Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Falling LAB poll shares in January sees Electoral Calculus
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Falling LAB poll shares in January sees Electoral Calculus cut the party’s projected majority by 6 seats
“Most pollsters measured a small decrease in Labour’s lead over the Conservatives in January. But they also showed an increase in both the smaller parties’ vote, at the expense of themajor parties. However the pollsters are relatively divided about UKIP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Could it be announcement of retirement from Ann Clwyd?
Going to be an interesting post mortem for the parties of the Coalition AND the official Opposition.
The party conferences are going to be a hoot as parties set out their stall for the election. The Stumm Manifesto might not survive the autumn.
I still take the view that the 2015 election campaign could unravel spectacularly badly for Labour. 15%-20% chance of it being a train wreck that historians will pore over for decades to come.
I agree that that's the likely explanation
http://www.theresavilliers.co.uk/article/?id=667
I don't think you need to have a degree in forensics, to see that's Photoshopped
UKIP are likely to out poll the LibDems in the popular vote, thus putting the whole logic of your argument into question.
Firstly, I think you mean forensic science. Forensic is just an adjective meaning "of the forum" i.e. the court.
Secondly, why the surprise? The UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election was a Black Pentecostal preacher. Much mirth has been had at the expense of UKIP over their Oxfordshire councillor, but Black and African churches take this stuff very seriously indeed.
I'm not the least bit surprised at the photo.
Incidentally, Mr. I'm-in-favour-of-free-borders, how many BME LibDem MPs are there?
Banksters starting to worry the Chinese will eventually nationalize all the capital the banksters looted from Britain and America.
Which will just leave the Tories wondering if they can get a majority on FPTP with UKIP splitting the vote on the right. Whereas with PR, there might be a way to work only with UKIP to lock the other parties out.
Secondly, why the surprise? The UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election was a Black Pentecostal preacher. Much mirth has been had at the expense of UKIP over their Oxfordshire councillor, but Black and African churches take this stuff very seriously indeed.
I'm not the least bit surprised at the photo.
Incidentally, Mr. I'm-in-favour-of-free-borders, how many BME LibDem MPs are there?
Wasn't Priti Patel's father a UKIP candidate in Hertfordshire?
http://www.trurofalmouthconservatives.co.uk/news/sarah-newton-mp-re-adopted
LD candidate = Simon Rix, Lab = Hanna Toms, Ind = Loic Rich.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-eastern-europeans-hold-the-key-to-the-european-elections-38045.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10612925/Giant-knife-picture-tweeted-by-officer.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626804579358943360702878?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626804579358943360702878.html?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines
What capital do you think the "banksters" have in China?
as according to the BBC and political class there isn't a gang culture
2. I don't care.
3. Why would you even think I would care?
Tell me Mr Ninioiz, how many members of Shropshire Women's Association have science degrees?
Do you care about that?
Thought not.
Why would you think I would care about the ethnicity of the (soon to be diminished) Liberal Democrat parliamentary party?
At 46 far far too young to be passing.
'If we are talking about the LD's getting as few as 40 seats, it is unlikely that there will enough Lib-Con MPs to form a government. If Clegg insists, he might get the push !'
The Lib Dems that might want to give Clegg the push have already switched to Labour.
Out of all his roles, I loved his role as Gust, in Charlie Wilson's War.
This scene is NSFW or if you have kids/people who are easily offended in earshot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ_4m2ocxhI
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukip-has-done-more-than-any-other-party-to-destroy-the-racist-bnp-9102471.html
I said the BBC and political class are ignoring the current gang problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25974360
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25968512
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-25684976
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15238377
There are more links I could post, but 3 of them are from the last few days.
Perhaps you've placed a semantic burden on the English language than it can deal with, with your definition of ignore.
That's simply not the case any more. I simply can't think of anywhere within three miles of Broadcasting House that I would be scared to walk through at 9pm at night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html
The more it's talked about the harder it is for the BBC and political class to ignore.
Trying to get a taxi around there can be like the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/04/ukcrime.ameliahill
You can see this in the BCS data. You can see this in the drop offs in murder rates. You can see this in the collapse in knife crime cases at the Royal Free and the Royal London.
Alternatively, you can live in la-la land, where everything gets worse all the time.
Nottingham was notorious for gang and gun violence in the 80s and 90s and was known as the gun capital of the UK. It has radically improved now.
Of course there are gang violence problems still and it is perfectly possible there may be sections of our communities who are more prone to them. But the idea that gang violence is worse now than it was a couple of decades ago and that this can be laid at the feet of particular ethnic groups certainly doesn't match my reality and from what I have heard from talking to others they feel the same.
Following on from the Spectator's piece the other day The Tory rebels have two choices: shut up or lose the election, Adam Boulton in his column in the Sunday Times today, remembers Sir Geoffrey Howe's comment and updates it for Dave, saying it is like
"It is rather like sending your Captain to the crease, only for him to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that his bat has been broken before the game by some of his own team"
That's how it works. Media and political class admit a problem exists - police deal with it. Media and political class won't admit a problem exists - police don't deal with it.
Do they have special teams who watch the local news so they can find out if any burglaries have been committed?
What annoys me about you are your glib assertions about immigration when you are quite obviously White, Anglo-Saxon and Post-Christian (Protestant?).
Try being Italian and Catholic in this country, or any other racial and religious minority, then perhaps you would have some experience of immigration from 'the other side'.
Something I've noticed is those most in favour of immigration are those who stand to benefit financially from it, but aren't affected by it. Hence my LibDem reference.
The BBC has a ignoble record of ignoring child rape gangs, has it not, Mr. Eagles?
I've walked thousands of miles around Britain. and hundreds of miles in cities, including some dodgy areas. I've never once felt endangered by anyone I've met.
Mind you, they probably feel endangered by this weird muddy, bearded bloke walking past the tower blocks and burnt-out cars with a large rucksack on his back ...
In the early 1990s I lived in the east end and south London. Again, I felt perfectly happy walking along the Regents Canal or down the Mile End road to Whitechapel, even late at night.
The fear of violence is rarely justified, and is always pernicious.
And moreover you cannot claim that the media have been ignoring grooming and then also claim that it is because of media reporting that the police do something about it. The two positions are logically incompatible.
The guys and gal I know who are armed response reckon they get called out about twice every 3 days, and around once a month, will face a real danger from a knife. Guns, even as you say in Nottingham aren't the problem they used to be.
My view on immigration is terribly simple: it is a moral one. I don't believe that, just because I was born in Isleworth, West London, that I should have any say over who else lives on this sceptered Isle.
And, another thing, unlike most of the rest of this board, I did actually go to a sink comprehensive school, where more than 60% of the students did not speak English as a first language.
At least you've good some experience of the immigration experience and also will face the consequences of renewed immigration.
I'm talking about the pressure put on mosques, muslim schools and languages difficulties.
The WASP I referred to lives oblivious to this all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/movies/philip-seymour-hoffman-actor-dies-at-46.html?hp
Is that what you meant?
Ring any bells?
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
1) The grooming gangs didn't happen behind closed doors.
2) Underage sex is not remotely hard to prove.
3) "The idea that it is ignored by the police until such times as the media make a stink about it is ridiculous."
Right, like FGM you mean or anything else that might tread on politically correct toes? Yes, totally ridiculous.
4) "And moreover you cannot claim that the media have been ignoring grooming and then also claim that it is because of media reporting that the police do something about it."
However I can say the media ignored (past tense) the grooming gangs until the Times broke the wall of silence over it *after* which the police made a shed-load of arrests very rapidly, funny that - almost like they knew who the baddies were already.
gang culture
5) Since the children's commissioner's report it [gang violence] has been out in the open followed by total silence from the political class.
6) We are now in a similar situation to the grooming gangs with the gang culture in the inner city. Little bits of the truth slipping out of some of the media but not enough so far to stop the political class ignoring it.
For starters, the UK is not an island.
We have a welfare state in this country, which is from the cradle to the grave. It simply isn't designed for movement of peoples between countries.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
Also, your views are truly strange if you consider Israel's history in the 20th century. Unlike you, I have seen my old school plummet down the league tables due to their intake switching from 95% English-speaking to <50%. I also have been involved in founding three new schools to cope with the influx. In the teeth of people who look and sound remarkably like you, in fact. LibDems in Richmond, to be precise.
You sound like you don't have any children. Is my guess accurate?
Especially in Sheffield
Not the ones which report the latest about Jordan and Peter but the ones with lurid headlines about murders and rapes.
So, I don't believe anyone can live in my home - because that home is owned by me.
But if a man from Romania can afford to buy a house (or rent a flat) then he should be able to live here.
It goes without saying that I am broadly in favour of the abolition of the welfare state.
My ideal vision for Britain can be summarised by the opening paragraph of AJP Taylor's Origin's of the First World War:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income.
I realise that my views are unlikely to be widely shared, and I do not expect them to be realised in my lifetime.
And this is where you and I disagree - and I would suspect most of the rest of the UK population would disagree with you as well.
This sceptered Isle (to use your phrase) should be regarded in the same way as ones house. It is something that has come to this point in its history - for better or worse - through the actions and beliefs of its inhabitants. It is the product of these people and their forebears. Therefore it seems reasonable to me that we should have the right to decide who enters and settles here.
As you know I have no problem with immigration in principle. I am interested only in the practical consequences of immigration and the impact it has on the existing population. Since I don't believe that controlled immigration significantly damages the heritage of our country I have no concerns about the colour or creed of the immigrants - as long as they abide by the laws and customs of what will become their adopted home. I also believe that past migration has had a neutral or positive effect on our country - certainly I don't see any great signs of damage being done to our country by pre 21st century migration.
I do however believe that the current mass migration is having an adverse effect on our country and particularly on our ability to provide acceptable levels of services such as education and health. I also believe that - as I think you accept - mass migration is totally incompatible with the current welfare state model. Now I am in favour of massively reducing the scope of the welfare state so that may not be such a problem for me personally. But I think that for most of the population a stark and clear choice between large numbers of migrants and the continuation of the welfare state is only ever going to result in one response. And it is not going to be the one that you agree with.
And I do believe fundamentally that that choice is one the existing population of any country have a right to make. The problem is that to a large extent the last government - knowing what the answer would be to that question - decided not to give people that choice and instead embarked on a policy of encouraging huge levels of immigration whilst at the same time denying it was happening or claiming that, if it was happening, it was a good thing and anyone who objected was a racist.
Now I disagree with MrJones position on immigration which does seem to me to involve making outrageous claims based on ethnicity which neither I nor the evidence can support. But at the same time I do understand how, given the record of the previous government when it came to deceiving the public over immigration, he finds it difficult to believe the official line these days. I think he is wrong and I have serious doubts about his motivation but I can see the reason for the distrust.
I have two children.
They go to a school where perhaps 40% of the parents are immigrants.
They're doing fine, thank you very much.
Particularly when I said "e by gum, that's very Post Hoc Ergo propter hoc, innit"