farage-gets-brillod/

RobD said:

For the train needs, just saw the yellow banana go past while waiting at Taunton!

My mistake, it's most definitely yellow, but actually called the flying banana or New Meausurement Train to the suits. I presume UKIP will be enforcing bright yellow uniforms for the workers on this (almost) unique train

And oh dear, I meant nerds not needs!! Blasted autocorrect!

Ah, but which one? The one based on HST stock, or the one based on a 150 DMU?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_950

HST, can't say I've ever seen an older variant.

Mick_Pork

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

A no vote in the indy ref could help the Unionist parties at Westminster. Notably the SNP lost the majority of their seats in 1979 following the last failed eeferendum.

It is hard to see a swing to the LDs in Scotland, so it may well be that it is Labour and Conservatives that gain seats at Westminster, though even a handful would be a triumph for the Tories.

I am sure that our porcine friends will cry tears of laughter as they tuck into their acorns!

felix said:

Pleasing to see the conservative vote edging up - might augur for a small overall Scotttish improvement - possibly at the expense of the LDs and maybe even the SNP if this decline trends.

Careful now. I hear Scottish Tory Surger alarms going off all over!!! ;-)

The hilarious scottish tory surge completely failed to materialise in 2010, just like the tory majority "nailed on". Which is why it is so funny.

As for their future prospects, well the scottish tories have done one telling thing since the coalition formed which is to get unpopular and incompetent lib dems like Rennie, Moore and now Carmichael to be the very public face of the coalition in scotland for as many news and media reports as possible. Usually under the pretext that they would be better suited to handle such things. Though mainly because those lib dems just aren't bright enough to see they are being made the fall guys as they love being on TV.

You saw a very rare exception to that with SCON's Davidson on QT last night. The coalition didn't go down too well, did it? The political motivation for the scottish tories to keep the lib dems as their fall guys (while they try to be as invisible as possible) is quite clear. It is also completely unsustainable for any large scale election and test of scottish public opinion. Then you are going to see what happens when the scottish tories have to very publicly defend the coalition to the scottish public and it will not be pretty.

Jonathan

Very strong result for Labour. They are clearly doing something right.

Hard to imagine another party securing over 50% in a by-election right now.

[Deleted User]

antifrank said:

Off topic, the Mail has picked up on the Times's story about Ed Miliband's lack of popularity with the captains of industry and added some additional detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544566/Business-fears-economic-vandalism-Labours-plans-Ed-Miliband-Prime-Minister.html

I'm not sure that all those quoted would have expected exactly the interpretation put on their words by the Mail.

This Warner article in today's DT is better:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10592623/Davos-2014-Theres-only-one-way-to-close-the-wealth-gap.html

Basically saying the world faces choices now as globalisation and low interest rate regimes reach the end of their road. The Labour economic direction will ruin the country. We need to move away from crony capitalism to real capitalism and free markets, away from protectionism to compettiion, etc.

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

It's you who's mentioned scroungers and layabouts - though cracking down on Labour's laxity in that area's done no harm either - but the idea that everyone who was receiving a handout from the state deserved one or needed one is silly and - worse - unsustainable.

Carnyx

Turnout of any significance? BBC has 34% but Wikipedia has 38%. cf. 47% at SPE 2011. (Figs rounded to 2sig. figs.)

surbiton

Sitting at KL International Airport and waiting to catch my flight: I am sure the PBTories found 11% swing to be a terrible result for Miliband. God knows what Hodges thinks about it ?

Last night caught a little of a cat fight between Fitalass and Mr Pork. Fitalass was almost supporting SLAB !

dr_spyn

@RobD type network test trains into flickr and you find some diesel hauled ones.

What went wrong for the SNP? Is it a case of mid term dissatisfaction in the Edinburgh talking shop, or is it an area where votes go to any resembling a highland cow with a red rosette?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Was greatly displeased with the final instalment of the three-part series on Egyptian art on BBC4 last night. The chap presenting it kept referring to Alexander and Ptolemy as Greek.

Mick_Pork

Wulfrun_Phil said:

In 2007 the SNP had just 1 more seat than Lab in the Scottish parliament.

The SNP formed the scottish government in 2007 and then went on to a historic landslide in 2011 that labour thought could never happen. Yet even during that landslide labour won the seat which tells you all you need to know about the local factors in play in Gordon Brown's neck of the woods.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

So "tears of laughter" indeed if you think that a result where Lab improves 13% on its vote share then could see the SNP forming the next Scottish government.

The point is I don't even need to rely on one by-election result in the safest of safe labour seats to tell me that the SNP look set to form a government right now. The most recent Holyrood polling also points to it.

PeatWorrier ‏@PeatWorrier Dec 31

End of year Panelbase poll for Holyrood. SNP 40%, Labour 32% in constituencies, 40% to 31% in regional vote. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/panelbase-poll-shows-snp-8-points-ahead-of-labour-1-3251567


Scottish Parliament constituency vote:

SNP: 40%

Labour: 32%

Conservative: 15%

Lib Dem: 5%

Other: 8%

Regional List vote:

SNP: 40%

Labour: 31%

Conservative: 14%

Lib Dem: 5%

Green: 5%

Other: 5%

Tears of laughter indeed if you think that midterm poll points to a labour win at Holyrood.

david_herdson

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

There are two points here: one is that earnings may well go up but income doesn't - in this case, people are unlikely to feel gratitude. Especially from Tories: in my experience, the desire to bully is a major recruiter to the Tories and has been at least since William Pitt the Elder learnt to walk. Even when their leaders avoid bullying (and I think at least part of the reason Cameron runs ahead of his party is that he does try to avoid being an Old Etonian bully) it does them no favours with their hard-core support.

Secondly, David, that is an argument against redistributive taxation of any kind. May I take it that you were sorry to see John Major replace the Poll Tax with the Community Charge? Or at least sorry that he needed to?

Those are just two bizarre points.

I have never met anyone join the Conservatives in order to bully someone else. Considering that most parties have quite a lot of members with strong personalities, it's entirely possible that some Tories may act in a bullying manner but then Falkirk and Portsmouth suggest that other parties have problems with abuse of power too.

The point about welfare reform is even stranger. it's not an argment against redistributive taxation at all. On the contrary. It's about *not* giving away money to people who *don't* need it (while ensuring that those who do, continue to receive while also incentivising actions that will ultimately help them to support themselves).

I do think that Rennard methods have passed their sell-by date.

Lennon

For those on here that were talking of Marmite - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25867613

Morris_Dancer

F1: weight limit to rise by 10kg in 2015:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25870646

A rise is good, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Mick_Pork

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Or that the PB tories are always wrong and the PB tories never learn.

BBC Andrew Kerr ‏@BBCandrewkerr 9h

SNP sources say they hope to match 2007 vote in #Cowdenbeath

The by-election as also one of the least prominent in recent times simply because everyone knew it was a foregone conclusion. SNP posters pointed that out with the labour odds for a win time and time again on here but it's no surprise they were ignored by the PB tories.

AlastairMeeks

Mick_Pork said:

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Or that the PB tories are always wrong and the PB tories never learn.

BBC Andrew Kerr ‏@BBCandrewkerr 9h

SNP sources say they hope to match 2007 vote in #Cowdenbeath

Look up.

[Deleted User]

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

dr_spyn

Is that some sort of voting intention graphic in the top right corner, for that by-election?

RobD

dr_spyn said:

@RobD type network test trains into flickr and you find some diesel hauled ones.

What went wrong for the SNP? Is it a case of mid term dissatisfaction in the Edinburgh talking shop, or is it an area where votes go to any resembling a highland cow with a red rosette?

I'm a big fan of the 125s, so I doubt I'll see anything as majestic as the big yellow train

I think Japan has an equivalent tellow train for their high speed network.

Mick_Pork

antifrank said:

Mick_Pork said:

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Or that the PB tories are always wrong and the PB tories never learn.

BBC Andrew Kerr ‏@BBCandrewkerr 9h

SNP sources say they hope to match 2007 vote in #Cowdenbeath

Look up.

At the same lib dem who bizarrely thought that the SNP winning the scottish local elections in 2012 was somehow a terrible blow to the SNP? Hardly.

*chortle*

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: weight limit to rise by 10kg in 2015:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25870646

A rise is good, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient.

Tyre warmers also to be banned.

Personally, to reduce costs further, I think normal road tyres should be used. They should also have to drive to the nearest Kwik Fit to have a change, queuing behind a few Ladas and Honda Jazz's as a cigarette-wielding mechanic sucks through his teeth and orders the tyres in from the depot.

Oh, and Sam Michael might become McLaren team boss. Boo hiss.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, is the Sam Michael comment a piss take? On the other hand, leading a team is different to being the technical or engineering chief.

On the third hand, it may amplify the Curse of Michael and lead to McLaren scoring no points at all and being taken over by a returning Super Aguri consortium.

RobD

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

Pork suffers from chortleitis, brought on by his copious gorging of acorns.

SouthamObserver

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

felix said:

Millsy said:

UK pay rising in real terms, says coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001

Has anyone seen the numbers?

If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.

Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.

Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.

It's you who's mentioned scroungers and layabouts - though cracking down on Labour's laxity in that area's done no harm either - but the idea that everyone who was receiving a handout from the state deserved one or needed one is silly and - worse - unsustainable.

Your use of the word "handout" rather gives it away. No, not everyone *needs* benefits - it made sense to get rid of child benefits for high earners, for example, despite promises not to do it before the GE. But reforming the tax credit system has had a negative effect on many low and median income households in which people work. They are hurting and they have votes. Telling them they are better off and that they did not need the tax credits may not be the best idea. We will see.

Mick_Pork

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.

Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.

AlastairMeeks

There's none so blind as will not see:

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/salmond-predicts-swing-from-labour/2ick8nye

"Voters will swing away from Labour in the Cowdenbeath by-election, according to Alex Salmond."

It's those terribly biased people at PA, no doubt.

MonikerDiCanio

antifrank said:

There's none so blind as will not see:

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/salmond-predicts-swing-from-labour/2ick8nye

"Voters will swing away from Labour in the Cowdenbeath by-election, according to Alex Salmond."

It's those terribly biased people at PA, no doubt.

I think reports of Salmond's diet have been greatly exaggerated.

TOPPING

Mick_Pork said:

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.

Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.

I must have been away when the 52%/£500 poll was discussed on here but Mick - what is your view on that: For £500/person (presumably English pound-equivalent), Alex gets his YES majority?

Or should it be something nobler, more visceral than that?

TGOHF

BoE to reduce maximum house price limit for help to buy.

Mick_Pork

antifrank said:

There's none so blind as will not see:

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/salmond-predicts-swing-from-labour/2ick8nye

"Voters will swing away from Labour in the Cowdenbeath by-election, according to Alex Salmond."

It's those terribly biased people at PA, no doubt.

You should try watching it then. Salmond pointed to scottish labour hypocrisy on school meals and said that the SNP fight elections to win and were taking nothing for granted (if you expect a political leader to say otherwise you really have lost the plot) yet no actual prediction about any swing unsurprisingly enough.

Neil

Anybody believe the SNP claim that their canvassing in Cowdenbeath showed independence ahead? Me neither (maybe if it was canvassing conducted while knocking up). Though the fact they clearly spent the campaign pushing it when I doubt the unionist parties were pushing a no vote as strongly might be interesting.

Mick_Pork

TOPPING said:

Mick_Pork said:

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.

Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.

I must have been away when the 52%/£500 poll was discussed on here but Mick - what is your view on that: For £500/person (presumably English pound-equivalent), Alex gets his YES majority?

Or should it be something nobler, more visceral than that?

When we see the polling on how £500 would affect westminster voting intention for the tories, labour and lib dems I will of course oblige.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, is the Sam Michael comment a piss take? On the other hand, leading a team is different to being the technical or engineering chief.

On the third hand, it may amplify the Curse of Michael and lead to McLaren scoring no points at all and being taken over by a returning Super Aguri consortium.

I wish it was a p*** take:
http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9130566/Sam-Michael-to-be-named-team-boss-

There's some interesting things afoot at McLaren. Personally I doubt the story: ISTR that Michael was a Whitmarsh appointment, and Dennis could well want to get rid of as many of those as possible.

Then again, they can't leave themselves understaffed.

AlastairMeeks

@Mick_Pork It's such a shame how the media wilfully misconstrue the SNP on these occasions. It sets up such unfortunate narratives. If only they could listen to the holy gospel of Alex, they would not err such.

Or alternatively, the SNP are shit at expectations management. Suck it up.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, on Joe Saward's blog he seems to think Michael (or anyone currently at McLaren) is unlikely to get the job. The reasoning is that it could be announced right now, and hasn't been, therefore it's someone already working with a contract elsewhere (which would also rule out Brawn, alas).

Lennon

Neil said:

Anybody believe the SNP claim that their canvassing in Cowdenbeath showed independence ahead? Me neither (maybe if it was canvassing conducted while knocking up). Though the fact they clearly spent the campaign pushing it when I doubt the unionist parties were pushing a no vote as strongly might be interesting.

Polite Labour voters saying 'Well I'm voting Labour in the by-election, but I'll strongly consider Yes for Independance when the time comes'?

RichardNabavi

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Indeed, and let us not forget this example (which proved highly profitable):

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salmond-targets-27-westminster-seats-1026507

Neil

RichardNabavi said:

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Indeed, and let us not forget this example (which proved highly profitable):

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salmond-targets-27-westminster-seats-1026507

And Stuart was convinced that JackW's prediction of 12 (or so, I think) seats in 2015 was an anti-SNP conspiracy. He must think Salmond is a double agent.

Carnyx

Mick_Pork said:

TOPPING said:

Mick_Pork said:

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.

Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.

I must have been away when the 52%/£500 poll was discussed on here but Mick - what is your view on that: For £500/person (presumably English pound-equivalent), Alex gets his YES majority?

Or should it be something nobler, more visceral than that?

When we see the polling on how £500 would affect westminster voting intention for the tories, labour and lib dems I will of course oblige.

That was polled last year - June to Oct if I recall rightly.

And BTW there is no such thing as an English pound, unless you are assuming that yes won the referendum?!

Mick_Pork

antifrank said:

@Mick_Pork It's such a shame how the media wilfully misconstrue the SNP on these occasions. It sets up such unfortunate narratives. If only they could listen to the holy gospel of Alex, they would not err such.

Or alternatively, the SNP are shit at expectations management. Suck it up.

The overwhelmingly pro-unionist/labour media are increasingly of no consequence as the 2011 landslide proved. PB tory ignorance of such things is also of no consequence. What matters is the scottish public and the PB tories have about as much chance of persuading the scottish public on anything as Cast Iron Cammie has of persuading Nigel Farage that he really does mean it this time on an EU referendum.

This was an extremely low profile midterm by-election in one of the safest labour seats there is. It takes the state of constituency basically back to how it was in 2007 when SNP went into government. Shrieking about expectations management hilariously misses the point considering just how ineptly such things get reported here on PB. So no, you can suck it up thanks.

The fact of the matter is we all know how loudly the PB tories would be cheering if they got a by-election result or polling that pointed to them getting a vote like 2010. No doubt any PB lib dems would be fit to be hospitalised if any polling or by-election result pointed to them getting the same kind of result as 2010. Somewhat unlikely while the Clegg spin machine is about as shit as it gets while providing everyone else with so much entertainment and amusement.

Carnyx

Lennon said:

Neil said:

Anybody believe the SNP claim that their canvassing in Cowdenbeath showed independence ahead? Me neither (maybe if it was canvassing conducted while knocking up). Though the fact they clearly spent the campaign pushing it when I doubt the unionist parties were pushing a no vote as strongly might be interesting.

Polite Labour voters saying 'Well I'm voting Labour in the by-election, but I'll strongly consider Yes for Independance when the time comes'?

Hmm, it's really not that inconsistent - if you are voting for a MP then it's pretty much given that you are voting at Westminster. However indy is a different ball game with new options. Some of the most interesting polling last year was the crowdsourced polls at Wings over Scotland, and one of the surprising conclusions was that the Don't Knows are more o the left politically of the average Yes - implication being old style Labour voters not sold on the Union but not yet made up their mind to jump.

dr_spyn

o/t. A while ago there was a discussion on the merits of God Save the King as a tune.

Had forgotten at the time, that 'Heil dir im Siegerkranz' was an Imperial German and Prussian Kingdom anthem played when The Kaiser and King of Germany attended events. Was played again after August 4th 1914?

Carnyx

Carnyx said:

Mick_Pork said:

TOPPING said:

Mick_Pork said:

Patrick said:

MickPork

You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?

I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.

Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.

I must have been away when the 52%/£500 poll was discussed on here but Mick - what is your view on that: For £500/person (presumably English pound-equivalent), Alex gets his YES majority?

Or should it be something nobler, more visceral than that?

When we see the polling on how £500 would affect westminster voting intention for the tories, labour and lib dems I will of course oblige.

That was polled last year - June to Oct if I recall rightly.

And BTW there is no such thing as an English pound, unless you are assuming that yes won the referendum?!

Sorry, system hid the earlier quotes in a way I didn't expect. My 'last year' refers t the 52%/£500 poll not the hypothetical Westminster equivalent.

RichardNabavi

This does look more like a good Labour result rather than a poor SNP result, if you see what I mean. The fact that Labour managed to get almost as many votes as in 2011, on a turnout reduced from 47% to 38%, suggests a good ground operation and a high level of motivation. That suggests that SNP gains in Westminster in 2015, except at the LibDems' expense, are unlikely, subject obviously to any after-shocks of the referendum.

Mick_Pork

RichardNabavi said:

antifrank said:

On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.

Indeed, and let us not forget this example (which proved highly profitable):

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salmond-targets-27-westminster-seats-1026507

Yesterday here on PB.

Stephen Dunn looks at the voters who’ll decide GE2015 – those who live in the marginals

And the Tories target seats are listed here > http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/

How many of the 75 do you expect the Cameroons to target? Less than the 20 he needs to win? I somehow doubt it.