Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s performance last night makes it much harder to kee
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s performance last night makes it much harder to keep him out of the GE2015 debates
The big consequence of last night’s widely perceived victory by Farage in the debate with Clegg is that it’s going to be a lot harder keeping the UKIP leader out of the leaders’ debates at GE2015.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want UKIP to do well, though I've never detested Farage as some do. The tactical advantage that it would give would be outweighed by the general poisoning of the political well for all the other parties as they scrambled to cover the real or imagined causes.
Farage won't be in the debates.
Neither he or his party are ministrable.
End of.
I get the impression that you disagree Mike. Why?
Lots of genies are out of lots of bottles. If UKIP are included with zero MPs then why not the SNP with six MPs? In fact, according to that Populus mega poll, the SNP could be heading for around 20 MPs, which at a pinch could give us more than the Lib Dems. Which is the "major party" then?
Westminster voting intention - Scotland
Sample size = 1,477
Fieldwork: 5-30 March 2014
SNP 34% (+14)
Lab 34% (-8)
Con 18% (+1)
LD 7% (-12)
UKIP 3% (+2)
Grn 2% (+1)
Baxter:
Lab 35 seats (-6 seats)
SNP 20 seats (+14 seats)
Con 2 seats (+1 seat)
LD 2 seats (-9 seats)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/140401-Populus_FT-March-2014.pdf
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=18&LAB=34&LIB=7&NAT=34®ion=AllScotland&boundary=2010&seat=All+Scotland+seats+majority-sorted
Unlikely. UKIP are shortening as we speak over at Betfair.
Euro election - best prices - Most votes
Lab 6/5 (Lad)
UKIP 5/4 (Lad)
Con 6/1 (Coral)
LD 250/1 (various)
If you believe in "slump" Nick then there is cash to be made.
The SNP are non-ministrable, so far as Westminster goes.
End of.
(Anybody got the link to Kellner's piece?)
"Michael Heseltine: EU referendum will have a "chilling effect" on business
Conservative peer also says that Britain will join the euro, that UKIP is a "racist" party and that Boris Johnson shouldn't stand for parliament before 2016":
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/exclusive-michael-heseltine-eu-referendum-will-have-chilling-effect-business
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/02/round-2-farage-wins/
"The President of the Liberal Democrats has hinted that his party will withdraw their support for the so-called 'bedroom tax', after a committee of MPs said it caused "severe hardship and distress" for disabled people.
Tim Farron told ITV News' Deputy Political Editor Chris Ship said that the party would review the consequences of the policy, adding that leader Nick Clegg shared "the view that this is something that we want to see changed"."
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-04-02/lib-dem-president-calls-for-change-to-bedroom-tax-as-mps-warn-of-hardship-and-distress/
Farage 59%
Clegg 41%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/poll-farage-clegg-tv-debate
Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Look, wolf! Oh, look... everybody has stopped listening to us.
ELECTORAL Commission bosses say the figures reflect hard work put in by registration officers and the importance of the vote.
... "That hard work doesn't stop now. EROs will continue to encourage as many people who are eligible to register to take action and get themselves registered before the 2 September deadline in order to take part at the referendum.
"The Commission will support EROs' activities by launching a public awareness campaign in the summer reminding people that the only way to vote at the referendum is to be on the register."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-more-four-million-people-3341497
Yes 1/5
No 3/1
100,000 max?
Probably fewer...
Farron 2/1 various
Davey 7/1 various
Lamb 10/1 betfair
Alexander 16/1 SJ
Cable 16/1 betfair
Or go for Cable as the safe option, and differentiating for the oldie vote...
some 3% or so..."
http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/205540/131129_will-16-and-17-years-olds-make-a-difference.pdf
Three percent could be the margin between victory and defeat.
Voters? say 65,000?
Not a bad guess, eh?
Carmichael 20/1
Hughes 25/1
Swinson 25/1 (she won't have a seat)
Moore 50/1 (likely seat loss too)
Featherstone 80/1
Kennedy 85/1
Who Rod?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-us-stock-market-rigged/
faster version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweADB78tBY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2595692/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Is-Maria-Miller-fit-judge-UK-Press.html
10,000/1 ?
Time to look for new homes for pensions and long term savings. The stock markets have turned into the world's greatest ever confidence trick.
The leader of the Swedish Social Democrats (and almost certainly the next PM) is not a member of the parliament. And neither is his shadow chancellor.
So 1000 * 50-odd constituencies * 2 extra years [16 year olds instead of 18 year olds].
Now I'll look into Enrico Fermi's famous question "How many piano-tuners are there in Chicago?"
;-)
A BILL which would get rid of Scottish MPs on “independence day” in the event of a yes vote, has been given permission to be tabled in the House of Commons.
Mr MacNeil said it would be wrong for Scottish MPs to continue to sit in the Commons and paid for by voters in the rest of the UK once their constituencies were no longer part of the UK.
And he admitted that his Bill would make him unemployed and could bring about a change in government.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/bill-to-scrap-scots-mps-post-yes-vote-to-be-tabled-1-3362042?WT.mc_id=Outbrain_text&obref=obinsite
But, I agree with Stuart. I want him to stay.
Useless fact:
Ming Campbell was at one time known as "the fastest white man on the planet" according to Wikipedia, running the 100 metres in 10.2 seconds twice during 1967:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzies_Campbell#Athletics_career
Having just struggled through the overlong and exceedingly dull Ofcom Statement on Major Parties for the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections, I can note the following:
1. The BBC Trust, in respect of the BBC, and Ofcom, in respect of commercial broadcasters, have a statutory obligation to draw up Rules and Codes of Conduct which apply to broadcasting of Party Political Broadcasts, Party Election and Referendum Broadcasts, and, which relate to the obligation on its licensees to observe "due impartiality" in their news and current affairs reporting of elections.
2. Ofcom is additionally required by statute (Communications Act 2003) to have regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission before drawing up or changing their rules.
3. BBC Trust practice is to review Party Election Broadcast policy before each set of major elections. Ofcom has stated that it does not consider it "necessary or proportionate" to undertake annual reviews of its rules and has not committed to a further review before 2015. It has however stated that, if it decided to review the rules for the 2015 GE, it would do so in Autumn 2014.
4. Ofcom completed a consultation before recently updating its rules for the European Elections. The basic principles and methods for assessing "major party" status have therefore been agreed and set a de facto precedent for future decisions. These are:
• in any review of the list we might carry out, we would take into account factors such as the electoral performance of parties (including the numbers of elected candidates and overall percentage of vote received) over a range of elections over at least two electoral cycles (including elections prior to the PPRB Consultation) for the different types of elections, and levels of current support;
• if a party’s performance over several elections of the same type was significant but not reflected in other types of election, we would consider drawing up a specific list of major parties for that specific type of election;
Ofcom also take into account current party polling in each of the constituent regions of the UK, using an annual average where data is available.
5. Ofcom appear not to have set a threshold of vote share for determining the difference between major and minor but precedent decisions suggest it is around 10% of the vote.
6. UKIP qualifed as a "major party" in England and Wales for the 2014 European Elections under its performance in prior EP elections: achieving 12 seats and more than 17.3% of the vote in England in both 2004 and 2009 and an average polling figure of 10.8%.
In Wales, UKIP also qualified as a "major party". The figures were EP vote shares in 2004 (10.5%) and 2009 (12.8%) and 10.5% and above in recent polling.
6. [Cont.] In Scotland, Ofcom noted UKIP has not demonstrated significant levels of past electoral support in Scotland (achieving 6.7% and 5.2% of the vote in 2004 and 2009 respectively);. A significant factor in Ofcom's assessment was that the Scottish Green Party had achieved higher shares than UKIP in the same elections (2004 6.8%;2009 7.4%) but not been granted major party status. UKIP had also only achieved an average polling percentage of 3.8% and had no elected representatives at Westminster, Holyrood or Council levels. Ofcom ruled that neither the Scottish Greens nor UKIP would have "major party" status in Scotland.
7. Ofcom included in its statement figures for the Liberal Democrats. In Wales Ofcom noted that in terms of current support, the limited data available in terms of Wales-only opinion polls, ... shows that The Liberal Democrats (7.7%) have continued to demonstrate a lower level of support; and similarly in Scotland The Liberal Democrats (8.3%) have continued to demonstrate a lower level of support;.
Ofcom did not comment further but the clear contextual implication is that the Lib Dems face a possible downgrading from their "major party" status in Wales and Scotland if the low current levels of polling support are reflected in similar election results.
8. Given all of the above, it is difficult to see how UKIP can persuade Ofcom to grant them "major party" status for the upcoming General Election. The main argument for would be their current polling average, but set against that would be their vote shares in the last two General Elections (2005 2.2%; 2010 3.1%) and the fact the party has no elected seats in Westminster. These qualifying criteria are not going to change between now and the GE whatever the results of intervening TV debates or the May EP elections. The precedent is set and will, failing a major change in policy, be decisive.
9. None of the above rules expressly covers broadcast "Leaders" debates for a General Election and Ofcom's policy does not have to be the same as that determined by the BBC Trust. This may give Farage a glimmer of hope. He could argue that "major party" status does not or should not apply to inclusion of party leaders in debates.
Realistically, though, the rules on Leaders debates are likely to follow those established for party political broadcasts and news and current affairs reporting of elections. This especially applies as few of the broadcasters consulted by Ofcom were arguing for UKIP's elevation to "major party" status. Unless pressure is brought to bear on Ofcom and the broadcasters by "the establishment" - which is unlikely - it is hard to see any change in policy occurring before the end of this year. And the BBC Trust is unlikely to split from Ofcom. Does anyone really see this as an issue which Chris Patten is prepared to fight for?
Now if broadcasters were able to stream only to Pub TVs ...
As for the politics, I agree with Nick (Palmer).
How much, if at all, do you respect the following leaders?
Labour voters on Ed Miliband -
Total great deal/fair amount: 52%
Total not v much/not at all: 44%
Net: 8%
Tory voters on David Cameron -
Total great deal/fair amount: 85%
Total not v much/not at all: 14%
Net: 71%
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q483wb9app/YG-Archive-140402-Respect.pdf
The LIbDems can't do worse with a new broom. Clegg can walk off into the political sunset weighed down with tuition fees, "bedroom tax", anything else the party want to palm off on him. It is hard to make a case for him to stay beyond May.
Unfortunate timing of the Royal Mail sell-off criticism though for Vince "safe pair of hands" Cable.
If we want to change the rules to make populism a factor, why stop at Farage?
Who else do we want?
Simon Cowell?
Peter Kay?
Jimmy Krankie?
1. Farage won both by a large margin. Which reinforces all of the reasons ex-Tories like him and dislike Cameron.
2. Clegg managed to not only do very badly and continue to blatantly lie, he's done so as Far on launches his putch. If Clegg survives he will be forced to stop giving the Tories cover on various policies, if Farron wins expect the coalition to dissolve early.
3. For the Tories to win they need UKIP defectors to come "home". The poll deficit is already heading back to status quo ante, and UKIP do worst when they're not all over the media as they haven't been through the winter. Two hours of PPB for Farage should see their VI back up and that's half the Tories battle lost.
I'd love to see Cameron vs Farage. The desperate spin by so many Tories that Cameron is the man for a yerp referendum blown away on the vast amounts of wind from Farage's gob.
1. We will see the Chicken Run thrown at him until he relents and doesn't stand in his way
2. The debates go ahead without Cameron and Cameron is then mauled by the other three
3. The debates are called off and all the other parties blame Cameron and his "Chicken Run" for not letting the public see them all debate and it will be repeatedly thrown at him all the way to the election.
The fact that he has let himself be forced into a corner and shown as the chicken who is scared of the debates shows yet again that Cameron, despite coming from a PR background, seems to be bloody useless at it.
Any one of the above three would be my preferred option.
Decent poll again for Labour last night. Budget bounce appears to be fading.
The tables for the two debates are on YouGov's website.
First debate
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ykmpjgw80r/YG-Archive-140326-Clegg-Farage.pdf
Second debate
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5jb6qc8a3u/YG-Archive-140302-CleggvFarage.pdf
Quick economics update: today is Markit data day, with PMI numbers out from pretty much every major European economy. Ireland and Switzerland are first out the gate: Ireland Services rose from 57.5 to 60.7, while composite increased from 55.0 to 59.0. Sweden, otoh, slowed slightly with the Services PMI dropping from 56.8 to 53.5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq#NAO_inquiry
twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/451400159529033729
http://news.opinium.co.uk
That's it. That's the bottom line that Clegg's ostrich faction haven't grasped for years and won't grasp even now or after May. Those desperate Clegg loyalists and spinners who keep waiting for the public to suddenly change their minds and completely u-turn on Clegg's toxicity are simply delusional.
Even more amusing are the inept spinners trying to pretend that politics doesn't matter in politics because the public doesn't care or pay attention to politics. It's hilarious and imbecilic stuff to be sure.
You are as ludicrously incoherent in the morning as you are at night. Are you ever sober?
It is not for Cameron to make a decision on who should be included in an election debate. Invitations would be made by broadcasters in compliance with the Rules and Codes of Conduct of Ofcom and the BBC Trust.
Once an invitation is made it would be up to Cameron to decide whether or not to accept. Any acceptance is likely to be conditional on the broadcasters agreeing to reasonable requests on the debates are conducted.
Farage wouldn't even dare to attend a debate even as part of the audience. Cameron would call him out for impudently and dishonourably wearing an Old Etonian tie. Remember this from yesterday: http://bit.ly/1gQFHyy
Farage reminds me of the Dick Emery character 'College'. Here is College, this time wearing an Old Harrovian tie.
http://bit.ly/1gQESG2
What is wrong with the Old Alleynian tie, Nige?
http://bit.ly/1dTP3Kq
What a fraud!
Clegg lost because he did not learn from last week's debate, but maintained his own previous stance, which was a losing one.
Farage fought practically on how the EU is today and exposed some of its many faults. Clegg fought theoretically on how the EU (EC) was conceived and how it should be.
If Clegg had acknowledged the faults and said how they would be corrected and the EU would be improved, they he would not have lost so badly and would have removed some of Farage's scope for attack.
However, like some many LDs, Clegg is an idealist and has never learned that politics is the art of the practical and possible.
Would advise that Miliband dodges any debate with Farage.
Euro-enthusiasts will today be consoling themselves with the thought that it was a clash between two politicians, not the In/Out referendum. But why should that campaign play out significantly differently? What we saw over the two televised clashes is what we usually see when the EU is debated. Most Euro-enthusiasts argue as Clegg did, calling their opponents names, flaunting their supposed expertise, implying that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot. It didn't work for Clegg, and it won't work during the referendum.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100265921/the-margin-of-nigel-farages-win-was-game-changing/
At least he doesn't want to stay in the EU and thinks global warming caused the floods etc.
Oh that's right, he does.
...
Most of the problems will self-cure with full economic recovery. "
Well done Avery for one of the most complacent economic pronouncements I've yet seen.
It is revealing that you establishment panglossians also failed to notice anything wrong with the economy in 2007.
As your man Osborne has so far failed to meet his borrowing, growth, inflation and unemployment targets perhaps you might explain why I should trust that the UK's economic problems will 'self-cure' on the establishment's 'most likely outcomes'.
Sorry mate but I prefer to think for myself rather than trust a group of people within a record of being repeatedly wrong.
The thought that the UK's economic problems will 'self-cure' within a few years after the damage of the last decade in an increasingly competitive globalised world economy is truly staggering.
And now time for some work - and unlike Charles when I say that I do work rather than continuing to post comments here for the rest of the day.
But I will look in later to see if his thoughts on productivity amount to anything more than "you can't compare because some of the subfacts have changed".
To return to what you seem to object to, by and large, politics doesn't matter. Almost nothing in the course of the average year posted on pb matters. It's just displacement activity, by and large, to keep the credulous loyalists of all stripes engaged. I appreciate that our host has to come up with two or three thread headers a day to keep the troops engaged, and I'm in awe of how he manages to do it, day in day out. That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to take it very seriously.
The Johnstone Paint Trophy debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg certainly don't matter. This is the morning after the day before. And how much of what was said last night can even the diehard pb obsessives remember of what was said? What killer lines did Nigel Farage use to destroy Nick Clegg? What will be replayed incessantly from now till the general election and beyond? What is recalled beyond a hazy recollection that Nigel Farage won, based on polling? Ed Miliband's line at Prime Minister's Questions about the Dunce of Downing Street is likely to have a longer shelf life, and that, while amusing, was hardly straight from the Algonquin round table.
Once in a while, something cuts through to the general public. I'm not sure anything yet this year has - though I'm reserving judgement on the pension changes in the budget.
And every now and then something is genuinely important. The Scottish independence referendum is important. Unfortunately, the noise to signal ratio is extreme in that case. For example, somewhere in your 6000 posts you may have made a point of interest, but I'm buggered if I can recall it.
Just how dire will it get when Clegg is pinned down on what the cooalition has done compared to what he and the lib dems used to think. As well as what promises, pledges and "red lines" he makes for the next election the public will trust. The 2015 debates will make these last two Europe focused ones seem like a highpoint in retrospect. Good luck to any incompetent spinners still trying to pretend a party leader's toxicity won't matter during elections.
Why this amusingly vehement objection to politics on a political betting site right now and during the last Clegg car crash? Bit odd if you're not a fan of Cleggy, isn't it? Some might be credulous enough not to notice that curious connection of course.
That's right, you don't have a clue who you support obviously. Which makes your bloviating about who has or has not made an interesting political point just that much more convincing.
Perhaps we could have X factor style debates on Saturday nights next spring, with one debator voted out each week on a phone poll?
David Cameron wouldn't debate with Farage but appears on BBC Breakfast this morning to get his point across. Mmmmmmm . . . . .
PoliticsHome @politicshome 52m
David Cameron on Nigel Farage's EU view: “It’s deeply pessimistic. I’m very optimistic.” @BBCBreakfast
norman smith @BBCNormanS 56m
David Cameron say both Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage have "extreme views" on Europe @BBCBreakfast
Self-evidently time for the chumocracy to deploy the EU elections 'master strategy'.
Why now? No reason. No reason at all.
It is true Cameron was the one with most to loose from including Farage in the debates last week. However, that may not be true now, indeed it could have become inverted.
After his recent experience, how do you think Nick feels about including Nigel? He has just had a complete pasting, is knocked out and can't even spin himself upright. I'm sure he thinks Nigel should be in!
How do you think Ed feels about including Nigel? Now Nigel has shown he can cut the mustard with a big boy (remember Clegg won the debates last time) in the debate format, perceived wisdom is that it isn't Eds strong point, on Europe he is closer to Nick than Nigel and as we hear on here lot of UKIP economic messaging is leaning left. Nigel would express it with more passion, conviction and in a way that people understand far better than Ed. Labour voters went more Nigel than Nick last night, according to polls, that result could happen again. Yes, Ed would love to have Nigel in.
And Cam, we know he isn't in love with the Nigel inclusion concept, and our historic assumption was Cam had most to loose. In the debate format Cam has most experience. His position is probably helped by the polarisation of the EU debate, suddenly making his position the centre ground. It is between possible and likely that he will not suffer any more than either of the other leaders, or he may do better.
The calculations on 'who should be in' and 'who will win' and 'who will benefit' are now all different to last week. last month and last year. We have to adapt to a new and changed situation.
I have in my adult life voted for Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, independents and spoiled my ballot paper. I haven't yet voted for SNP, but that's partly because I haven't had the opportunity and partly because like most civilised people I regard nationalism as an outdated 19th century concept.
As for the point of the irrelevance of the debates, I have been making that for weeks - long before the first debate. If you read anyone's posts other than your own, you would remember that.
Nick Clegg: I'd relish meeting Nigel Farage in televised election debates
The Deputy Prime Minister says David Cameron should not use Ukip's possible involvement as an 'excuse' to avoid debating the top three parties
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10553553/Nick-Clegg-Id-relish-meeting-Nigel-Farage-in-televised-election-debates.html
Oops!
I didn't watch a minute of either of the debates but from the descriptions it does sound as though Clegg fell into the trap of defending the status quo, an obvious failure for something so little liked or understood. Cameron's position of "and that is why there has got to be change" is a much better line of defence.
Does Miliband have a line on this?
Composite increased fractionally from 51.6 to 51.8; Services similarly from 51.4 to 51.5.
It's come back. It may be that civilization is an outdated 20th-century concept.
Surely you have underlings to do that for you? Nip off down to Normanby Hall and enjoy a day on the golf course. It will do wonders for your crotchety morning temperament.
Now onto the facts. Let us take claim one about George's borrowing targets shall we?
Let us remember what George said in 2010:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
Let's look at that 2010 forecast for 'PSNB ex' and compare it to actual outcomes as published in the latest Public Finances Bulletin from the ONS: That looks to me as very accurate forecasting within the context and complexity of a national economy. In addition, it shows that cumulatively PSNB ex has come in at £18 billion below the forecast St. George made for borrowing in 2010.
I did a calculation for Bobafett the other day which estimated that George would be within £2 billion of his 2010 targets four years later, but as the 2013-4 year end figures are so close to being published I will keep you in suspense until the end of this month before seeing if he can better my £2 billion over-borrowing estimate.
If you read my post you would know this old cutting is highlighting how the dynamics have changed, and as such is pointing out how correct I am, there is a probability he has changed his mind. It is what 'after his recent experience' means.
LOL
"I didn't watch a minute of either of the debates............."
Typical ostrich mode DavidL
I am trying to avoid getting into the details of the ONS productivity figures, partly because they are only just beginning to get granular enough to be meaningful. The other part is working on other stuff and finding it difficult to stand up and chew gum at the same time.
So despite ar's goadings I am not going (at the moment) to chase down either the productivity or trade figures.
But both the rogue sectors, oil and gas extraction and wholesale/investment banking are exposed to value distortions, for example commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations, unless corrected by the statisticians. Ideally productivity should be measured on a volume rather than value per hour basis. I am sure this is being done somewhere but haven't tracked it down yet. The ONS figures appear to be only value based.
I certainly agree with you that productivity measures only start making sense when disaggregated.