politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » They’ll never admit it publicly but LD chances of retaining

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » They’ll never admit it publicly but LD chances of retaining seats against the Tories rely a lot on UKIP doing well

It was back in September last year that Lord Ashcroft produced his most recent examination on the marginals where the most surprising finding was how well the yellows appeared to be doing in seats they’ll be trying to win off the Tories in May next year.

Read the full story here

Innocent_Abroad

First! (I must get a life...)

Blueberry

Clegg lost some dignity to Farage in those debates. Do you really want Kevin the Teenager as your party leader? That wasn't part of the calculation when people said he had nothing to lose by taking part. But it is today and may still be an embarrassment for the Lib Dems after the Euros.

foxinsoxuk

Second to get up!

Mike is right. Voting UKIP benefits UKIP itself, Labour and the LibDems. The LDs gain as described in the header, but also by occupying the sensible middle ground. The Tories are likely to vacate this and swing right in a probably futile battle for europhobes.

SimonStClare

"Maybe giving Farage the prominence in the debates with Clegg was not a bad idea after all."

Did I miss the thread - When did Clegg’s decision to engage with Farage become a ‘bad idea’?

foxinsoxuk

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

AlastairMeeks

Aren't these precisely the UKIP voters who will be effectively squeezed?

RochdalePioneers

SimonStClare said:

"Maybe giving Farage the prominence in the debates with Clegg was not a bad idea after all."

Did I miss the thread - When did Clegg’s decision to engage with Farage become a ‘bad idea’?

When he managed to make a public embarrassment of himself by getting battered by Farage. Faced with polls saying the pox could win no seats at all in the Euros Clegg had to do something to try and shore up his vote. And he did *something* alright.....?

hucks67

Would not surprise me if Lib Dems strategists worked out that they could not lose from holding these debates. Clegg would gain from atleast being willing to take on Farage and if UKIP are bolstered in Lib Dem/Tory marginals, it is much more likely for Tories to suffer leaked votes to UKIP.

MonikerDiCanio

RochdalePioneers said:

SimonStClare said:

"Maybe giving Farage the prominence in the debates with Clegg was not a bad idea after all."

Did I miss the thread - When did Clegg’s decision to engage with Farage become a ‘bad idea’?

When he managed to make a public embarrassment of himself by getting battered by Farage. Faced with polls saying the pox could win no seats at all in the Euros Clegg had to do something to try and shore up his vote. And he did *something* alright.....?

Farage is after the Old Labour vote and he's getting it.

SimonStClare

RochdalePioneers said:

SimonStClare said:

"Maybe giving Farage the prominence in the debates with Clegg was not a bad idea after all."

Did I miss the thread - When did Clegg’s decision to engage with Farage become a ‘bad idea’?

When he managed to make a public embarrassment of himself by getting battered by Farage. Faced with polls saying the pox could win no seats at all in the Euros Clegg had to do something to try and shore up his vote. And he did *something* alright.....?

RP, not quite the point I was making, but appreciate the reply.

Innocent_Abroad

foxinsoxuk said:

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic, but what the heck:

Congratulations to the 'orange army' at Dawlish, who've worked day and night for six months so that service trains could start running this morning.

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/bbcdawlish/camputerb86.jpg

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

I'm sure that isn't the case, or is at least viewing the past through rose-coloured spectacles.

Wulfrun_Phil

There's a nugget of truth in the basic premise of the thread, but it is a bit overemphasised.

UKIP are a threat to the Lib Dems as well, in that current polls show that they're certainly taking votes from 2010 Lib Dem voters. Over the last 5 YouGov polls UKIP have picked up 10.0% of 2010 LD voters still intending to vote, compared to 15.8% of 2010 Conservatives.

Also, the Conservatives will be hoping that a significant chunk of their current defectors to UKIP are making a protest and will come home at the GE. It's harder to see that happening with the LD defectors to UKIP, because those voters may have been voting for the LDs in 2010 in their then guise as an anti-establishment party, only to make a genuine switch now that that mantle has been well and truly taken over by UKIP.

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

Financier

Today's YouGov:

On the questions regarding the qualities of the various parties:

"Is lead by people of real ability": Of the Labour VI: 40% say "None of them" whilst 44% say Labour.
NB None of them includes all parties outside Cons, LAB & LD.

"Is prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions":
Of the Labour VI: 31% say Conservatives; 30% say Labour and 24% say, "None of them."

Not a glowing endorsement of EdM and his front bench.

nigel4england

So in effect Clegg has taken one for the team? I can see the perverse logic in that.

Financier

UKIP are a real threat to the LDs in the South-West where the EU is not a popular subject where the LDs hold 15 seats!

Clegg's very staunch but unconvincing support for the EU would not be top of the popularity charts there.

AveryLP

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

Surely not.

If Orwell were alive today he would be dismissed by left-wing bloggers as an out-of-touch Etonian pretending to be a man-of-the-people. Either that or a covert Blairite.

What has happened to the left? Where is their former elegance of argument.

I put it down to the debilitating effect of vegetarianism.

AveryLP

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic, but what the heck:

Congratulations to the 'orange army' at Dawlish, who've worked day and night for six months so that service trains could start running this morning.

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/bbcdawlish/camputerb86.jpg

I wonder if it was our very own AnneJGP who was interviewed on Sky TV this morning.

I remember her posting on the evening of the storm damage and signing off with the news that she was being evacuated.

Innocent_Abroad

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

I'm sure that isn't the case, or is at least viewing the past through rose-coloured spectacles.

No, JJ, I'm not. The shared privations of two World Wars created a sense of solidarity and of "never again" which made possible the election of a socialist government for the first and last time. (Its programme was probably always unaffordable, but that's another matter.)

Solidarity has been eroded into dust by several factors, of which I would suggest non-white immigration (despite its other benefits) and globalisation to be the most important. We no longer have an economic base to replace our industries which in any case only lasted as long as they did because of "imperial preference" - but no one suggests that had Chuirchill been returned to office in 1945 he'd have behaved very differently towards India and elsewhere than Attlee did. The Tories have always been Herdsonesquely pragmatic when it comes to Foreign Affairs - and, of course, we squandered our "get out of jail" card: North Sea Oil. I won't play the blame game there, anyone who held office from 1970 to 2000 is in the frame.
Nor will I link to john Harris's article in The Guardian yesterday - it's easy enough to find - but he's absolutely on the money. Anyone with a social conscience is going to be totally f*cked from now on. I keep meaning to offer OGH a post about all this, and then finding other things to do...

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: feels odd that Bahrain practice has yet to begin. P1 starts at midday. I'm undecided as to whether I'll bother listening (I feel I've got a reasonable idea of who's where and firmly believe there's such a thing as too much information).

JackW

Financier said:

UKIP are a real threat to the LDs in the South-West where the EU is not a popular subject where the LDs hold 15 seats!

Clegg's very staunch but unconvincing support for the EU would not be top of the popularity charts there.

The maths of the LibDem general election strategy is clear. Ukip will win no seats and in the LibDem/Con marginals take more votes from the blues than the yellows.

Clegg was prepared to take the inevitable hit in the EU debates in return for an expectation of a firming of their pro EU support and around 10/12% of the European elections vote that allows them to retains most of their seats. For the yellows below 10% and it's squeaky bum time.

foxinsoxuk

A general theme of Orwells books is how upper middle class leftist intellectuals like himself fail to understand the working class, despite being sympathetic to their plight.

In Wigan Pier Orwell puts it down to the poor smelling (seriously); today it is more that they are fat, fertile and more interested in the Voice than politics that draws the ire of the left.

AveryLP said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JohnLoony said:

AndyJS said:

The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.

I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.

But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".

As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."

A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

Surely not.

If Orwell were alive today he would be dismissed by left-wing bloggers as an out-of-touch Etonian pretending to be a man-of-the-people. Either that or a covert Blairite.

What has happened to the left? Where is their former elegance of argument.

I put it down to the debilitating effect of vegetarianism.

Innocent_Abroad

Financier said:

Today's YouGov:

On the questions regarding the qualities of the various parties:

"Is lead by people of real ability": Of the Labour VI: 40% say "None of them" whilst 44% say Labour.
NB None of them includes all parties outside Cons, LAB & LD.

"Is prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions":
Of the Labour VI: 31% say Conservatives; 30% say Labour and 24% say, "None of them."

Not a glowing endorsement of EdM and his front bench.

Labour voters don't want a government that takes tough and unpopular decisions. If the question had been "will only take tough and unpopular decisions when really really necessary" the answer might have been different.

MikeK

I think this thread idea came directly from Mark Thompson.

http://markreckons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/could-clegg-really-be-this-machiavellian.html

If everyone takes this seriously, can the coalition last it's full term?

foxinsoxuk

The Euro elections are very geared at that level, but as the only two parties making campaigning efforts UKIP and LD may overperform. There seems to be no detectable Tory or Labour Eurocampaign at all.

JackW said:

Financier said:

UKIP are a real threat to the LDs in the South-West where the EU is not a popular subject where the LDs hold 15 seats!

Clegg's very staunch but unconvincing support for the EU would not be top of the popularity charts there.

The maths of the LibDem general election strategy is clear. Ukip will win no seats and in the LibDem/Con marginals take more votes from the blues than the yellows.

Clegg was prepared to take the inevitable hit in the EU debates in return for an expectation of a firming of their pro EU support and around 10/12% of the European elections vote that allows them to retains most of their seats. For the yellows below 10% and it's squeky bum time.

SquareRoot

Innocent_Abroad said:

Financier said:

Today's YouGov:

On the questions regarding the qualities of the various parties:

"Is lead by people of real ability": Of the Labour VI: 40% say "None of them" whilst 44% say Labour.
NB None of them includes all parties outside Cons, LAB & LD.

"Is prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions":
Of the Labour VI: 31% say Conservatives; 30% say Labour and 24% say, "None of them."

Not a glowing endorsement of EdM and his front bench.

Labour voters don't want a government that takes tough and unpopular decisions. If the question had been "will only take tough and unpopular decisions when really really necessary" the answer might have been different.

"tough and unpopular decisions" Such words are unknown and certainly never acted upon in Labour circles. They always dodge them and then leave the mess to be cleared up by the Tories.

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

The change from the 1930s is that if Orwell were alive and writing such words to-day, there'd be a load of bloggers dumping on him and cheering every time his cough got worse. England is getting nastier every day that passes.

I'm sure that isn't the case, or is at least viewing the past through rose-coloured spectacles.

No, JJ, I'm not. The shared privations of two World Wars created a sense of solidarity and of "never again" which made possible the election of a socialist government for the first and last time. (Its programme was probably always unaffordable, but that's another matter.)

Solidarity has been eroded into dust by several factors, of which I would suggest non-white immigration (despite its other benefits) and globalisation to be the most important. We no longer have an economic base to replace our industries which in any case only lasted as long as they did because of "imperial preference" - but no one suggests that had Chuirchill been returned to office in 1945 he'd have behaved very differently towards India and elsewhere than Attlee did. The Tories have always been Herdsonesquely pragmatic when it comes to Foreign Affairs - and, of course, we squandered our "get out of jail" card: North Sea Oil. I won't play the blame game there, anyone who held office from 1970 to 2000 is in the frame.
Nor will I link to john Harris's article in The Guardian yesterday - it's easy enough to find - but he's absolutely on the money. Anyone with a social conscience is going to be totally f*cked from now on. I keep meaning to offer OGH a post about all this, and then finding other things to do...

I utterly and totally disagree. Your rant is just a list of all the things you don't like about the modern world, rolled up into "things were so much better back then." Even though they were not.

Well, go back and live in the 1950s. I'd much rather live in the twenty-first century, where there is so much more hope and opportunity for everyone, if they are willing to grasp it. True, there are problems, but these problems are nowhere near as deep or existential as they were fifty years ago.

Your comment that England is getting 'nastier' every day is simply laughable.

BenM

Financier said:

Today's YouGov:

On the questions regarding the qualities of the various parties:

"Is lead by people of real ability": Of the Labour VI: 40% say "None of them" whilst 44% say Labour.
NB None of them includes all parties outside Cons, LAB & LD.

"Is prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions":
Of the Labour VI: 31% say Conservatives; 30% say Labour and 24% say, "None of them."

Not a glowing endorsement of EdM and his front bench.

As we've seen with the wholly negative impact on the economy since 2010, "tough and unpopular" <> Right.

Has Maria Miller resigned yet?

BobaFett

Another Kipper thread!

BobaFett

MonikerDiCanio said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SimonStClare said:

"Maybe giving Farage the prominence in the debates with Clegg was not a bad idea after all."

Did I miss the thread - When did Clegg’s decision to engage with Farage become a ‘bad idea’?

When he managed to make a public embarrassment of himself by getting battered by Farage. Faced with polls saying the pox could win no seats at all in the Euros Clegg had to do something to try and shore up his vote. And he did *something* alright.....?

Farage is after the Old Labour vote and he's getting it.

Evidence?

Stuart_Dickson

Ladbrokes:

Dundee East (SNP maj = 1,821)

SNP 1/4
Lab 11/4
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1
Con 100/1

Dundee West (Lab maj = 7,278)

Lab 1/5
SNP 10/3
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1
Con 100/1

Stuart_Dickson

Ladbrokes - Arfon (PC maj = 1,455)

PC 5/6
Lab 5/6
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1
Con 100/1

Stuart_Dickson

Ladbrokes - Bridgend (Lab maj = 2,263)

Lab 1/20
Con 8/1
PC 100/1
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1

Innocent_Abroad

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

I'm sure that isn't the case, or is at least viewing the past through rose-coloured spectacles.

Solidarity has been eroded into dust by several factors, of which I would suggest non-white immigration (despite its other benefits) and globalisation to be the most important. We no longer have an economic base to replace our industries which in any case only lasted as long as they did because of "imperial preference" - but no one suggests that had Chuirchill been returned to office in 1945 he'd have behaved very differently towards India and elsewhere than Attlee did. The Tories have always been Herdsonesquely pragmatic when it comes to Foreign Affairs - and, of course, we squandered our "get out of jail" card: North Sea Oil. I won't play the blame game there, anyone who held office from 1970 to 2000 is in the frame.
Nor will I link to john Harris's article in The Guardian yesterday - it's easy enough to find - but he's absolutely on the money. Anyone with a social conscience is going to be totally f*cked from now on. I keep meaning to offer OGH a post about all this, and then finding other things to do...

I utterly and totally disagree. Your rant is just a list of all the things you don't like about the modern world, rolled up into "things were so much better back then." Even though they were not.

Well, go back and live in the 1950s. I'd much rather live in the twenty-first century, where there is so much more hope and opportunity for everyone, if they are willing to grasp it. True, there are problems, but these problems are nowhere near as deep or existential as they were fifty years ago.

Your comment that England is getting 'nastier' every day is simply laughable.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

JackW

foxinsoxuk said:

The Euro elections are very geared at that level, but as the only two parties making campaigning efforts UKIP and LD may overperform. There seems to be no detectable Tory or Labour Eurocampaign at all.

JackW said:

Financier said:

UKIP are a real threat to the LDs in the South-West where the EU is not a popular subject where the LDs hold 15 seats!

Clegg's very staunch but unconvincing support for the EU would not be top of the popularity charts there.

The maths of the LibDem general election strategy is clear. Ukip will win no seats and in the LibDem/Con marginals take more votes from the blues than the yellows.

Clegg was prepared to take the inevitable hit in the EU debates in return for an expectation of a firming of their pro EU support and around 10/12% of the European elections vote that allows them to retains most of their seats. For the yellows below 10% and it's squeky bum time.

Even by Blackadderish standards the LibDem European elections strategy was a cunning plan even if it meant Clegg looked a tad Baldrickish after two debates. Dave and Ed didn't want to give Farage any credence but that didn't bother Clegg. Nigel and Nick were fishing in entirely different ponds and Ed and Dave had to spend the day watching the telly twiddling their thumbs.

The rationale was that by Con/Lab ceding the IN argument to him he'd have free reign to have hours of political media coverage to bounce the pro arguments off of Farage and be seen as the frontman for those persuadable and not anti the EU.

The debate scores looked bad but were never likely to be high for IN. Again not the point. LibDems simply wanted to put themselves front and centre for IN and to up their profile for the IN numbers they did achieve.

The question for the LibDems is are they able to sustain that position as Lab and Con enter the fray and can the yellows keep in double figures for a decent seat return.

MikeK

BobaFett said:

Another Kipper thread!

From now on, until the GE, you'll be having Kippers for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper. Learn to live with it. It's an acquired taste that many are tasting with satisfaction. LOL

Stuart_Dickson

IndyRef - best prices

Yes 7/2 (various)
No 1/4 (Betdaq, Betfair)

Stuart_Dickson

Euros - Most votes - best prices

Lab 6/5 (Lad, Betfair)
UKIP 5/4 (Lad)
Con 7/1 (Betfair)
LD 300/1 (Betfair)

MarkSenior

Wulfrun_Phil said:

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .

Stuart_Dickson

Paddy Power - Lib Dem leader at UK general election?

Clegg 1/5
Cable 4/1
Farron 4/1
Davey 12/1
Hughes 12/1
Lamb 16/1
Laws 16/1
Alexander 25/1

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dickson, although I was greatly surprised by the poll, the blues being just four points off the lead does suggest Conservatives at 8 for most votes is the best bet.

Stuart_Dickson

Paddy Power - First Past The Post amended by end of 2020?

No 1/12
Yes 11/2

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dickson, is that in Scotland or the rest of the UK?

Stuart_Dickson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, although I was greatly surprised by the poll, the blues being just four points off the lead does suggest Conservatives at 8 for most votes is the best bet.

Best value no doubt, but I'd trade in any winnings before polling day.

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

I utterly and totally disagree. Your rant is just a list of all the things you don't like about the modern world, rolled up into "things were so much better back then." Even though they were not.

Well, go back and live in the 1950s. I'd much rather live in the twenty-first century, where there is so much more hope and opportunity for everyone, if they are willing to grasp it. True, there are problems, but these problems are nowhere near as deep or existential as they were fifty years ago.

Your comment that England is getting 'nastier' every day is simply laughable.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

Again, I point out you claimed that England is getting 'nastier' every day. I utterly dispute that, and think it's quite a slur on modern society.

As for making someone else rich: I'll never be a millionaire, unless one of the company's I work for does something insanely great. But that won't happen. I get reasonably well paid, and Mrs J gets well paid, but we work hard and we love our work. Both of us could earn much more doing other things.

And for your information, I don't despise anyone in politics, or on PB; even the two Ed's.

So to sum up: England is not getting nastier every day. It's getting better. Just because the world doesn't match your vision doesn't make it nasty.

Stuart_Dickson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, is that in Scotland or the rest of the UK?

See PP for terms and conditions.

Stuart_Dickson

MarkSenior said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .

Keep clutching those straws Mark.

Innocent_Abroad

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

le.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

Again, I point out you claimed that England is getting 'nastier' every day. I utterly dispute that, and think it's quite a slur on modern society.

As for making someone else rich: I'll never be a millionaire, unless one of the company's I work for does something insanely great. But that won't happen. I get reasonably well paid, and Mrs J gets well paid, but we work hard and we love our work. Both of us could earn much more doing other things.

And for your information, I don't despise anyone in politics, or on PB; even the two Ed's.

So to sum up: England is not getting nastier every day. It's getting better. Just because the world doesn't match your vision doesn't make it nasty.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "nastier" when I meant "more self-centred". Mea culpa.

Stuart_Dickson

MikeK said:

BobaFett said:

Another Kipper thread!

From now on, until the GE, you'll be having Kippers for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper. Learn to live with it. It's an acquired taste that many are tasting with satisfaction. LOL

And they thought they were full up with Salmonds and Sturgeons...

BobaFett

MikeK said:

BobaFett said:

Another Kipper thread!

From now on, until the GE, you'll be having Kippers for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper. Learn to live with it. It's an acquired taste that many are tasting with satisfaction. LOL

I am partial to kippers @MikeL but prefer to avoid their strong flavour in the mornings. Perhaps we can agree to wait until lunch in future?

MarkSenior

Stuart_Dickson said:

MarkSenior said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .

Keep clutching those straws Mark.

you don't like facts very much do you , Stuart . Time we had another IndyRef poll showing Yes is toast .

Millsy

The Lib Dem targets (current Tory seats) are not exactly fertile Ukip territory, except maybe in Devon and Cornwall. Here are the seats from Lord Ashcroft's poll, with Ukip's share in 2010. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can highlight the scores in recent local elections.

2.2% - Watford
3.8% - St Albans
2.7% - Oxford West & Abingdon
2.0% - Harrogate & Knaresborough
5.1% - Camborne & Redruth
3.9% - Truro & Falmouth
6.4% - Newton Abbot
3.3% - Montgomeryshire

There are certainly seats where Ukip did better - like NW Cambs at 8.3%.

TOPPING

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

le.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

Again, I point out you claimed that England is getting 'nastier' every day. I utterly dispute that, and think it's quite a slur on modern society.

As for making someone else rich: I'll never be a millionaire, unless one of the company's I work for does something insanely great. But that won't happen. I get reasonably well paid, and Mrs J gets well paid, but we work hard and we love our work. Both of us could earn much more doing other things.

And for your information, I don't despise anyone in politics, or on PB; even the two Ed's.

So to sum up: England is not getting nastier every day. It's getting better. Just because the world doesn't match your vision doesn't make it nasty.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "nastier" when I meant "more self-centred". Mea culpa.

If you look at the explosion in social media involving photos it is clear that much of a young person's being is defined by the social media image they (and other people) create. Every event, milestone, experience is diligently recorded and posted.

Under such circumstances I can see why people have become more self-centred.

Is it good or bad? Beyond my pay grade.

anotherDave

"nine per cent of men and three per cent of women are addicted [to alcohol]"

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/we-get-the-message-smoking-is-bad-for-you-now-leave-fag-packets-alone/

Is that right? Are 9% of men alcoholics?

Financier

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT: good post from John, shows how little Britain has changed since the Thirties really.

I'm sure that isn't the case, or is at least viewing the past through rose-coloured spectacles.

snip

Nor will I link to john Harris's article in The Guardian yesterday - it's easy enough to find - but he's absolutely on the money. Anyone with a social conscience is going to be totally f*cked from now on. I keep meaning to offer OGH a post about all this, and then finding other things to do...

I utterly and totally disagree. Your rant is just a list of all the things you don't like about the modern world, rolled up into "things were so much better back then." Even though they were not.

Well, go back and live in the 1950s. I'd much rather live in the twenty-first century, where there is so much more hope and opportunity for everyone, if they are willing to grasp it. True, there are problems, but these problems are nowhere near as deep or existential as they were fifty years ago.

Your comment that England is getting 'nastier' every day is simply laughable.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

IA:

That is an interesting reason for choosing your workplace. At that time, so where did you think the money that would pay your salary originate? And have you changed your view since?

Stuart_Dickson

... Better Together's decision to base the campaign almost entirely on fears of losing the pound has become a real millstone. The problem with the whole pound scare is that no-one really believes it, and that forces reasonable people to start saying unreasonable things in order to defend it. It has undermined the moral basis of the Union, which is supposed to be a partnership between nations, without offering anything attractive as an alternative. This has been a pretty dismal week for the whole Unionist campaign and there is little sign of the "sunshine" solutions promised by the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Willie Rennie.

Were it not for a sympathetic press, the Better Together campaign would be in deep trouble. And there are still six months to go before Scotland goes to the polls.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/no-camp-is-far-from-united-in-plan-for-scotlands-future.23853893

SimonStClare

“Fresh from his debate with Nick Clegg, Ukip leader Nigel Farage is taking part in a live phone-in for Telegraph readers today. Watch the programme from 1pm (1300 BST)

Follow the link if you fancy putin a question to Nige, - badum tish ; )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10742131/Phone-Nigel-Farage-live-put-your-questions-to-the-Ukip-leader.html

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dickson, one suspects rather more Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen believe it than Scotsmen.

The assumption by the Yes campaign that you can leave a country and keep its currency as a matter of right, and that the rest of the country you're leaving would actively want that, is just mad.

My fear is that, if Yes wins, the Scots will refuse to acknowledge any debts, the SNP using the Yes vote and desire for the pound as a pretext to avoid their rightful share of the debt, and that will lead to lasting bitterness between both countries.

It does seem Better Together have gone for a negative rather than positive approach, but from this side of the border Salmond does not seem much better. The George Tax, which lasted a whole week, constantly claiming the right of Scots to use the British pound (implying the English/Welsh/Northern Irish had neither the right nor the desire to refuse them), and the claim that debt is optional for Scots all come across as very negative.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm a Unionist anyway, but the closer we get to the vote the more convinced I am that any separation will end up being bitter rather than a friendly parting of the ways.

Scrapheap_as_was

Who wants the Scrap trading position update - that's my betting on the implications of the budget for enhanced annuity providers - keep up.

No one?

Tough - I'm now on a paper loss of £500..... having touched £5,000 loss at one stage....

Hoping it's not as good as it gets.....

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Scrapheap, glad it's improved significantly.

I suspect my WIlliams' title bet won't ever shorten enough, though if they have a good result in Bahrain and Mercedes have reliability issues it might drop down to roughly where it was. On Betfair, I'm ahead whoever wins the Drivers' title, which is nice. I'd still prefer a Rosberg triumph, though.

MonikerDiCanio

Stuart_Dickson said:

... Better Together's decision to base the campaign almost entirely on fears of losing the pound has become a real millstone. The problem with the whole pound scare is that no-one really believes it, and that forces reasonable people to start saying unreasonable things in order to defend it. It has undermined the moral basis of the Union, which is supposed to be a partnership between nations, without offering anything attractive as an alternative. This has been a pretty dismal week for the whole Unionist campaign and there is little sign of the "sunshine" solutions promised by the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Willie Rennie.

Were it not for a sympathetic press, the Better Together campaign would be in deep trouble. And there are still six months to go before Scotland goes to the polls.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/no-camp-is-far-from-united-in-plan-for-scotlands-future.23853893

I thought that prize ass Macwhiter was all for the Euro and against the millstone of the BoE Pound.

JackW

MikeK said:

BobaFett said:

Another Kipper thread!

From now on, until the GE, you'll be having Kippers for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper. Learn to live with it. It's an acquired taste that many are tasting with satisfaction. LOL

I'm happy to have kippers for breakfast and fish on Friday but force feeding the nation a continuous diet of battered Farage is simply too much to endure.

A light dusting of Ukip policies might be tempting fayre to ruminate over the breakfast kippers but I fear the gay marriage weather related disasters will have me scurrying for the bunker as the "Times" announces Elton's nuptials. Will kippers rain down on us amongst the terrible storms or is a pestilence of frogs about to engulf us.

What's in a weather forecasters name you say - Michael Fish I say - "Don't worry reports of a hurricane heading our way are false - there's no gay cruises crossing the Atlantic presently ...."

Head for the hills !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TCPoliticalBetting

OGH article
The LDs may perceive a chance that UKIP are bolstered but there may be downsides from informing a larger number of past/potential LD voters the fact that they are a Europhile party. In the past we have seen surveys where circa 40% of LD voters were Eurosceptic. By coming out and staking a massive message across the media that the LDs are pro EC, they may actually reduce their vote. This disconnect between most of the party's members/reps and the party's voters is one of those hidden dicotomies.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, one suspects rather more Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen believe it than Scotsmen.

The assumption by the Yes campaign that you can leave a country and keep its currency as a matter of right, and that the rest of the country you're leaving would actively want that, is just mad.

My fear is that, if Yes wins, the Scots will refuse to acknowledge any debts, the SNP using the Yes vote and desire for the pound as a pretext to avoid their rightful share of the debt, and that will lead to lasting bitterness between both countries.

It does seem Better Together have gone for a negative rather than positive approach, but from this side of the border Salmond does not seem much better. The George Tax, which lasted a whole week, constantly claiming the right of Scots to use the British pound (implying the English/Welsh/Northern Irish had neither the right nor the desire to refuse them), and the claim that debt is optional for Scots all come across as very negative.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm a Unionist anyway, but the closer we get to the vote the more convinced I am that any separation will end up being bitter rather than a friendly parting of the ways.

ASalmond is the canniest of canny operators. If (IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!) there is a Yes vote you can be assured that he will be first in the sensible queue to negotiate a workable process for separation. The rUK govt will be equally sensible and there will be no playground antics because ASalmond will just have got himself a country and that, as he is well aware, is a particularly serious business.

Of course this assumes that he actually wants independence and not the enhanced DevoMax he will get following the much more likely No. Who knows - perhaps he is as surprised as anyone at the Yes progress.

Anorak

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Who wants the Scrap trading position update - that's my betting on the implications of the budget for enhanced annuity providers - keep up.

No one?

Tough - I'm now on a paper loss of £500..... having touched £5,000 loss at one stage....

Hoping it's not as good as it gets.....

I'd get out now. You can be philosophical about £500 being a bad call, you can build your extension, and you can save the marriage!! [I think that's what you said the money was for]

NickPalmer

foxinsoxuk said:

The Euro elections are very geared at that level, but as the only two parties making campaigning efforts UKIP and LD may overperform. There seems to be no detectable Tory or Labour Eurocampaign at all.

Not the case in our patch (where it's only UKIP and Labour that are putting out Euro-leaflets so far) - perhaps it's localised effort? But it's true that the Labour campaign is much less about the benefit of EU membership than Clegg's pitch, probably because Clegg is going for the niche pro-EU audience and Labour has to appeal beyond it, though one can't rule out genuine sincerity!

That's a very good post upthread from JohnLoony (reposted by Fox) quoting Orwell on the apparently suboptimal behaviour of many very poor people. The ones I know feel exactly that - it's also why some will smoke, drink or take drugs if they get the chance.

In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.

Wulfrun_Phil

Millsy said:

The Lib Dem targets (current Tory seats) are not exactly fertile Ukip territory, except maybe in Devon and Cornwall. Here are the seats from Lord Ashcroft's poll, with Ukip's share in 2010. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can highlight the scores in recent local elections.

2.2% - Watford
3.8% - St Albans
2.7% - Oxford West & Abingdon
2.0% - Harrogate & Knaresborough
5.1% - Camborne & Redruth
3.9% - Truro & Falmouth
6.4% - Newton Abbot
3.3% - Montgomeryshire

There are certainly seats where Ukip did better - like NW Cambs at 8.3%.

That data hardly points to a systematic UKIP weakness in those sorts of seats, given that they only averaged 3.1% across the whole country. And bear in mind that in closely fought seats such as these, minor parties such as UKIP in 2010 will have been under threat of being squeezed anyway. So those figures don't really cast doubt on the case for a significant UKIP vote in such seats on the back of a strong national performance.

JackW

@NickPalmer

Perhaps you missed my post yesterday Nick, but what is you view on the badger cull and the bovine TB crisis ?

BobaFett

@Morris

There's no way of stopping Scotland using the pound if it wants to - and why would we want the instability caused by having it use a different currency anyway? It would be economic madness, hence why the government minister said what he did.

We are best to avoid this line and instead focus on the great benefits of staying in the union.

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

le.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

Again, I point out you claimed that England is getting 'nastier' every day. I utterly dispute that, and think it's quite a slur on modern society.

As for making someone else rich: I'll never be a millionaire, unless one of the company's I work for does something insanely great. But that won't happen. I get reasonably well paid, and Mrs J gets well paid, but we work hard and we love our work. Both of us could earn much more doing other things.

And for your information, I don't despise anyone in politics, or on PB; even the two Ed's.

So to sum up: England is not getting nastier every day. It's getting better. Just because the world doesn't match your vision doesn't make it nasty.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "nastier" when I meant "more self-centred". Mea culpa.

Fairy nuff here too. Although I still (mildly) disagree with 'more self-centered' as well. As an aside, it'd be interesting to know how 'self centredness' could be measured to test the assertion. Charitable giving as one input, perhaps?

As another aside, I'm really quite positive about modern society. True, there are problems - some deep - that need fixing, but I honestly think that the current generation is, on the whole, 'better' than mine. And I'm only 41.

But I'm also aware that my anecdata from the people I meet and talk to might make me dangerously complacent.

TGOHF

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, one suspects rather more Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen believe it than Scotsmen.

The assumption by the Yes campaign that you can leave a country and keep its currency as a matter of right, and that the rest of the country you're leaving would actively want that, is just mad.

They can keep the currency - Panama style.

Does seem to be a lot of fingers in ears north of the border - and a lack of reality - have they not been following the popularity of currency unions in the rest of Britain ?

They may be in for a nasty shock.

JosiasJessop

TOPPING said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

le.

What's that saying - "no case, abuse plaintiff's attorney?"

Show me where I said the 1950s were a better place to live? They were in some ways, and obviously not in others (no one would prefer the state of medical science then to now, or indeed the status of women). I am not sure who your "everyone" is, I can think of a lot of folk both inside and outside the UK who had neither hope no opportunity in 1953 or 2013.

My objection is, at bottom, to greed. I went to work in the public sector when I left university in 1970 because I did not want my efforts to make someone else rich. You obviously see yourself as that "someone else" and despise anyone who doesn't think as you do. Please allow me to return the compliment/

Again, I point out you claimed that England is getting 'nastier' every day. I utterly dispute that, and think it's quite a slur on modern society.

As for making someone else rich: I'll never be a millionaire, unless one of the company's I work for does something insanely great. But that won't happen. I get reasonably well paid, and Mrs J gets well paid, but we work hard and we love our work. Both of us could earn much more doing other things.

And for your information, I don't despise anyone in politics, or on PB; even the two Ed's.

So to sum up: England is not getting nastier every day. It's getting better. Just because the world doesn't match your vision doesn't make it nasty.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "nastier" when I meant "more self-centred". Mea culpa.

If you look at the explosion in social media involving photos it is clear that much of a young person's being is defined by the social media image they (and other people) create. Every event, milestone, experience is diligently recorded and posted.

Under such circumstances I can see why people have become more self-centred.

Is it good or bad? Beyond my pay grade.

On the other hand, such technology (not just FB) also allows them to be in regular contact with many different friends and voices. Sharing your life is not necessarily self-centredness. Although the weird habit of putting photos of food served in pubs onto FB freaks me out.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, technically you're correct but hopefully it was quite apparent I was referring to a currency union.

As for instability: that's a consequence of a 300 year old union ending. It would be madness to become lender of last resort to an independent Scotland.

BobaFett

Off topic, we have got to rectify this situation whereby when the polling is deemed good for Labour we discuss anything but the polling. It didn't used to be this bad - the likes of SeanT could usually be relied upon to angrily troll the thread on the event of a poor poll and get debate moving - which often led to interesting analyses.

Not any more - people simply ignore the polling unless it's deemed good for the Conservatives. The thread is poorer for it.

Stuart_Dickson

MarkSenior said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MarkSenior said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .

Keep clutching those straws Mark.

you don't like facts very much do you , Stuart . Time we had another IndyRef poll showing Yes is toast .

You mean like this one?

- "... a swing of just five percentage points would bring Scotland to the cusp of independence..."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

We'll see who is "toast" next month.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, the polls have been moving back to Labour after the Budget bounce. It's worth mentioning, though, that we've only had (I think) YouGovs in the last few days, nothing from ICM or others.

rcs1000

TCPoliticalBetting said:

OGH article
The LDs may perceive a chance that UKIP are bolstered but there may be downsides from informing a larger number of past/potential LD voters the fact that they are a Europhile party. In the past we have seen surveys where circa 40% of LD voters were Eurosceptic. By coming out and staking a massive message across the media that the LDs are pro EC, they may actually reduce their vote. This disconnect between most of the party's members/reps and the party's voters is one of those hidden dicotomies.

I think the LibDems have already lost all the "none of the above" / "a new kind of politics" voters that they once had.

HurstLlama

"... focus on the great benefits of staying in the union..."

It would seem that nobody on either side of the debate can think of any.

Pulpstar

@Scrapheap_as_was I should have followed you in when you were £5k down

BobaFett

HurstLlama said:

"... focus on the great benefits of staying in the union..."

It would seem that nobody on either side of the debate can think of any.

Hmm. A very good post...

Pulpstar

1/12 For keeping FPTP is about right - the problem is that the 5 years

JackW

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, technically you're correct but hopefully it was quite apparent I was referring to a currency union.

As for instability: that's a consequence of a 300 year old union ending. It would be madness to become lender of last resort to an independent Scotland.

If the SNP opt for an unauthorised pound sterling scenario then the BoE would not be lender of last resort and that responsibility would fall within Scotland.

As it is and with little over 5 months to the referendum Scottish voters have not the faintest of clues what the post independence currency will be, because neither do the YES campaign.

BobaFett

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, technically you're correct but hopefully it was quite apparent I was referring to a currency union.

As for instability: that's a consequence of a 300 year old union ending. It would be madness to become lender of last resort to an independent Scotland.

Er why? It would be a very wealthy and viable nation. Why would we not want to maintain a successful partnership? Sour grapes?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, given the Yes campaign want a currency union, isn't a currency union a great benefit?

AlastairMeeks

I'm with Josias Jessop on the state of the nation. We don't have signs that say "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" and the idea of such a sign is bizarre. We don't laugh at the mentally handicapped in the street, as was common in the 1950s. We don't criminalise gays - indeed, we now allow them to marry. We don't trap people in loveless marriages and we don't let children rot in state-run homes that were at best neglectful and at worst evil. We let more of our children reach their full academic potential than ever before. We provide the type of safety net for those at the bottom of society that George Orwell could never have dreamed of.

The scandal is that we have let successive generations subsist on that safety net without making any real effort to help them out of it.

Socrates

The rUK would have huge interest in denying a currency union, as Scotland's backup plan is Panama-style use of the pound. The lack of a lender of last resort would mean the Edinburgh finance sector would entirely decamp to London, which obviously we'd benefit from a lot.

Stuart_Dickson

Millsy said:

The Lib Dem targets (current Tory seats) are not exactly fertile Ukip territory, except maybe in Devon and Cornwall. Here are the seats from Lord Ashcroft's poll, with Ukip's share in 2010. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can highlight the scores in recent local elections.

2.2% - Watford
3.8% - St Albans
2.7% - Oxford West & Abingdon
2.0% - Harrogate & Knaresborough
5.1% - Camborne & Redruth
3.9% - Truro & Falmouth
6.4% - Newton Abbot
3.3% - Montgomeryshire

There are certainly seats where Ukip did better - like NW Cambs at 8.3%.

Best UKIP prices to date:

South Thanet 5/2
Eastleigh 4/1
Louth & Horncastle 7/1
Great Grimsby 10/1
Portsmouth South 10/1
Newcastle under Lyme 12/1
Camborne & Redruth 16/1
Plymouth Moor 16/1
Thurrock 16/1
Walsall North 16/1

DavidL

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.

Nick, I think you underestimate the importance of the progress that has been made, not just for racial minorities or gays but also for women and indeed children. Our society is better in many, many ways than the past. The vulnerable and the different have rights that are broadly respected.

On the other hand I agree with you about social solidarity. Society has become much more atomised and self centred. A lot of this has to do with the attitude towards money. Money has become a measure of success in itself, a measure of someone's worth. In some respects this is more egalitarian than the older quasi feudal structures where you respected someone because of their ownership of land but it is still pernicious.

My children sometimes worry me with their attitudes to money. When I get asked what I want more of I answer good health, good family and good friends. Money really is not that important and worship of it is the result of too many of society's ills.

Of course, it is a lot easier for the comfortably off to take this view than those on the margins. But historically it has been those who did not have much that have espoused these virtues the most.

Stuart_Dickson

Socrates said:

The rUK would have huge interest in denying a currency union, as Scotland's backup plan is Panama-style use of the pound. The lack of a lender of last resort would mean the Edinburgh finance sector would entirely decamp to London, which obviously we'd benefit from a lot.

It might be wise to wait until after the referendum before revealing how much you'd like to screw Scotland.

Morris_Dancer

Just had another look at Ladbrokes' winner without Rosberg/Hamilton market. It's immensely difficult to call. I think Red Bull/Ferrari may be on the back foot, but it's hard to tell which of Williams/Force India/McLaren would be likeliest to become best of the rest, if that's right.

Stuart_Dickson

Hills - Liberal Democrats to leave the current UK government before 1st January 2015?

3/1

BobaFett

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, given the Yes campaign want a currency union, isn't a currency union a great benefit?

They don't need political union for that, as the minister has said.

Life_ina_market_town

NickPalmer said:

In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.

There are fewer threats as great to liberty as "social solidarity". Better a polity of raucous dissenters than of mindless cohesion. Many of the most repressive societies in history have also been those in which there has been the highest degree of social solidarity. True solidarity can only be the consequence of individuals voluntarily assenting to a common position. It cannot be created by force of law or majoritarian pressure.

No doubt society has become more tolerant in some areas. It is however the case that freedom of expression and of association have been greatly curtailed in recent years to promote "toleration".

BobaFett

Socrates said:

The rUK would have huge interest in denying a currency union, as Scotland's backup plan is Panama-style use of the pound. The lack of a lender of last resort would mean the Edinburgh finance sector would entirely decamp to London, which obviously we'd benefit from a lot.

It's an empty threat seeing as the government has already admitted that there would be a currency union. We appear to be fighting yesterday's battles.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, most Britons disagree. The Government position is clear. A single anonymous idiot briefing otherwise does not alter the Government (or Labour) position, and the British people are against a currency union.

Mr. Town, you're quite right. It is a sign of weakness and cowardice from the media that a picture of Mohammed cannot be shown and that some consider that an atheist cartoonist is in the wrong for not conforming to a law/rule of Islam for drawing the Jesus and Mo sketch.

Stuart_Dickson

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, one suspects rather more Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen believe it than Scotsmen.

The assumption by the Yes campaign that you can leave a country and keep its currency as a matter of right, and that the rest of the country you're leaving would actively want that, is just mad.

My fear is that, if Yes wins, the Scots will refuse to acknowledge any debts, the SNP using the Yes vote and desire for the pound as a pretext to avoid their rightful share of the debt, and that will lead to lasting bitterness between both countries.

It does seem Better Together have gone for a negative rather than positive approach, but from this side of the border Salmond does not seem much better. The George Tax, which lasted a whole week, constantly claiming the right of Scots to use the British pound (implying the English/Welsh/Northern Irish had neither the right nor the desire to refuse them), and the claim that debt is optional for Scots all come across as very negative.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm a Unionist anyway, but the closer we get to the vote the more convinced I am that any separation will end up being bitter rather than a friendly parting of the ways.

ASalmond is the canniest of canny operators. If (IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!) there is a Yes vote you can be assured that he will be first in the sensible queue to negotiate a workable process for separation. The rUK govt will be equally sensible and there will be no playground antics because ASalmond will just have got himself a country and that, as he is well aware, is a particularly serious business.

Of course this assumes that he actually wants independence and not the enhanced DevoMax he will get following the much more likely No. Who knows - perhaps he is as surprised as anyone at the Yes progress.

Most of the dunces around here haven't got the faintest clue about Salmond or about Scottish public life. They are either driven by blind hatred (Scott P, Mark Senior, Moniker etc) or by sublime ignorance and wishful thinking.

Imagine you were explaining it to primary school children and you might find the right tone.

BobaFett

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, most Britons disagree. The Government position is clear. A single anonymous idiot briefing otherwise does not alter the Government (or Labour) position, and the British people are against a currency union.

Mr. Town, you're quite right. It is a sign of weakness and cowardice from the media that a picture of Mohammed cannot be shown and that some consider that an atheist cartoonist is in the wrong for not conforming to a law/rule of Islam for drawing the Jesus and Mo sketch.

I suspect most Britons don't understand, less care. An opinion does not equal salience

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fett, an opinion does inform a vote, though.

isam

MarkSenior said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MarkSenior said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.

I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .

Keep clutching those straws Mark.

you don't like facts very much do you , Stuart . Time we had another IndyRef poll showing Yes is toast .

Want to bet on who wins 2015 vote share out of ukip and the lib Dems?

Or do you agree with OGH that ukip have a good chance of winning that bet?