Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s striking about the Maria Miller polling is that CON
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s striking about the Maria Miller polling is that CON voters are as hostile to her as everyone else
Very often the most important factor in polling is not the data but how it is used. There can be few better examples than today’s Mail on Sunday coverage of its Maria Miller polling. The paper, like the Telegraph and the Times yesterday, is after her and Miller’s survival chances won’t be helped.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
:yawn:
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.
http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/browse/council-and-democracy/councillors-democracy-and-elections/elections/results/2013/default.htm
The Tory knives are out for Miller.....but also for Dave !
Con 23 (-1), Lab 30 (-2), LD 9 (-2), UKIP 28 (+5)
So a debate bounce for the Kippers, plus a net 5% increase in Farage's ratings.
Basingstoke, 2010:
A COn councillor I was with on Friday called for her to be sacked. So much for loyalty but backs up the polling figures, there doesn't seem to be a depth of support in the party.
Any vested interest group is going to circle the wagon train to defend themselves from any attack, perceived or otherwise. Why shouldn't the print media do the same in the face of falling readership?
I am interested in the amount of publicity given to the dead tree media by the electronic media, given that the known right wing bias of nearly all DTM distorts balance while the easy, free access to alternative news and views available to the majority of people in the UK today, even, dare I say it, on sites like this one.
In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
It is difficult to imagine in similar circumstances in most peoples line of work, their manager saying let us draw a line under it and leave it there.
If that was the case ,the manager would be certainly in a derogation of duty situation.
I doubt that their intent is to force her resignation. A much better outcome for their publishing groups is to weaken the Coalition government and Parliament in the post-Leveson negotiations.
The Press proprietors have already delayed until after the General Election the implementation of the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press. Having a wounded Culture Secretary in place until the election would suit them far more than a change of SoS, with all the risks that might pose to current policy.
This makes a full-scale '11 day' press campaign for Miller's resignation unlikely.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/maria-miller-to-face-criminal-proceedings?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1396704072
Systematically over claiming expenses.
Theft act 1968.
Definition of “theft”
1. Basic definition of theft.
2.“Dishonestly”
3.“Appropriates”.
4.“Property”.
5.“Belonging to another”.
6.“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
But yes, you are right about one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
Mrs Miller did not subsidise her parents' living costs from public funds. Her claims up until 2008-09 did not include claims for mortgage interest on any increase above the facility when she entered the House. Indeed, for much of that period her claims were significantly below that figure, although close to the overall cap on expenses. We accept Mrs Miller's contention that her overclaim in 2008-09 was inadvertent and caused by the rapid reduction in interest rates.
Clegg's broken politics is still broken, and no one really knows how to fix it.
"Or fraud, s2 of the 2006 Fraud Act would seem fairly fulfilled."
What were the questions asked about Miller in the poll, I mean they couldn't have been leading could they...
Why were Blair's expense claims destroyed?
Just having a look to see if any bets emerge for the race.
It's just a bit of fun, but if you Baxter the numbers for Yougov's certain to votes, you get UKIP 304, Labour 241, Conservative 61, Lib Dem 14.
If she goes, I anticipate with great tedium the shrieking about Cameron having a 'women' problem. [He can, of course, simply promote future Prime Minister Justine Greening].
Why were Blair's claims destroyed? Maybe a better question is why no-one seems interested in investigating. Or, since Labour's enemies are now in power, perhaps they have looked but found nothing incriminating.
As an aside, I thought I'd check the winner's market. Rosberg and Hamilton are practically identical at barely over evens. Next placed is Bottas, who starts third, at 40.
Betting PostF1: backed Bottas to be winner without Rosberg/Hamilton at 3.75 (Ladbrokes), and Perez to get a podium (5, hedged at 2.2, Betfair).
Article will be up shortly.
Those of a certain vintage will recall him well. The following is a programme he presented on the history of the Palace of Westminster from 1984. Seen with PM Thatcher about 30 minutes in :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/bigben/7509.shtml
TFS
The accusations against Maria Miller relate to 2005-2009, i.e. before she became a Cabinet Minister, before the Coalition Government was formed and before the "expenses scandal" broke.
So it is not fair to claim that her case demonstrates that "our politicians ...haven't learned lessons from 5 years ago". All the events being questioned took place more than five years ago.
The only contentious issue was over the amount of mortgage interest that Maria Miller was entitled to claim. The Standards Commissioner had interpreted the Green Book Rules (applying at the time the claims were made) as having the intent of forbidding MPs from increasing the amount of their mortgages in order take advantage of the rules to claim additional interest. The Commissioner's view was that only interest on the mortgage loan amount taken out at the time of the purchase of the property should be reclaimable. The Commissioner based this interpretation on the findings of a previous inquiry into George Osborne's mortgage interest claims.
The Standards Committee disagreed with the Commissioner in the interpretation of the rules (specifically limiting interest claims to the loan amount at the date of original purchase) and in the relevance of the Osborne case to the facts and circumstances of Maria Miller's case.
Here is the Standards Committee finding on this issue [their bolding]:
When the rules were formulated the intention was to prevent MPs withdrawing equity from their property for non-housing purposes. No thought was given to the effect of the rule on newly elected Members who might claim ACA on a property owned for decades, where the mortgage had increased over the years. Nor was thought given to the reasonableness of a rule which could retrospectively bite on decisions made before someone was elected, or even before they had contemplated standing for election. As Mrs Miller pointed out, no attempt was made to ensure that newly elected Members only made claims against the original purchase price of the property. In these circumstances, imposing a strict interpretation of the rule would not be appropriate. Whatever the strict construction of the rule, it was reasonable for Mrs Miller to claim the interest on her mortgage as it was when she entered the House, rather than as it was when she first purchased the property.
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that a later relaxation of the Green Rules allowed interest to be claimed on increases in mortgage loans for the purpose of developing or repairing a property, subject to prior notification to, discussion with and authorisation by the expenses office.
The Standards Committtee, quite rightly and fairly in my view, concluded that Maria Miller's ACA claims made in accordance with the rules and guidance of the relevant period.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
That said, the ambiguity of his language is not a good thing.
Good to see Maggie had talents as an interior decorator though. Was there any limit to her capabilities?
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!
Its a sort of "mob" reaction.. if no one says a word about her for a month, no one will remember what it was all about. Perhaps if the same people questioned had been asked if they had ever stolen anything from their employer first or after the Miller question, then you would get a different set of answers.
The Daily Mail wreaks of hypocrisy with its fury/ outrage/ faux anger, so far as I know they have never been able to state where this anger /outrage etc emanates from.
That's because its in the minds of their journalists and is a given for pretty much any article they write.
From what I have read (and most offering an opinion have read little or nothing of what actually occurred here) Cameron thinks she has been badly stitched up for little more than a minor transgression - and accordingly his instinct has been to support her.
Which is noble.
But politically stupid. Standing up for Maria Miller is not worth letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
As for Maggie - "was there any limit to her capabilities?" - I rather think she thought not as indeed did many of her supporters and detractors.
I am not a great Miller fan (probably unreasonable prejudice on my part) and have no axe to grind on her behalf, but I do like getting to the facts behind the spin. Hence I have read the full Standards Committee Report.
The press story is really a proverbial elephant mountain heap made of a molehill.
Even the criticism for hiring a lawyer to deal with the Commissioner of Standards appears to be unwarranted in context. Read this extract to see why:
35. In 2003 the Green Book provided that claims for mortgage costs were limited to:
the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages, and legal and other costs associated with obtaining that home (eg stamp duty, valuation fees, conveyance, land searches, removal expenses),
In 2005 this was changed to:
to the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages, legal and other costs associated with obtaining (and selling) that home (eg stamp duty, valuation fees, conveyance, land searches, removal expenses).
The Commissioner considers this change as significant; in her analysis she compares the rules in 2003 to those in 2005 which were set out as:
- a list, separated appropriately by a comma between the first and second items and "and" before the final item and all of the items are "associated with obtaining (and selling) that home".
- In contrast the word "and" is crucial to the sense of the 2003 Green Book by separating the sentence into two parts. The effect is that it says mortgage costs limited to:
- "[the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages]and [other costs associated with obtaining (and selling)that home"
Now I know you need to be a Kipper to place an apostrophe correctly but when it comes to commas it is now clear to me that only the antifranks, TSEs and SeanFs of this world are sufficiently qualified to take on so complex a task.
twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/452098204872364033
the list just goes on and on.
:man-or-turnip:
They should only be allowed a currency union if all the men wear sporrans at all times.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/cat-released-from-bag/
Makes you wonder why governments bother to try to get the economy right. No votes in it.
Twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/452565980183408640/photo/1
http://wingsoverscotland.com/moving-on-up/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597902/The-Tory-Minister-vicious-feud-gay-sex-party-paid-Westminster-braced-new-sleaze-scandal-Speaker-plans-emergency-talks-defuse-crisis.html
In Millers case there are several things that stink. The ambiguity around what she did or didn't do. The way she acted to impede the investigation. The way she "apologised". And the way the press are determined to have her quit.
Ultimately politics is about credibility. Any politician being told they need to repay a 4-figure sum of expenses they weren't entitled to should no longer be a politician. Anyone else in any other profession would be sacked for gross misconduct and possibly prosecuted, their CV and references would be difficult for them going forward. But even assuming for a moment that there is more wiggle room for MPs due to the appalling way their expenses system is now structured, we come to her "apology".
The tweet length "apology" and silence in which is was received speaks an unbelievable arrogance and contempt for the system. If you - as the investigating MPs committee decided - give her the benefit of doubt over the expenses claim (and again, no other employer would), there is no doubt about the appalling political spectacle of her "apology".
The government has a major perception problem of arrogance and detachment from normality. Miller and Cameron's support for Miller amplifies these issues in the massive glare of publicity. Her credibility as a minister, and the credibility of the PM supporting this, is destroyed. This issue will now be the first question that any interviewer asks of her on any issue until the election - and for that reason alone her position as minister is not credible.
Final thought. This is politics. If Cameron can't understand the damage this does to an already toxic Conservative brand he really is out of touch. If Miller doesn't resign for expenses, she resigns for bringing the party into disrepute. Either way she has to go.
But I think it’s because the Premier is still guilty about his own entirely legal claims for Elite Housing Benefit. Most people still don’t realise how greedily this already rich man milked the system."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597956/Get-ready-to-jail-children-denounce-you.html#ixzz2y604z3YO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Would you pick john Terry for the England World Cup squad if you were manager?
Barnacles off the boat - she has achieved more for the opposition this weekend as Ed Miliband has in 4 months.
Too scared ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-26890988
In a story about extreme right fascist parties in the EU, they question why UKIP has not signed up to the alliance.
Are you likening Miller to him?
Anyone else planning a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel will be happy to know there are rooms on Expedia for as little as £75.
Whether Miller goes or not those expenses stories are still going to happen but she would set the bar and tone for all the rest when they start getting revealed. Which they inevitably will.
OT: Cammo, like the donkey he is, has a mulish streak and will try to hold on to Miller as long as possible. However, even donkeys have to let go sometime.
I reckon a two defence limit would be a good marker.
She could have stepped back from her post, done her time out and taken it from there. Now it's an ever increasing circle. Again.
Must confess I’ve never tried doing either when it was snowing, though!
That’s not saying I’m in favour of your "back to the 50’s" lot, though!
Also the "claims that taxpayers’ money was used to fund gay sex parties". It turns out that an independent organisation paid the expenses of those involved, and the connection with the taxpayer was solely that such organisation was in receipt of taxpayer funds no doubt for entirely unrelated purposes.
The bigger question for me, however, is her sheer nasty, bullying, deviousness about it all which betrays a hugely unattractive solipsism if nothing else.
How do you sack someone for being a shit, though?
They have no fingers, let alone opposable thumbs.
Thanks
The Metaphor Pedant