Yesterdays Yougov showing a six percent lead had two mentions (taking away the piss takes of it's lack of mentions) all night. Todays Populus, five in fifteen minute.
Yesterdays Yougov showing a six percent lead had two mentions (taking away the piss takes of it's lack of mentions) all night. Todays Populus, five in fifteen minute.
Mr. Isam, whilst I enjoy a good Ave It impersonation as much as anyone I fear you're being a little over-enthusiastic. People should always consider bets carefully, even those offered by me on F1.
It's an arb.
One is seats and the other bet votes.
The difference wouldnt keep me up too late at night.
They're all safe for the while. But the result that would cause maximum chaos would be something like:
UKIP 30% Lab 25% Con 23% Greens 10% Lib Dems 7%
It would be fun to see whose wailing and lamentations were loudest. It's plausible too.
The whooping from the purple nasties would be unbearable though.
Lab 24%, Con 24% would be even more fun....
7% would see zero LibDem MEP's? If so, and on topic, Clegg is toast. Some on here like to talk about toxic Tories, but Clegg is the political equivalent of Botulinum Toxin type H
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
The only result that would have any real ramifications would be UKIP polling top by any significant margin. And I don't think they will.
Indeed.
UKIP has exactly two public faces, Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom*. Nigel Farage cannot contest a single constituency anywhere in the UK with the prospect of being favourite to win. Not a one. Bloom has made them look foolish.
The oddest thing about the blazers is that their supporters - as exemplified by the below-the-line nutters at the Labourgraph - are not just the most delusional. It's that they actually get more delusional the further their prospects recede.
There is a shrill body of online UKIP opinion that thinks - or claims to think - they're going to be in government within two or three more GEs. It's not about 2015, see, it's about 2025. And this despite the fact that they can't identify a single seat they'll win.
* Yes I know but if you asked Joe Public to name two UKIPpers I suspect either nobody could, or the second would be Bloom.
So what?
Its not unique to UKIP. I don't think anyone in my circle of friends could name more than 3 or 4 current politicians from any party
Tories.. Boris, Cameron, Osborne Gove and maybe Hague Labour.. Miliband, Balls maybe Harman LD.. Clegg and maybe Lembit Opik / Paddy Ashdown
Even people interested in politics can't name more than one UKIPper, however.
It does strike me that we need two new variants of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Second Law (PB Amendments): as the length of a PB comment thread lengthens, the probability of derailment to discuss Scotch nationalism approaches 1.0
Godwin's Third Law (DT Amendments): as the length of a DT comment thread lengthens, the probability of a blazer trying to close it down by shouting "VOTE UKIP" approaches 1.0
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember more camaraderie between right-wing Tories and UKIP in the old days. Certainly nothing worse than exasperation with them. Now that UKIP are posing more of an actual threat there seems to be more hostility there.
The only result that would have any real ramifications would be UKIP polling top by any significant margin. And I don't think they will.
Indeed.
UKIP has exactly two public faces, Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom*. Nigel Farage cannot contest a single constituency anywhere in the UK with the prospect of being favourite to win. Not a one. Bloom has made them look foolish.
The oddest thing about the blazers is that their supporters - as exemplified by the below-the-line nutters at the Labourgraph - are not just the most delusional. It's that they actually get more delusional the further their prospects recede.
There is a shrill body of online UKIP opinion that thinks - or claims to think - they're going to be in government within two or three more GEs. It's not about 2015, see, it's about 2025. And this despite the fact that they can't identify a single seat they'll win.
* Yes I know but if you asked Joe Public to name two UKIPpers I suspect either nobody could, or the second would be Bloom.
So what?
Its not unique to UKIP. I don't think anyone in my circle of friends could name more than 3 or 4 current politicians from any party
Tories.. Boris, Cameron, Osborne Gove and maybe Hague Labour.. Miliband, Balls maybe Harman LD.. Clegg and maybe Lembit Opik / Paddy Ashdown
Even people interested in politics can't name more than one UKIPper, however.
It does strike me that we need two new variants of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Second Law (PB Amendments): as the length of a PB comment thread lengthens, the probability of derailment to discuss Scotch nationalism approaches 1.0
Godwin's Third Law (DT Amendments): as the length of a DT comment thread lengthens, the probability of a blazer trying to close it down by shouting "VOTE UKIP" approaches 1.0
"Even people interested in politics can't name more than one UKIPper, however. "
Well that's just not true is it? I bet almost everyone on here could name more than one.
Mr. Isam, whilst I enjoy a good Ave It impersonation as much as anyone I fear you're being a little over-enthusiastic. People should always consider bets carefully, even those offered by me on F1.
It's an arb.
One is seats and the other bet votes.
The difference wouldnt keep me up too late at night.
Small chance you can win both of them also of course.
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
Yesterdays Yougov showing a six percent lead had two mentions (taking away the piss takes of it's lack of mentions) all night. Todays Populus, five in fifteen minute.
LOL. Those PB poll rules need to be adhered to.
Some of us use nighttime for sleeping - you must be lonely in bed.
Oh dear, the CyberNats get really upset when anyone mentions Eck's wife. They will be all over this.
Or not...
Has Eck put her on the expenses payroll, like all good troughers? ('Keeping up with UKIP').
No. Eck has posted a few pix on his twitter account involving their recent trip together.
It is pure speculation that she will become 'politically involved' - until she does so, I would suggest (as with all other political spouses) she should be off limits. - But that's only my opinion of course.
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
Yesterdays Yougov showing a six percent lead had two mentions (taking away the piss takes of it's lack of mentions) all night. Todays Populus, five in fifteen minute.
LOL. Those PB poll rules need to be adhered to.
Some of us use nighttime for sleeping - you must be lonely in bed.
Nah, just scanned the previous thread and noticed. Quite easy really.
Not very surprising that Eleanor, Peter, Simon, Ann and Katherine are far, far more likely to attend Oxford than Kayleigh, Jade, Paige, Shannon and Shane.
Surely it says more about their parents - that parents with a certain lifestyle, ambition and education level are more likely to name their children after 'celebrities' than those who think more deeply about the subject of naming children.
How long can it be before Labour decides that candidates' names must not be disclosed when applying to Oxbridge.
It's the same grasp of the issues as their belief that better buildings make a better school
They're all safe for the while. But the result that would cause maximum chaos would be something like:
UKIP 30% Lab 25% Con 23% Greens 10% Lib Dems 7%
It would be fun to see whose wailing and lamentations were loudest. It's plausible too.
The whooping from the purple nasties would be unbearable though.
Lab 24%, Con 24% would be even more fun....
7% would see zero LibDem MEP's? If so, and on topic, Clegg is toast. Some on here like to talk about toxic Tories, but Clegg is the political equivalent of Botulinum Toxin type H
The LDs have Mr Clegg plastered over the home page of their website. Signing up for their newsletter is prompted with "will you stand with Nick?". So the LDs, or their webmaster, don't see Mr Clegg's toxicity.
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
Only a few years then to lab-grown designer babies - who will be parented by the state - normal babies will be forbidden or exterminated.
Relatedly, it must be a statistical certainty that one day soon, somebody vociferously in favour of abortion on demand will die of euthanasia on demand at the hands and discretion of their own children or grandchildren.
It was regulated by London and Westminster and that's the root of the matter. Mr Salmond got - I hope - a good scare out of it, but it wasn't his party that (de)regulated the banks and it wasn't his party or his MPs and peers that benefited hugely from the resulting food fight in the City of London till it all went sour. Credit where credit is due.
The story of RBS is the ultimate chip on the SNP shoulder.
Right up until the crash it was a Scottish success, part of the Arc of prosperity, with the full and vocal backing of Eck and his chums.
As soon as it went bang, the line became "how can we blame the English?"
It was Scottish disaster, made in Scotland, by Scots. Wishing that away is infantile, but a typical reflection of SNPers to any intrusion of reality on their fantasy World.
All hail the great and mighty prophet Eck, who will deliver us from England Evil and lead us to the promised land...
I'm not saying it is an English affair. I am saying it is a UK affair and at the relevant time the UK was run by Unionists. Some of the relevant characters happened to be born in Scotland but some weren't; some didn't call themselves Scots despite what people like you suggest; and some may or may not have qualified on residence. Unless you think Scots shouldn't be allowed in a UK government?
Mr. G, do the SNP care about the euros at all, or is this like a pre-Grand Slam tennis tournament (ie entirely optional)?
Sorry, fouled this up last time and the thing won't let me edit.
I can' speak for him or the SNP, but I'd say they are very important. Apart from the Scottish end, what happens with UKIP will have a real bearing on how people in Scotland view the future of the UK and therefore on how they vote in the referendum. The tricky bit is how subtle they are - do they take a large UKIP vote as a simple indicator of Toryism run riot, or do they decide it means a Tory victory is less likely? Perhaps they will balance out ...
They're all safe for the while. But the result that would cause maximum chaos would be something like:
UKIP 30% Lab 25% Con 23% Greens 10% Lib Dems 7%
It would be fun to see whose wailing and lamentations were loudest. It's plausible too.
The whooping from the purple nasties would be unbearable though.
Lab 24%, Con 24% would be even more fun....
7% would see zero LibDem MEP's? If so, and on topic, Clegg is toast. Some on here like to talk about toxic Tories, but Clegg is the political equivalent of Botulinum Toxin type H
The LDs have Mr Clegg plastered over the home page of their website. Signing up for their newsletter is prompted with "will you stand with Nick?". So the LDs, or their webmaster, don't see Mr Clegg's toxicity.
Keep in mind while the Cleggite strategy was still 'Farage will make Clegg look good' they had to commit to it and make him the very public face. As you say though you would think at least some lib dems weren't trapped in the bubble with the Clegg and are capable of grasping the obvious. That Clegg is indeed toxic.
As I said the other what the lib dems are certain to remember now about the May elections is Clegg's desperate strategy and just how badly that went. He'll have nobody to shift the blame to now and it's untenable to keep lowering expectations to the point where the Clegg leadership sounds like they think a lib dem vote is a wasted vote and don't seem too bothered about that outcome.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember more camaraderie between right-wing Tories and UKIP in the old days. Certainly nothing worse than exasperation with them. Now that UKIP are posing more of an actual threat there seems to be more hostility there.
Any news on the Green civil war on Brighton Council? Has the peace bong been passed around yet?
Mr. G, do the SNP care about the euros at all, or is this like a pre-Grand Slam tennis tournament (ie entirely optional)?
Sorry, fouled this up last time and the thing won't let me edit.
I can' speak for him or the SNP, but I'd say they are very important. Apart from the Scottish end, what happens with UKIP will have a real bearing on how people in Scotland view the future of the UK and therefore on how they vote in the referendum. The tricky bit is how subtle they are - do they take a large UKIP vote as a simple indicator of Toryism run riot, or do they decide it means a Tory victory is less likely? Perhaps they will balance out ...
Of course there's a very real chance that UKIP will get a Scottish seat in the Euro elections. That would be tricky for you.
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
Peter Bone says he's been doorstepping recently and the only issue that came up was immigration. Ref to expenses came up once.
Unspoofable. isn't it?
*chortle*
This is the same Peter Bone who signed a bill, that failed, which wanted to allow employees the choice to opt out of the minimum wage. Ironyoverloadtastic!
They're all safe for the while. But the result that would cause maximum chaos would be something like:
UKIP 30% Lab 25% Con 23% Greens 10% Lib Dems 7%
It would be fun to see whose wailing and lamentations were loudest. It's plausible too.
The whooping from the purple nasties would be unbearable though.
Lab 24%, Con 24% would be even more fun....
7% would see zero LibDem MEP's? If so, and on topic, Clegg is toast. Some on here like to talk about toxic Tories, but Clegg is the political equivalent of Botulinum Toxin type H
The LDs have Mr Clegg plastered over the home page of their website. Signing up for their newsletter is prompted with "will you stand with Nick?". So the LDs, or their webmaster, don't see Mr Clegg's toxicity.
Keep in mind while the Cleggite strategy was still 'Farage will make Clegg look good' they had to commit to it and make him the very public face. As you say though you would think at least some lib dems weren't trapped in the bubble with Clegg and are capable of grasping the obvious. That Clegg is indeed toxic nor will that change.
As I said the other day what the lib dems are certain to remember now about the May elections is Clegg's desperate strategy and just how terribly that went. He'll have nobody to shift the blame to now and it's untenable to keep lowering expectations to the point where the Clegg leadership sounds like they think a lib dem vote is a wasted vote and don't seem to be bothered about that outcome.
Vanilla appears to be F***ed again as the edit function isn't working. No matter.
Mr. G, do the SNP care about the euros at all, or is this like a pre-Grand Slam tennis tournament (ie entirely optional)?
Sorry, fouled this up last time and the thing won't let me edit.
I can' speak for him or the SNP, but I'd say they are very important. Apart from the Scottish end, what happens with UKIP will have a real bearing on how people in Scotland view the future of the UK and therefore on how they vote in the referendum. The tricky bit is how subtle they are - do they take a large UKIP vote as a simple indicator of Toryism run riot, or do they decide it means a Tory victory is less likely? Perhaps they will balance out ...
Of course there's a very real chance that UKIP will get a Scottish seat in the Euro elections. That would be tricky for you.
Mr. Carnyx, but under a system devised by a Scot and with two Scottish Chancellors during the nation's worst recession in history.
It's not legitimate to lay the blame for our current fiscal woe solely at the door of 'Westminster' as if Scots and Scottish institutions had no part to play in it. I'm not saying "Boo hiss, it's all your fault" just that there are Scottish elements to the cause of the problems we now face (as there are English ones, cf Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock).
I really don't see the point of regarding those banks and politicians as somehow distinctively Scottish especially when the distinction is actually quite arguable for both (if one is of the mind that it matters) and most of theCertainly, some of the bankers were Scottish and two oft he HQ nameplates were in Edinburgh (and their regulation is going to be a key issue in the event of independence) but to blame them for being specifically Scottish or English is pointless to my mind. The banks were part of a unified system deregulated initially by Mrs Thatcher's administration and allowed to get out of control. That happened to be a UK system regulated in Westminster. The Unionist parties were happy to take the credit when things were going well and they have to take the blame especially for the continuing problems with the banks. Mr Salmond was arguably very lucky in that respect. But he was not in charge, let alone have it happen on his watch.
As for that letter, just have a look at the wording of it. It's not exactly running the City of London is it? I would apply the test I always apply to any unionist criticism of the SNP and of Mr Salmond personally. Firstly, to what degree is it in hindsight (I.e. do the unionists, and especially Labour, actually say in advance what they would do, or just wait and see what the SNP etc say and do before they do the complete opposite?) I don't remember many Tories or Labour politicians saying how dreadful the letter was. Most seemed to think the deal referred to a good idea at the time.
And secondly, how would the unionists have behaved if he had written, say, a letter to Mr Godwin saying how terrible his plans were and so on? He'd have been excoriated by the unionists for doing down Scottish jobs, trying to destabilise the market confidence, interfering in something where he had no authority under the devolution settlement, etc. etc., as seen on so many occasions.
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
I'd agree with that. Even if there aren't serious losses for the LDs, there's a pretty high chance of a coalition with Labour. In that case he's a dead man walking - too much bad blood between Clegg and Labour, and Farron, Hughs, et al waiting in the wings to lead a Glorious Socialistical Coalition.
Oh dear, the CyberNats get really upset when anyone mentions Eck's wife. They will be all over this.
Or not...
Has Eck put her on the expenses payroll, like all good troughers? ('Keeping up with UKIP').
A reversal of fortunes given that she used to be his boss. The PB McRooney's don't seem impressed with Eck using her in the campaign - shows how desperate the AYE side is getting.
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
Agree.
Normally the value is backing things to stay the same, but I can't see him surviving a Euro debacle and halving the vote at a GE
I was expecting 1/3 he'd be gone 9/4 to stay, so 8/11 to go looks good value to me
Re YouGov and Populus. Interesting moment. Is there going to be a Miller meltdown, or now a Bone backlash? YouGov is assume is slightly more recent. The Tories are stuck on 32-34 at the moment, Labour on 35-38. If Miller is going to take the share down, you'd expect to see so,e 31s creeping in, unlikely it will boost Labour, but maybe UKIP will pick a point or two up from it. At the moment I can see it being anything from a tiny Lab majority to hung parliament, Tory largest party with somewhere near neck and neck looking plausible. The Tory strategy has to be hitting their 2010 share leading in to the campaign, which would probably ensure no chance of a Lab majority, anything they can squeak above that would take them into largest party territory. Just can't see Tory majority happening. They are too far adrift in the North and Scotland, and have too little to gain in the Midlands and South to do it, unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely.. It's going to be a long long year.
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
Agree.
Normally the value is backing things to stay the same, but I can't see him surviving a Euro debacle and halving the vote at a GE
I was expecting 1/3 he'd be gone 9/4 to stay, so 8/11 to go looks good value to me
Ah I misread! I thought they were saying 8/11 to stay, lol, that would be awful value :-)
Re YouGov and Populus. Interesting moment. Is there going to be a Miller meltdown, or now a Bone backlash? YouGov is assume is slightly more recent. The Tories are stuck on 32-34 at the moment, Labour on 35-38. If Miller is going to take the share down, you'd expect to see so,e 31s creeping in, unlikely it will boost Labour, but maybe UKIP will pick a point or two up from it. At the moment I can see it being anything from a tiny Lab majority to hung parliament, Tory largest party with somewhere near neck and neck looking plausible. The Tory strategy has to be hitting their 2010 share leading in to the campaign, which would probably ensure no chance of a Lab majority, anything they can squeak above that would take them into largest party territory. Just can't see Tory majority happening. They are too far adrift in the North and Scotland, and have too little to gain in the Midlands and South to do it, unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely.. It's going to be a long long year.
Before weighting adjustments , Populus had a Labour lead of 7.5% , larger than Yougov .
"It’s now over 3 years and 11 months since the last election. Early next month this government will reach its four year anniversary, and something rather strange will happen – the opposition won’t have called for an election. Not even once. Not even half-heartedly......
We have a government with little governing agenda remaining, and an opposition party which has had a poll lead for over two years. So why isn’t Ed Miliband calling for an early general election?
Of course, the advent of fixed term parliaments has changed everything. We now know the date of the next election – it’s been set in stone for years now. A mechanism designed to bind together a coalition and dissuade the Lib Dems from quitting the coalition after a few years now seems an irreversible part of our flexible constitution. That’s had a huge impact on Ed Miliband’s leadership – as the first opposition leader to know exactly when election day will be. That’s mean the rhythm and cadence of the parliament has been totally different. Selections, policy making, how far and how fast to go on messaging – all have been skewed out of their ordinary timetables by the fixed-term. Where once an opposition leader – especially one with a consistent poll-lead – would have been calling for the people to have their say, either because they thought they could win, or because such an act of oppositional bravado was what was expected.
Ed Miliband will do nothing of the sort. Labour have adopted the fixed-term parliament with few quibbles – and accepted it as if it were an inalienable fact. Of course it isn’t, if David Cameron wanted a general election in six weeks he could have one. But it now suits Miliband and Labour to wait until 2015. The Labour Party would not be ready – organisationally, politically and certainly not in policy terms – if Cameron called an election today. And yet, whilst it would be made for Labour to clamour for an early election that it’s not prepared for, it’s hard not to argue that our already narrowed lead could come under increased fire in the next 13 months. The economic situation seems far stronger, the Tories have the money to throw at a long and protracted campaign, and they have the set pieces – conference and another budget – to move the polls and hurt us.
Calling for an election today might seem crazy, but we may look back in a year and realise that fighting an election in 2014 would have been easier than fighting it in 2015. And all the while, Tory MPs are at work in their constituencies, assiduously developing an incumbency factor. The longer this parliament drags on, the bigger impact that will have…"
Doesn't Dan know that everyone taken to court is "innocent"? It's the way the system is supposed to work. Of course, we could always do away with Judges, lawyers and juries, and deem everyone guilty on arrest.
Re YouGov and Populus. Interesting moment. Is there going to be a Miller meltdown, or now a Bone backlash? YouGov is assume is slightly more recent. The Tories are stuck on 32-34 at the moment, Labour on 35-38. If Miller is going to take the share down, you'd expect to see so,e 31s creeping in, unlikely it will boost Labour, but maybe UKIP will pick a point or two up from it. At the moment I can see it being anything from a tiny Lab majority to hung parliament, Tory largest party with somewhere near neck and neck looking plausible. The Tory strategy has to be hitting their 2010 share leading in to the campaign, which would probably ensure no chance of a Lab majority, anything they can squeak above that would take them into largest party territory. Just can't see Tory majority happening. They are too far adrift in the North and Scotland, and have too little to gain in the Midlands and South to do it, unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely.. It's going to be a long long year.
Before weighting adjustments , Populus had a Labour lead of 7.5% , larger than Yougov .
Interesting. 1 does seem rather tight at the back end of a crap week for the blues. It feels more like coming back from two down at half time than nil nil.
"Diplomat who won EU exit essay prize silenced by government Foreign Office diplomat banned from giving interviews after winning £80,000 economics prize for essay on how Britain could leave EU"
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
Agree.
Normally the value is backing things to stay the same, but I can't see him surviving a Euro debacle and halving the vote at a GE
I was expecting 1/3 he'd be gone 9/4 to stay, so 8/11 to go looks good value to me
Ah I misread! I thought they were saying 8/11 to stay, lol, that would be awful value :-)
My fault, clunky prose!
The odds are 8/11 Clegg to be gone by Jan 1 2016, and EVS he is still LD leader
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
Agree.
Normally the value is backing things to stay the same, but I can't see him surviving a Euro debacle and halving the vote at a GE
I was expecting 1/3 he'd be gone 9/4 to stay, so 8/11 to go looks good value to me
Ah I misread! I thought they were saying 8/11 to stay, lol, that would be awful value :-)
My fault, clunky prose!
The odds are 8/11 Clegg to be gone by Jan 1 2016, and EVS he is still LD leader
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
I'd agree with that. Even if there aren't serious losses for the LDs, there's a pretty high chance of a coalition with Labour. In that case he's a dead man walking - too much bad blood between Clegg and Labour, and Farron, Hughs, et al waiting in the wings to lead a Glorious Socialistical Coalition.
I think he'd stay. Imagine you're Ed Miliband. You want to be Prime Minister. You ran against your brother to get the leadership, and if you don't make it a lot of sneery people will say you bollocksed it up for both your party and your family.
Would you: a) Cut a deal with Clegg, who whatever his faults doesn't seem to be a rigid ideologue who would be impossible to work with. Move straight into Number 10, stay there for at least five years. b) Insist that the LibDems get a new leader, them hang around for months while they pick them, and hope whoever gets the job decides to govern with you instead of scooping up your new ex-LibDem supporters, making up some principled-sounding objection to working with you and fighting a new election perfectly timed for their bounce.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
"Diplomat who won EU exit essay prize silenced by government Foreign Office diplomat banned from giving interviews after winning £80,000 economics prize for essay on how Britain could leave EU"
Is there going to be a Miller meltdown, or now a Bone backlash?
You have to give it to some of PB most amusing usual suspects. They start whining and shrieking about Farage and other politician's wives at JUST the right time. Unspoofable indeed
Is there going to be a Miller meltdown, or now a Bone backlash?
You have to give it to some of PB most amusing usual suspects. They start whining and shrieking about Farage and other politician's wives at JUST the right time. Unspoofable indeed
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
Populus sub sample had LDs at 9% not really dire . Comres Euro poll sub sample had LD's retaining their Scottish Euro MP much to Stuart Dickson's disbelief .
Doesn't Dan know that everyone taken to court is "innocent"? It's the way the system is supposed to work. Of course, we could always do away with Judges, lawyers and juries, and deem everyone guilty on arrest.
I'm sure Hodges knows the former and is not advocating the latter, so I'm really not sure what your point is I'm afraid.
Yesterdays Yougov showing a six percent lead had two mentions (taking away the piss takes of it's lack of mentions) all night. Todays Populus, five in fifteen minute.
LOL. Those PB poll rules need to be adhered to.
Some of us use nighttime for sleeping - you must be lonely in bed.
You go to bed before 10pm? Do you remember to do your homework first?
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember more camaraderie between right-wing Tories and UKIP in the old days. Certainly nothing worse than exasperation with them. Now that UKIP are posing more of an actual threat there seems to be more hostility there.
Normal, don't you think? I am fairly tolerant of the TUSC -old-fashioned people, mainly associated with the late Bob Crow, but heart probably in the right place, etc. If they stood in Broxtowe and scored 10% I'd be spitting feathers.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
Populus sub sample had LDs at 9% not really dire . Comres Euro poll sub sample had LD's retaining their Scottish Euro MP much to Stuart Dickson's disbelief .
What about your belief? What do you think the odds are for Lyon holding?
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember more camaraderie between right-wing Tories and UKIP in the old days. Certainly nothing worse than exasperation with them. Now that UKIP are posing more of an actual threat there seems to be more hostility there.
I think you are remembering correctly. It's not very surprising, is it? The exasperation with UKIP amongst those in the Conservative Party who would like us to leave the EU (a substantial number) is entirely logical, given that a referendum by the end of 2017 is a certainty if we have a Conservative majority. As Dan Hannan puts it, what part of the word 'Yes' do UKIP not understand? Not only are UKIP a threat in the sense of facilitating a Labour government, they are also a threat in the sense of cementing ever-closer union.
Incidentally there's been an interesting development in the Conservative messaging. Rather than portraying UKIP as a load of wrecking counter-productive nutters, the line that Cameron and other ministers have been using is that 'UKIP simply can't deliver'. That's probably a wise approach for encouring the defectors to reverse their defection.
I'd say the only way he survives 2015 is to overachieve and remain in government in coalition. If the polling pans out, he will go as no leader is going to survive a halving or worse of parliamentary presence.
I'd agree with that. Even if there aren't serious losses for the LDs, there's a pretty high chance of a coalition with Labour. In that case he's a dead man walking - too much bad blood between Clegg and Labour, and Farron, Hughs, et al waiting in the wings to lead a Glorious Socialistical Coalition.
I think he'd stay. Imagine you're Ed Miliband. You want to be Prime Minister. You ran against your brother to get the leadership, and if you don't make it a lot of sneery people will say you bollocksed it up for both your party and your family.
Would you: a) Cut a deal with Clegg, who whatever his faults doesn't seem to be a rigid ideologue who would be impossible to work with. Move straight into Number 10, stay there for at least five years. b) Insist that the LibDems get a new leader, them hang around for months while they pick them, and hope whoever gets the job decides to govern with you instead of scooping up your new ex-LibDem supporters, making up some principled-sounding objection to working with you and fighting a new election perfectly timed for their bounce.
All that says is you think he's stay until the coalition was agreed - and I'd agree with you that the need to get an agreement down will outweigh all else.
But in those circumstances his chances of surviving the next 7 months (the bet was for Jan 2016) are, in my opinion, pretty slim. It's not as if there is a shortage of other contenders...
My point is, Dan (along with many others are trying to make the point that Evans was treated unfairly, and this may be so. However, I heard no such howls of outrage after the "PC Blakelock trial" and the acquittal of Jacobs. Care to explain the difference? (other than that one of them was banged up while awaiting trial)
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
They certainly imploded in scotland in 2011 and now have a taxi full of MSPs.
I think it's fair to say most people do expect the lib dem vote to pick up a bit in 2015. Of course it's by how little or how much could make all the difference.
It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the lib dem vote simply doesn't improve. Something I used to think was on the very unlikely side, but the more I see of Clegg's tactics and 'strategy' the less convinced I am that a lib dem poll boost in 2015 must be inevitable.
If all Clegg and his ostrich faction of spinners have left is lowering expectations to ever more ludicrous levels then they will soon find out that the voter might just take that at face value and wonder why the hell they should bother voting lib dem at all.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
Populus sub sample had LDs at 9% not really dire . Comres Euro poll sub sample had LD's retaining their Scottish Euro MP much to Stuart Dickson's disbelief .
What about your belief? What do you think the odds are for Lyon holding?
My own belief is less than 50% probably around 35%
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember more camaraderie between right-wing Tories and UKIP in the old days. Certainly nothing worse than exasperation with them. Now that UKIP are posing more of an actual threat there seems to be more hostility there.
As Leonard Cohen crooned:
"Ah you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline."
It will, however, be some time before UKIP take Berlin.
My point is, Dan (along with many others are trying to make the point that Evans was treated unfairly, and this may be so. However, I heard no such howls of outrage after the "PC Blakelock trial" and the acquittal of Jacobs. Care to explain the difference? (other than that one of them was banged up while awaiting trial)
One obvious difference is that there was a crime.
However, it may well be true that the Jacobs case should also not have been brought to court. That doesn't affect the point that Dan Hodges (in his third superb article in three days) makes.
In particular, how on earth did the CPS convince themselves that there was a better than 50% chance of a conviction?
Totally O/T - and apologies that I've been away for a couple of weeks. Is there a 'best practice' way of measuring a Parties strength in a multi-member ward? Clearly if every party submits 3 candidates then it is straightforward enough as Total/Total or Avg/Avg will be the same, but if a Party submits 1 candidate they will be very different numbers, and I am not sure what is the 'fairest' as I can see issues with both?
Perhaps the CPS and police have been influenced by events surrounding Savile and Cyril Smith, where power arguably weighed against the chances of a prosecution.
They are maybe trying a bit too hard to prove that fame, power and money are no bar to being prosecuted.
Conspiracy? incompetence, crossed wires? The workings of the law are a mystery to many. It goes to show though, that in the imagination of many, there should be one law for the privileged, and another for the rest. The evidence against Jacobs was even more suspect than that given at Evans' trial (guaranteed immunity, "rewards" and witness protection) in the case of the witnesses against Jacobs......why is the plight of Evans worthy of screeds of news sheet, and and Jacob's allowed to pass with barely a comment?
My point is, Dan (along with many others are trying to make the point that Evans was treated unfairly, and this may be so. However, I heard no such howls of outrage after the "PC Blakelock trial" and the acquittal of Jacobs. Care to explain the difference? (other than that one of them was banged up while awaiting trial)
I'm afraid I cannot help you there, but if you are looking for 'outraged citizens' perhaps you are visiting the wrong blog sites? - it is hardly surprising that political editors and politically astute contributors to a political betting site focus on politicians. here endith the discussion.
Why is there an issue with a UK bank being based in the UK pray tell.
The only 'issue' is the farcical SNP pretence that RBS is not a Scottish bank, headquartered in Scotland, runs by Scots, egged on by Eck.
As ever, wishing away the facts just makes the Nats look gullible. Keep up the good work.
It was regulated by London and Westminster and that's the root of the matter. Mr Salmond got - I hope - a good scare out of it, but it wasn't his party that (de)regulated the banks and it wasn't his party or his MPs and peers that benefited hugely from the resulting food fight in the City of London till it all went sour. Credit where credit is due.
"In May 2007, just days after taking office, the First Minister wrote to Goodwin about the possible deal on ABN, which was then the subject of huge speculation in the City.
“I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front,” Salmond said. “It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide."
lest we forget , who did the due diligence and who approved the merger, oh yes it was London where the UK banks are regulated and where the UK chancellor signed it off, Chuckle , Chuckle.
The evidence against Jacobs was even more suspect than that given at Evans' trial (guaranteed immunity, "rewards" and witness protection) in the case of the witnesses against Jacobs......why is the plight of Evans worthy of screeds of news sheet, and and Jacob's allowed to pass with barely a comment?
Better ask the media. I agree with you that the Jacobs case also raises some big questions.
There was also the absolutely astonishing fact that he was kept in prison for an extra night, having been found not guilty, because some jobsworths had gone home. Unbelievable.
The evidence against Jacobs was even more suspect than that given at Evans' trial (guaranteed immunity, "rewards" and witness protection) in the case of the witnesses against Jacobs......why is the plight of Evans worthy of screeds of news sheet, and and Jacob's allowed to pass with barely a comment?
There was also the absolutely astonishing fact that he was kept in prison for an extra night, having been found not guilty, because some jobsworths had gone home. Unbelievable.
I think the response is: WTF? Really? Surely at the instant the judge declares you not-guilty you are free and innocent man, with just as much right to stroll out of the court and into the nearest kebab shop as the judge, barristers, and spectating members of the public?
It was regulated by London and Westminster and that's the root of the matter. Mr Salmond got - I hope - a good scare out of it, but it wasn't his party that (de)regulated the banks and it wasn't his party or his MPs and peers that benefited hugely from the resulting food fight in the City of London till it all went sour. Credit where credit is due.
The story of RBS is the ultimate chip on the SNP shoulder.
Right up until the crash it was a Scottish success, part of the Arc of prosperity, with the full and vocal backing of Eck and his chums.
As soon as it went bang, the line became "how can we blame the English?"
It was Scottish disaster, made in Scotland, by Scots. Wishing that away is infantile, but a typical reflection of SNPers to any intrusion of reality on their fantasy World.
All hail the great and mighty prophet Eck, who will deliver us from England Evil and lead us to the promised land...</blockquote
You really are just a sad bitter twisted poor little man. Get up off all fours.
The CPS will have far more public tests to come, rest assured. Lately they have got it in the neck for cases that somehow didn't go through when many thought they should, but also why on earth some managed to go through at all. It's on both extremes they appear to be falling short. So while it's theoretically possible that indicates a 'balance', it's also quite possible that all is not well. We all know that the police, politicians and press are far from immune to incompetence (or worse), so I'm afraid the simple truth may be they are not alone.
It was regulated by London and Westminster and that's the root of the matter. Mr Salmond got - I hope - a good scare out of it, but it wasn't his party that (de)regulated the banks and it wasn't his party or his MPs and peers that benefited hugely from the resulting food fight in the City of London till it all went sour. Credit where credit is due.
The story of RBS is the ultimate chip on the SNP shoulder.
Right up until the crash it was a Scottish success, part of the Arc of prosperity, with the full and vocal backing of Eck and his chums.
As soon as it went bang, the line became "how can we blame the English?"
It was Scottish disaster, made in Scotland, by Scots. Wishing that away is infantile, but a typical reflection of SNPers to any intrusion of reality on their fantasy World.
All hail the great and mighty prophet Eck, who will deliver us from England Evil and lead us to the promised land...
The Scottish Position, as it's termed in the Karma Sutra.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
Unlikely, but certainly they are not a betting certainty NOT to implode completely. Scottish subsample (176 respondents) once again dire for the Lib Dems.
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
Populus sub sample had LDs at 9% not really dire . Comres Euro poll sub sample had LD's retaining their Scottish Euro MP much to Stuart Dickson's disbelief .
What about your belief? What do you think the odds are for Lyon holding?
My own belief is less than 50% probably around 35%
Would you rather bet 8/11 Clegg no longer LD leader on Jan 1 2016 or Even money he is?
Labour is now the party with the highest level of support from GPs, at 18.4%, up from 14.2% at the last general election. But the findings suggest its support is also in decline – a similar poll by GP magazine in 2012 found 25% of GPs planned to vote Labour in 2015.
GP support for the Conservative party has collapsed since the 2010 general election. GP’s latest poll found 45% of GPs backed the party in 2010, but just 16.6% planned to do so again in 2015.
Liberal Democrat support fared badly too, with 23.6% of GPs saying they voted for the party in 2010, but just 4.3% planning to do so in 2015.
Support for UKIP has risen significantly, from 0.3% of GPs backing it in 2010 to 7.3% planning to do so at the ballot box next year – almost double the proportion planning to support the Liberal Democrats.
Comments
LOL. Those PB poll rules need to be adhered to.
Or not...
Conservative Peter Bone is under investigation for expenses relating to his second home, MPs' expenses watchdog says. http://bbc.in/1lUQVVW
Unspoofable, isn't it?
7% would see zero LibDem MEP's? If so, and on topic, Clegg is toast. Some on here like to talk about toxic Tories, but Clegg is the political equivalent of Botulinum Toxin type H
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4442/20131015/botulinum-toxin-type-h-deadliest-known-antidote-discovered.htm
Times reports new expenses story. Peter Bone facing Standards Cssnr Qs, Mercer report due soon. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4060463.ece …
Joe Public @jpublik 56m
Peter Bone, who denies wrongdoing, has been contacted by standards commissioner over his expenses. Confirmation here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-
MagsNews @MagsNews Apr 8
Peter Bone says he's been doorstepping recently and the only issue that came up was immigration. Ref to expenses came up once.
Unspoofable. isn't it?
*chortle*
It does strike me that we need two new variants of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Second Law (PB Amendments): as the length of a PB comment thread lengthens, the probability of derailment to discuss Scotch nationalism approaches 1.0
Godwin's Third Law (DT Amendments): as the length of a DT comment thread lengthens, the probability of a blazer trying to close it down by shouting "VOTE UKIP" approaches 1.0
Well that's just not true is it? I bet almost everyone on here could name more than one.
Total Cost (2012-2013)
CONSTITUENCY AND STAFFING COSTS
Office Costs
£19,908.48
Staffing Expenses
£6,823.15
Payroll
£125,107.85
DIRECT PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES
Accommodation
£17,607.38
Travel and Subsistence £11,127.78
TOTAL
£180,574.64
To search for full details of these claims, please click here.
Connected Parties in the MP's Employment
Jeanette Bone £45,000 - £49,999 Office Manager
It is pure speculation that she will become 'politically involved' - until she does so, I would suggest (as with all other political spouses) she should be off limits. - But that's only my opinion of course.
Oh, wait...
Poor old PB Cameroons. They'd better hope the papers are bored with this kind of story.
LOL
Doctors implant lab-grown vagina
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26885335
Only a few years then to lab-grown designer babies - who will be parented by the state - normal babies will be forbidden or exterminated.
It's the same grasp of the issues as their belief that better buildings make a better school
http://www.libdems.org.uk
Play the man, not the ball. Wins every time, divvie.
'Currently only 28.5% of Scots women support Yes.'
Didn't realize Salmond's women problem was as bad as that.
The circle of life, as Elton warbled.
Play the man's wife, not the ball. Wins every time, Mr Pee.
I can' speak for him or the SNP, but I'd say they are very important. Apart from the Scottish end, what happens with UKIP will have a real bearing on how people in Scotland view the future of the UK and therefore on how they vote in the referendum. The tricky bit is how subtle they are - do they take a large UKIP vote as a simple indicator of Toryism run riot, or do they decide it means a Tory victory is less likely? Perhaps they will balance out ...
Keep in mind while the Cleggite strategy was still 'Farage will make Clegg look good' they had to commit to it and make him the very public face. As you say though you would think at least some lib dems weren't trapped in the bubble with the Clegg and are capable of grasping the obvious. That Clegg is indeed toxic.
As I said the other what the lib dems are certain to remember now about the May elections is Clegg's desperate strategy and just how badly that went. He'll have nobody to shift the blame to now and it's untenable to keep lowering expectations to the point where the Clegg leadership sounds like they think a lib dem vote is a wasted vote and don't seem too bothered about that outcome.
Care for a bet on that?
(cue exit stage left for Monica)
http://www.libdems.org.uk/watch_live_nick_v_nigel_debate
I don't have the money at hand to tie up on loads of long term bets, but if I did, 8/11 looks decent value to me...
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/nick-clegg-to-be-lib-dem-leader-on-jan-1st-2016
What part of this don't Clegg's ostrich faction get??
ICM
Has what you've heard in the debate made you more or less likely to vote LD in the Euros?
More likely 7% Less likely 43% No diff 44%
As for that letter, just have a look at the wording of it. It's not exactly running the City of London is it? I would apply the test I always apply to any unionist criticism of the SNP and of Mr Salmond personally. Firstly, to what degree is it in hindsight (I.e. do the unionists, and especially Labour, actually say in advance what they would do, or just wait and see what the SNP etc say and do before they do the complete opposite?) I don't remember many Tories or Labour politicians saying how dreadful the letter was. Most seemed to think the deal referred to a good idea at the time.
And secondly, how would the unionists have behaved if he had written, say, a letter to Mr Godwin saying how terrible his plans were and so on? He'd have been excoriated by the unionists for doing down Scottish jobs, trying to destabilise the market confidence, interfering in something where he had no authority under the devolution settlement, etc. etc., as seen on so many occasions.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100267338/nigel-evans-case-the-police-and-cps-have-to-stop-dragging-innocent-people-through-the-dirt/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Normally the value is backing things to stay the same, but I can't see him surviving a Euro debacle and halving the vote at a GE
I was expecting 1/3 he'd be gone 9/4 to stay, so 8/11 to go looks good value to me
YouGov is assume is slightly more recent. The Tories are stuck on 32-34 at the moment, Labour on 35-38. If Miller is going to take the share down, you'd expect to see so,e 31s creeping in, unlikely it will boost Labour, but maybe UKIP will pick a point or two up from it.
At the moment I can see it being anything from a tiny Lab majority to hung parliament, Tory largest party with somewhere near neck and neck looking plausible. The Tory strategy has to be hitting their 2010 share leading in to the campaign, which would probably ensure no chance of a Lab majority, anything they can squeak above that would take them into largest party territory.
Just can't see Tory majority happening. They are too far adrift in the North and Scotland, and have too little to gain in the Midlands and South to do it, unless the Lib Dems completely implode, which is unlikely..
It's going to be a long long year.
Before the crash the SNP were claiming RBS as a Scottish success story. Now they are claiming it as an English failure.
Andy Murray syndrome
"It’s now over 3 years and 11 months since the last election. Early next month this government will reach its four year anniversary, and something rather strange will happen – the opposition won’t have called for an election. Not even once. Not even half-heartedly......
We have a government with little governing agenda remaining, and an opposition party which has had a poll lead for over two years. So why isn’t Ed Miliband calling for an early general election?
Of course, the advent of fixed term parliaments has changed everything. We now know the date of the next election – it’s been set in stone for years now. A mechanism designed to bind together a coalition and dissuade the Lib Dems from quitting the coalition after a few years now seems an irreversible part of our flexible constitution. That’s had a huge impact on Ed Miliband’s leadership – as the first opposition leader to know exactly when election day will be. That’s mean the rhythm and cadence of the parliament has been totally different. Selections, policy making, how far and how fast to go on messaging – all have been skewed out of their ordinary timetables by the fixed-term. Where once an opposition leader – especially one with a consistent poll-lead – would have been calling for the people to have their say, either because they thought they could win, or because such an act of oppositional bravado was what was expected.
Ed Miliband will do nothing of the sort. Labour have adopted the fixed-term parliament with few quibbles – and accepted it as if it were an inalienable fact. Of course it isn’t, if David Cameron wanted a general election in six weeks he could have one. But it now suits Miliband and Labour to wait until 2015. The Labour Party would not be ready – organisationally, politically and certainly not in policy terms – if Cameron called an election today. And yet, whilst it would be made for Labour to clamour for an early election that it’s not prepared for, it’s hard not to argue that our already narrowed lead could come under increased fire in the next 13 months. The economic situation seems far stronger, the Tories have the money to throw at a long and protracted campaign, and they have the set pieces – conference and another budget – to move the polls and hurt us.
Calling for an election today might seem crazy, but we may look back in a year and realise that fighting an election in 2014 would have been easier than fighting it in 2015. And all the while, Tory MPs are at work in their constituencies, assiduously developing an incumbency factor. The longer this parliament drags on, the bigger impact that will have…"
Doesn't Dan know that everyone taken to court is "innocent"? It's the way the system is supposed to work.
Of course, we could always do away with Judges, lawyers and juries, and deem everyone guilty on arrest.
It feels more like coming back from two down at half time than nil nil.
Foreign Office diplomat banned from giving interviews after winning £80,000 economics prize for essay on how Britain could leave EU"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10758301/Diplomat-who-won-EU-exit-essay-prize-silenced-by-government.html
The odds are 8/11 Clegg to be gone by Jan 1 2016, and EVS he is still LD leader
8/11 value to me
Agreed *considers tying money up for 18 momths*
Would you:
a) Cut a deal with Clegg, who whatever his faults doesn't seem to be a rigid ideologue who would be impossible to work with. Move straight into Number 10, stay there for at least five years.
b) Insist that the LibDems get a new leader, them hang around for months while they pick them, and hope whoever gets the job decides to govern with you instead of scooping up your new ex-LibDem supporters, making up some principled-sounding objection to working with you and fighting a new election perfectly timed for their bounce.
More wonderful news for 'the party of the NHS' from its fiefdom in the People's Republic of Wales.
Vote ed to wait an extra 100 days for an operation....
Has anyone here lumped on wee Danny to hold ?
Khaled Z @der_bluthund 12h
Peter Bone, the Tory MP for Wellingborough, is being investigated over expenses claims in relation to his second home in London.
AN @howabouthonesty
@RippedOffBriton Peter Bone's wife is the highest paid of all MPs spouses.
Incidentally there's been an interesting development in the Conservative messaging. Rather than portraying UKIP as a load of wrecking counter-productive nutters, the line that Cameron and other ministers have been using is that 'UKIP simply can't deliver'. That's probably a wise approach for encouring the defectors to reverse their defection.
But in those circumstances his chances of surviving the next 7 months (the bet was for Jan 2016) are, in my opinion, pretty slim. It's not as if there is a shortage of other contenders...
My point is, Dan (along with many others are trying to make the point that Evans was treated unfairly, and this may be so.
However, I heard no such howls of outrage after the "PC Blakelock trial" and the acquittal of Jacobs.
Care to explain the difference? (other than that one of them was banged up while awaiting trial)
I think it's fair to say most people do expect the lib dem vote to pick up a bit in 2015.
Of course it's by how little or how much could make all the difference.
It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the lib dem vote simply doesn't improve.
Something I used to think was on the very unlikely side, but the more I see of Clegg's tactics and 'strategy' the less convinced I am that a lib dem poll boost in 2015 must be inevitable.
If all Clegg and his ostrich faction of spinners have left is lowering expectations to ever more ludicrous levels then they will soon find out that the voter might just take that at face value and wonder why the hell they should bother voting lib dem at all.
"Ah you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline."
It will, however, be some time before UKIP take Berlin.
However, it may well be true that the Jacobs case should also not have been brought to court. That doesn't affect the point that Dan Hodges (in his third superb article in three days) makes.
In particular, how on earth did the CPS convince themselves that there was a better than 50% chance of a conviction?
They are maybe trying a bit too hard to prove that fame, power and money are no bar to being prosecuted.
Conspiracy? incompetence, crossed wires? The workings of the law are a mystery to many.
It goes to show though, that in the imagination of many, there should be one law for the privileged, and another for the rest.
The evidence against Jacobs was even more suspect than that given at Evans' trial (guaranteed immunity, "rewards" and witness protection) in the case of the witnesses against Jacobs......why is the plight of Evans worthy of screeds of news sheet, and and Jacob's allowed to pass with barely a comment?
There was also the absolutely astonishing fact that he was kept in prison for an extra night, having been found not guilty, because some jobsworths had gone home. Unbelievable.
"here endith the discussion"
/me Touches his forelock and backs out of the room bowing
GP support for the Conservative party has collapsed since the 2010 general election. GP’s latest poll found 45% of GPs backed the party in 2010, but just 16.6% planned to do so again in 2015.
Liberal Democrat support fared badly too, with 23.6% of GPs saying they voted for the party in 2010, but just 4.3% planning to do so in 2015.
Support for UKIP has risen significantly, from 0.3% of GPs backing it in 2010 to 7.3% planning to do so at the ballot box next year – almost double the proportion planning to support the Liberal Democrats.
http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1289800/exclusive-gps-abandon-lib-dems-tories/