Imo, that's looking good for a UKIP gain because they could only need a very low share of the vote to take it, possibly only 30% or so. The Tories operated at maximum capacity in Cornwall in 2010 and I doubt "posh boys showering goodies on fellow rich people" will really go down well there, so they'll probably suffer a big drop. The Lib Dems are holding up relatively well in the rural parts of the southwest, but "relatively well" for their abysmal standards still probably means a drop of about 8%. And Labour did decently in the locals in that constituency last year and might eat up some votes, all of which could drag the winning post back quite far.
The LibDems seem to be getting most of the flak on PB.com this evening but in fact both polls are really bad news for the Tories - just when swingback is supposed to be taking effect they are going backwards. Not that surprising I suppose considering Dave's hopeless, bungling handling of the Maria Miller saga over the past 2 weeks during which time he totally failed to understand the public mood.
Yep. Still smells suspicious. And I'm not a Lib Dem member or supporter. For one thing, are we seeing anything near that collapse in their support in local elections? I know LEs and GEs are different, but I still prefer cast votes to polling.
Lib Dems always, always, ALWAYS do better in local elections than general elections. LD councillors are generally very good at doing things in the local community that pull in people who would never consider voting for the party in a general election. Certainly there's anecdotes a plenty of canvassers (from all parties) in recent years hearing comments along the lines of "the local Lib Dems have done a good job round here so I'll vote for them, but I won't vote for the sellouts in parliament again before hell freezes over".
Even in 2010, despite the late surge they got ahead of the general election, the 23% they got was STILL below their average share in the local elections in the previous 4 years (26%, which already was quite mediocre by LDs' standards). So, with the party getting 14/15% in recent local elections, that would suggest their absolute maximum next year is 11/12% with the local factor stripped out.
Much of what you say re local and GE Lib Dem vote share is correct . however the main reason for the higher vote share in local elections is the lower and differential turnouts which particularly when Labour is in office depresses the Labour vote share in local elections . Compare the 2010 v 2007/2008 Met results for example .
Any poll that shows the Lib Dems on just 7% smells suspicious to me.
In reality they wouldn't go below 10-12% because of personal votes for various MPs and candidates, something which national opinion polls can't take into account.
That gets to the crux of the matter. It's been widely accepted that the lib dem VI will naturally go up for the 2015 election because of factors like that. It seems reasonable enough but just look at what happened to Clegg when he was up against Farage on a subject that was far less explosive for any lib dem inclined voters than his own record in government will be in the 2015 debates.
Clegg and his spinners thought they couldn't lose because Farage would be an easy contrast and help nullify Clegg's association with the tories. It simply did not work. Clegg was and is toxic. You put him in the 2015 debates alongside little Ed and Cammie and he's going to struggle hugely. Every single policy promise Clegg makes will not only have to be believed by the public but be robust enough to survive a "red line" test, whereby he will be asked continually which policies he would dump if he ended up in a coalition again. It all comes down to trust in the end after all. Which means, though there will be MPs with a strong personal following, there won't be all that many who can feel anything like 'safe' if things keep going as they have been.
Imo, that's looking good for a UKIP gain because they could only need a very low share of the vote to take it, possibly only 30% or so. The Tories operated at maximum capacity in Cornwall in 2010 and I doubt "posh boys showering goodies on fellow rich people" will really go down well there, so they'll probably suffer a big drop. The Lib Dems are holding up relatively well in the rural parts of the southwest, but "relatively well" for their abysmal standards still probably means a drop of about 8%. And Labour did decently in the locals in that constituency last year and might eat up some votes, all of which could drag the winning post back quite far.
I agree — that's why I included it my list. There are constituencies where UKIP could easily poll more than 30% without winning the seat such as Christchurch, Bootle, Castle Point, Worthing West, Great Grimsby.
The best bets for UKIP are where there's a big split in votes between the other parties, like Camborne, Thanet South, Torbay, Easteligh.
Hill's saying referendum could be a photo finish (ignoring the various arses on here obviously):
'“Although the odds make ‘no’ a relatively warm favorite, they have changed quite significantly in recent months,” William Hill spokesman Graeme Sharpe said in an e-mail. “It would be no surprise to see them coming together even more before the day of the vote. It could yet be a photo finish.”
...William Hill said two customers staked 5,000 pounds on Scots voting for independence, while one man in his late 50s in Glasgow made three bets totaling 200,000 pounds on a “no” vote. He stands to make a profit of 36,666 pounds if polls are right and the majority opts to keep the status quo, the bookmaker said.
“We have never taken a bigger bet than this on any political subject,” Sharpe said.'
Any poll that shows the Lib Dems on just 7% smells suspicious to me.
In reality they wouldn't go below 10-12% because of personal votes for various MPs and candidates, something which national opinion polls can't take into account.
That gets to the crux of the matter. It's been widely accepted that the lib dem VI will naturally go up for the 2015 election because of factors like that. It seems reasonable enough but just look at what happened to Clegg when he was up against Farage on a subject that was far less explosive for any lib dem inclined voters than his own record in government will be in the 2015 debates.
Clegg and his spinners thought they couldn't lose because Farage would be an easy contrast and help nullify Clegg's association with the tories. It simply did not work. Clegg was and is toxic. You put him in the 2015 debates alongside little Ed and Cammie and he's going to struggle hugely. Every single policy promise Clegg makes will not only have to be believed by the public but be robust enough to survive a "red line" test, whereby he will be asked continually which policies he would dump if he ended up in a coalition again. It all comes down to trust in the end after all. Which means, though there will be MPs with a strong personal following, there won't be all that many who can feel anything like 'safe' if things keep going as they have been.
Yes, but if Messrs Cameron and Miliband are also participating, Mr Clegg won't be the only one who is obviously lying.
Yep. Still smells suspicious. And I'm not a Lib Dem member or supporter. For one thing, are we seeing anything near that collapse in their support in local elections? I know LEs and GEs are different, but I still prefer cast votes to polling.
Lib Dems always, always, ALWAYS do better in local elections than general elections. LD councillors are generally very good at doing things in the local community that pull in people who would never consider voting for the party in a general election. Certainly there's anecdotes a plenty of canvassers (from all parties) in recent years hearing comments along the lines of "the local Lib Dems have done a good job round here so I'll vote for them, but I won't vote for the sellouts in parliament again before hell freezes over".
Even in 2010, despite the late surge they got ahead of the general election, the 23% they got was STILL below their average share in the local elections in the previous 4 years (26%, which already was quite mediocre by LDs' standards). So, with the party getting 14/15% in recent local elections, that would suggest their absolute maximum next year is 11/12% with the local factor stripped out.
Can't argue with that on the local Vs GE. It's yet another thing the Clegg leadership simply didn't seem to understand. The lib dems were quite obviously a grass roots focused party so when Clegg and the quartet sprung so many coalition 'surprises' on those grass roots from the top there is naturally going to be a price to pay. It's fairly easy to justify working hard to try and keep local councils and things perceived as well away from Clegg and the coalition, but motivating those activists to do everything they can to keep Clegg himself leader and to endorse all that the coalition has done? Good luck with that.
Any poll that shows the Lib Dems on just 7% smells suspicious to me.
In reality they wouldn't go below 10-12% because of personal votes for various MPs and candidates, something which national opinion polls can't take into account.
That gets to the crux of the matter. It's been widely accepted that the lib dem VI will naturally go up for the 2015 election because of factors like that. It seems reasonable enough but just look at what happened to Clegg when he was up against Farage on a subject that was far less explosive for any lib dem inclined voters than his own record in government will be in the 2015 debates.
Clegg and his spinners thought they couldn't lose because Farage would be an easy contrast and help nullify Clegg's association with the tories. It simply did not work. Clegg was and is toxic. You put him in the 2015 debates alongside little Ed and Cammie and he's going to struggle hugely. Every single policy promise Clegg makes will not only have to be believed by the public but be robust enough to survive a "red line" test, whereby he will be asked continually which policies he would dump if he ended up in a coalition again. It all comes down to trust in the end after all. Which means, though there will be MPs with a strong personal following, there won't be all that many who can feel anything like 'safe' if things keep going as they have been.
Yes, but if Messrs Cameron and Miliband are also participating, Mr Clegg won't be the only one who is obviously lying.
In the debate of the blind the one eyed man is king etc. It's all relative of course.
Imo, that's looking good for a UKIP gain because they could only need a very low share of the vote to take it, possibly only 30% or so. The Tories operated at maximum capacity in Cornwall in 2010 and I doubt "posh boys showering goodies on fellow rich people" will really go down well there, so they'll probably suffer a big drop. The Lib Dems are holding up relatively well in the rural parts of the southwest, but "relatively well" for their abysmal standards still probably means a drop of about 8%. And Labour did decently in the locals in that constituency last year and might eat up some votes, all of which could drag the winning post back quite far.
So, the least crap candidate wins? FPTP is wonderful isn't it.
Any poll that shows the Lib Dems on just 7% smells suspicious to me.
In reality they wouldn't go below 10-12% because of personal votes for various MPs and candidates, something which national opinion polls can't take into account.
That gets to the crux of the matter. It's been widely accepted that the lib dem VI will naturally go up for the 2015 election because of factors like that. It seems reasonable enough but just look at what happened to Clegg when he was up against Farage on a subject that was far less explosive for any lib dem inclined voters than his own record in government will be in the 2015 debates.
Clegg and his spinners thought they couldn't lose because Farage would be an easy contrast and help nullify Clegg's association with the tories. It simply did not work. Clegg was and is toxic. You put him in the 2015 debates alongside little Ed and Cammie and he's going to struggle hugely. Every single policy promise Clegg makes will not only have to be believed by the public but be robust enough to survive a "red line" test, whereby he will be asked continually which policies he would dump if he ended up in a coalition again. It all comes down to trust in the end after all. Which means, though there will be MPs with a strong personal following, there won't be all that many who can feel anything like 'safe' if things keep going as they have been.
Yes, but if Messrs Cameron and Miliband are also participating, Mr Clegg won't be the only one who is obviously lying.
No but Clegg will be the only one who immediately after the 2010 election reneged on a manifesto commitment that had long been a part of LibDem campaigning, and who then went on to issue an apology in which he said, in more or less as many words, that no LibDem campaign promise can ever be relied on, as it is liable to be abandoned in coalition talks.
Mr. L, in Clegg's defence the very nature of coalition is that manifesto pledges cease being solemn promises and become instead optional. That's one of the main reasons I'm against them.
Hill's saying referendum could be a photo finish (ignoring the various arses on here obviously):
'“Although the odds make ‘no’ a relatively warm favorite, they have changed quite significantly in recent months,” William Hill spokesman Graeme Sharpe said in an e-mail. “It would be no surprise to see them coming together even more before the day of the vote. It could yet be a photo finish.”
...William Hill said two customers staked 5,000 pounds on Scots voting for independence, while one man in his late 50s in Glasgow made three bets totaling 200,000 pounds on a “no” vote. He stands to make a profit of 36,666 pounds if polls are right and the majority opts to keep the status quo, the bookmaker said.
“We have never taken a bigger bet than this on any political subject,” Sharpe said.'
Imo, that's looking good for a UKIP gain because they could only need a very low share of the vote to take it, possibly only 30% or so. The Tories operated at maximum capacity in Cornwall in 2010 and I doubt "posh boys showering goodies on fellow rich people" will really go down well there, so they'll probably suffer a big drop. The Lib Dems are holding up relatively well in the rural parts of the southwest, but "relatively well" for their abysmal standards still probably means a drop of about 8%. And Labour did decently in the locals in that constituency last year and might eat up some votes, all of which could drag the winning post back quite far.
So, the least crap candidate wins? FPTP is wonderful isn't it.
Why single out FPTP? When voting under *any* system the best outcome you can possibly hope for is that the least crap candidate wins.
Usually that doesn't happen.
...although with the demise of the yellows the situation is improving slightly.
Clegg has been an unmitigated disaster for the Libs, electorally. When to pull the plug?
Hopefully not for a very long time.
I think the calculus is the same as during the Brown years. That while the leader is unpopular, the instability involved in ditching him so close to an election would be even more unpopular.
Clegg has been an unmitigated disaster for the Libs, electorally. When to pull the plug?
Hopefully not for a very long time.
I think the calculus is the same as during the Brown years. That while the leader is unpopular, the instability involved in ditching him so close to an election would be even more unpopular.
Let's hope that that is the logic poisoning Lib Dem minds.
Imo, that's looking good for a UKIP gain because they could only need a very low share of the vote to take it, possibly only 30% or so. The Tories operated at maximum capacity in Cornwall in 2010 and I doubt "posh boys showering goodies on fellow rich people" will really go down well there, so they'll probably suffer a big drop. The Lib Dems are holding up relatively well in the rural parts of the southwest, but "relatively well" for their abysmal standards still probably means a drop of about 8%. And Labour did decently in the locals in that constituency last year and might eat up some votes, all of which could drag the winning post back quite far.
So, the least crap candidate wins? FPTP is wonderful isn't it.
A lot of people would say a system where the least crap candidate wins is a pretty good system.
"The Canadian province’s decision not to hold another referendum has profound lessons for Scotland, says Brian Wilson
In 1995, the people of Quebec voted by less than one per cent to avoid secession from Canada. Last week, they voted overwhelmingly not to go through the whole rigmarole again by inflicting a crushing defeat on the separatist party which was proposing another referendum.
The analogy with our own situation is highly relevant. For supporters of independence, their perennial, unspoken motto is that they only have to win once. There is no such thing as “giving it a shot”, on the basis of sale and return.
There would be no opportunity to think again, as the Quebecois have clearly done. If that one per cent had tipped the other way, the huge majority against independence which now exists would be wasting their time saying so. They would just have been left to count the cost or ship out."
Aw, Scotland's most popular politician with the most popular leader of a UK administration at the conference of the UK's most popular governing party. Marvellous, ain't it?
Aw, Scotland's most popular politician with the most popular leader of a UK administration at the conference of the UK's most popular governing party. Marvellous, ain't it?
According to that article, the Belgian government have an agreement with the Dutch to house their prisoners in the Netherlands. We should do the same. I have doubt it would be cheaper and more humane that confining them in our overcrowded estate, in the custody of HMPS, G4S, Serco and Sodexo. We should also emulate the Dutch example by abolishing a series of victimless crimes that needlessly increase the prison population.
As Sir Robert Mark, a former Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis once said, the sign of a good police force is that catches more criminals than it employs. The police, which contrary to Peel's intentions have become an increasingly centralised continental-style standing army, still struggle to pass that litmus test.
According to that article, the Belgian government have an agreement with the Dutch to house their prisoners in the Netherlands. We should do the same. I have doubt it would be cheaper and more humane that confining them in our overcrowded estate, in the custody of HMPS, G4S, Serco and Sodexo. We should also emulate the Dutch example by abolishing a series of victimless crimes that needlessly increase the prison population.
Bringing back the death penalty would deter a few potential criminals and prevent some repeat offending too.
The LibDems seem to be getting most of the flak on PB.com this evening but in fact both polls are really bad news for the Tories - just when swingback is supposed to be taking effect they are going backwards. Not that surprising I suppose considering Dave's hopeless, bungling handling of the Maria Miller saga over the past 2 weeks during which time he totally failed to understand the public mood.
The public mood was stirred up by outfits like The Daily Bullygraph (aka ukipgraph and nimbygraph) .
Why this weekly fiasco with YouGov, where we either have to go to the West End just to buy a copy, magnify the front page tweet 400% or work it out via algebra based on a range of clues?
For the avoidance of doubt, the following isn't permissible
1) Accusing pollsters of push polling is not acceptable.
2) Calling other posters twits isn't acceptable.
As the moderators aren't on 24/7 - Any posters who repeatedly violate this rule )(or any other rules) will find their posts automatically go into the pending folder, when they will be released by the moderating team when we check the pending folder.
More than a whiff of nasty homophobia about the Mail story
The Indy ran with it yesterday. MoS seem to have far more detail and are frontpaging it. Which tends to suggest that somebody got wind of what the MoS were doing and threw some details to the Indy as a spoiler and to mitigate it. Pretty standard practice for Fleet Street.
Those of a more rightwing disposition should take the normal precautions, and cover eyes and ears.
More madness along the lines of Blanchflower and Hollande as witnessed by the penultimate paragraph:
The solutions – a top income tax rate of up to 80%, effective inheritance tax, proper property taxes and, because the issue is global, a global wealth tax – are currently inconceivable.
I wonder if anyone at the Guardian has the wit to realise that mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
nigel4england Exactly, Hollande's 75% tax on corporations paying more than a million euros a year worked out well didn't it high unemployment and sluggish growth and punishment for the Socialists at the polls. We tried exactly the same in 1979 with income tax at the top rate of around 90% and the wealthy moved abroad, just as the rich in France have moved to London
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
You need to look harder.
They've polled 6% in this parliament.
With opinium at the end of May 2013
You are indeed correct!
Just think 4 years ago the Lib Dems were polling 34% and were first in the polls, ahead of both the Tories and Labour.
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
You need to look harder.
They've polled 6% in this parliament.
With opinium at the end of May 2013
You are indeed correct!
They also polled 6% with Opinium on 12th July 2013.
"Downing Street is braced for a “disastrous” European election in the wake of the Maria Miller expenses scandal as a new summary of the opinion polls suggest the Tories will fall to third place. Conservative sources privately concede that David Cameron has all but given up hope of beating the UK Independence Party when voters go to the polls next month to elect Members of the European Parliament."
"Downing Street is braced for a “disastrous” European election in the wake of the Maria Miller expenses scandal as a new summary of the opinion polls suggest the Tories will fall to third place. Conservative sources privately concede that David Cameron has all but given up hope of beating the UK Independence Party when voters go to the polls next month to elect Members of the European Parliament."
Comments along these lines may have been made earlier, but, having just checked UK Polling Report, 7% is indeed the lowest the Lib Dems have been in this parliament, having previously hit that nadir several times, most recently 6 months ago.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
You need to look harder.
They've polled 6% in this parliament.
With opinium at the end of May 2013
You are indeed correct!
They also polled 6% with Opinium on 12th July 2013.
The mirror image of that is that the 20% for UKIP is their best score with any pollster since they hit that mark on 12 July last year with Survation. They've not been higher since a 22% on 3 July, also with Survation. 20% is, however, their highest ever level with ComRes, just surpassing the 19% they last achieved on 16 January this year.
From that telegraph article: "Tory strategists regard Ukip as the biggest hurdle to winning a Commons majority in 2015 and are attempting to win back voters with a series of hardline policies on EU reform and immigration."
Tory strategists can put forward whatever policies they like. With their record since 2010, I and many others won't be voting for them in 2015 whatever false promises they make. Sorry Dave, we don't believe anything your party says anymore.
Just think 4 years ago the Lib Dems were polling 34% and were first in the polls, ahead of both the Tories and Labour.
Tuition fees. Whilst punters are quite happy to equate "politician" with "liar", for Clegg there is a whole new vault of hell. Never before has a party leader been caught out in such a barefaced lie -tuition fees were the keystone of the LibDems campaign with posed pledge card photos and everything. So the party reversing position to vote for a big increase plus press reports providing written proof that Clegg had no intention to keep the pledge as his candidates were forced to pose for the cameras turned him into the biggest liar in political history.
" I'm sorry" he said, not as sorry as his former voters say they are.
If Tories had won a small majority and the economy was the same as it is now, would the LDs, by retaining the Lab-Lib switchers, have given the Tories a lead in the polling, even with a Ukip surge?
If Tories had won a small majority and the economy was the same as it is now, would the LDs, by retaining the Lab-Lib switchers, have given the Tories a lead in the polling, even with a Ukip surge?
The entire political scene might be different. For instance, would Ed still have won over his brother? With the Lib Dems possibly positioned marginally further to the left outside coalition, would Labour have chosen the more centrist brother?
I actually think this coalition has worked quite well, with few of the problems I and others forecast. But a pure Conservative government would have looked very different. For one thing, we would not have had the current legislative slowdown. As someone who quite likes governments passing fewer rather than more laws, this is a good thing.
With a weak Conservative majority government, a Labour party marginally nearer the centre (and with a much more capable leader), the Lib Dems would have been able to soak up many protest votes.
Then there are the things, such as boundary reforms, which probably would have been passed.
Just think 4 years ago the Lib Dems were polling 34% and were first in the polls, ahead of both the Tories and Labour.
Tuition fees. Whilst punters are quite happy to equate "politician" with "liar", for Clegg there is a whole new vault of hell. Never before has a party leader been caught out in such a barefaced lie -tuition fees were the keystone of the LibDems campaign with posed pledge card photos and everything. So the party reversing position to vote for a big increase plus press reports providing written proof that Clegg had no intention to keep the pledge as his candidates were forced to pose for the cameras turned him into the biggest liar in political history.
" I'm sorry" he said, not as sorry as his former voters say they are.
He also stated after the election that before the election he had changed his mind about the LD approach to deficit reduction and economic policy he espoused during the election campaign even though he continued to advocate it. Throw in the Rose Garden and the overfond embrace of the Tories the LDs pursued before belatedly opting for differentiation, and really Clegg has no-one to blame but himself. Basically, he's nowhere near good enough.
Rather ludicrously, he blames UKIP for not backing him up.
Typical woolly journalism. There's a load of waffle, but I'd like to be told what sort of benefit fraud he committed, and how much he took the taxpayer for. We aren't even told what crime he was found guilty of.
In reality, Others would probably do even better under PR as their vote became viable.
If the PR system used relatively small constituencies - e.g. STV - the likelihood is that the Lib Dems would suffer even further as they missed out on the threshold in the majority of constituencies, and failed to balance that with second MPs in areas of moderate strength.
Rather ludicrously, he blames UKIP for not backing him up.
Typical woolly journalism. There's a load of waffle, but I'd like to be told what sort of benefit fraud he committed, and how much he took the taxpayer for. We aren't even told what crime he was found guilty of.
And as I go to the front page of the Cambridge News, I find the following story:
A UKIP councillor accused of branding children in care “takers” from society said he was “deeply sorry” after an investigation found him guilty of breaching the members’ code of conduct.
In Mid Beds it is quite safe to vote kipper, being such safe Tory seats.
Blaming Cameron for going into coalition is folly though. In 2010 that was the only tenable government. The alternative would have been an unstable minority government and swift second election, against a Brown free Labour party, perhaps with different leader.
Cameron won 97 seats. Those who despise his failure to win a majority should remember how poorly the more right wing leaders in 2001 and 2005 fared. Without Cameron we would probably had a further term of Brown.
The FPTP process produced a Con-LD coalition that broadly represented what the country wanted: Some economic and fiscal sanity but combined with a socially liberal outlook.
Kippers are like the Tea Party in the states, pursuing an uncompromising agenda that puts their opponents in a much stronger position. There they kept Obama in power, here it will be to put the two Eds at the controls.
From that telegraph article: "Tory strategists regard Ukip as the biggest hurdle to winning a Commons majority in 2015 and are attempting to win back voters with a series of hardline policies on EU reform and immigration."
Tory strategists can put forward whatever policies they like. With their record since 2010, I and many others won't be voting for them in 2015 whatever false promises they make. Sorry Dave, we don't believe anything your party says anymore.
From that telegraph article: "Tory strategists regard Ukip as the biggest hurdle to winning a Commons majority in 2015 and are attempting to win back voters with a series of hardline policies on EU reform and immigration."
Tory strategists can put forward whatever policies they like. With their record since 2010, I and many others won't be voting for them in 2015 whatever false promises they make. Sorry Dave, we don't believe anything your party says anymore.
And therein lies the Tories problem.
As a kipper I am happy to admit that Osborne has done a fantastic job with the economy, we now have growth but without the mass unemployment that was predicted, and Gove is also doing a good job breaking up the teachers unions and their disgusting stranglehold of our kids education.
However I want out of the EU and no amount of spinning will convince me that anything Dave says on the matter has any semblance of the truth attached to it.
ComRes/IoS S Mirror: My family is better off now than at the GE2010 Agree 20% Disagree 59% Can't remember back that far 21% It's the government's fault that I am not better off than I am 100%
Comments
Not that surprising I suppose considering Dave's hopeless, bungling handling of the Maria Miller saga over the past 2 weeks during which time he totally failed to understand the public mood.
http://t.co/DFWy0bbRu8
Clegg and his spinners thought they couldn't lose because Farage would be an easy contrast and help nullify Clegg's association with the tories. It simply did not work. Clegg was and is toxic. You put him in the 2015 debates alongside little Ed and Cammie and he's going to struggle hugely. Every single policy promise Clegg makes will not only have to be believed by the public but be robust enough to survive a "red line" test, whereby he will be asked continually which policies he would dump if he ended up in a coalition again. It all comes down to trust in the end after all. Which means, though there will be MPs with a strong personal following, there won't be all that many who can feel anything like 'safe' if things keep going as they have been.
The SNP have always been an uneasy alliance of right of centre and left of centre folk.
The best bets for UKIP are where there's a big split in votes between the other parties, like Camborne, Thanet South, Torbay, Easteligh.
http://t.co/VBgDNsxbwv
The Miller case was badly handled. She was there long enough to do damage, then left to damage Cameron in that way too.
'“Although the odds make ‘no’ a relatively warm favorite, they have changed quite significantly in recent months,” William Hill spokesman Graeme Sharpe said in an e-mail. “It would be no surprise to see them coming together even more before the day of the vote. It could yet be a photo finish.”
...William Hill said two customers staked 5,000 pounds on Scots voting for independence, while one man in his late 50s in Glasgow made three bets totaling 200,000 pounds on a “no” vote. He stands to make a profit of 36,666 pounds if polls are right and the majority opts to keep the status quo, the bookmaker said.
“We have never taken a bigger bet than this on any political subject,” Sharpe said.'
http://tinyurl.com/q93ubxd
Surprised that that's their biggest political bet (though it is a biggie).
It's the way Clegg, Alexander and their ilk have steered the party - laughably inept.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27005783
I wonder if the Kiev Government will follow Mr. Y0kel's advice and take the risky decisive approach, instead of the riskier indecisive approach.
Usually that doesn't happen.
...although with the demise of the yellows the situation is improving slightly.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/4/12/1397320687525/Alex-Salmond-Nicola-Sturg-013.jpg
Yes 3/10 (Betdaq)
No 3/1 (Lad, Betway)
"The Canadian province’s decision not to hold another referendum has profound lessons for Scotland, says Brian Wilson
In 1995, the people of Quebec voted by less than one per cent to avoid secession from Canada. Last week, they voted overwhelmingly not to go through the whole rigmarole again by inflicting a crushing defeat on the separatist party which was proposing another referendum.
The analogy with our own situation is highly relevant. For supporters of independence, their perennial, unspoken motto is that they only have to win once. There is no such thing as “giving it a shot”, on the basis of sale and return.
There would be no opportunity to think again, as the Quebecois have clearly done. If that one per cent had tipped the other way, the huge majority against independence which now exists would be wasting their time saying so. They would just have been left to count the cost or ship out."
Aw, Scotland's most popular politician with the most popular leader of a UK administration at the conference of the UK's most popular governing party. Marvellous, ain't it?
Agree 62%
Disagree 15%
What a surprise. If only the PB Cameroons could have spotted it. No chance of that of course.
1) Labour have a six point lead (no actual individual vote shares)
2) UKIP are on 14%
3) Dave's leader rating has fallen 6 points from last week, on minus 16 this week, Ed is on minus 36 up 1 from last week.
IPSA to take a "long, hard" look at Peter Bone's expenses, say sources.
Shocking gay sex texts of top Tory who bragged of 'cute boys' in the penthouse claimed on expenses
Details of salacious messages sent by Iain Corby were revealed last night
The Tory official exchanged messages with man on Grindr, gay dating app
They refer to 'cute boys', 'orgy', 'gay party', 'hottie MPs' and 'all in one bed'
These are said to be 'on offer' in hotel suite hired for Tory party conference
Messages name two Tory MPs: senior Minister and potential future leader
One of reasons Mr Corby quit as the head of Parliamentary Resources Unit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603342/Shocking-gay-sex-texts-Tory-bragged-cute-boys-penthouse-claimed-expenses.html
Last 6 weeks (oldest first):
6.4
5.0
4.6
3.0
4.8
4.4
4.4 is the 2nd lowest Lab lead of the year - the lowest was the 3.0 two weeks ago.
So by no means a disastrous week for Con - in spite of Miller.
To be fair I should have said Dacre going hard on the tory gay sexpenses scandal. Much more apt.
Tweeting the results at 10pm could be an idea.
1) Accusing pollsters of push polling is not acceptable.
2) Calling other posters twits isn't acceptable.
As the moderators aren't on 24/7 - Any posters who repeatedly violate this rule )(or any other rules) will find their posts automatically go into the pending folder, when they will be released by the moderating team when we check the pending folder.
The figure was 6% at GE2010.
Which tends to suggest that somebody got wind of what the MoS were doing and threw some details to the Indy as a spoiler and to mitigate it. Pretty standard practice for Fleet Street.
Harry Smith @stvharry 59m
More horror stories from Sexminster in the Mail on Sunday pic.twitter.com/IBdkOWbAZS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603342/Shocking-gay-sex-texts-Tory-bragged-cute-boys-penthouse-claimed-expenses.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/12/capitalism-isnt-working-thomas-piketty
Those of a more rightwing disposition should take the normal precautions, and cover eyes and ears.
Con 32, Lab 38, UKIP 14, LD 8
More likely 15%, Less Likely 32%, No Difference 49%, DK 4%
The solutions – a top income tax rate of up to 80%, effective inheritance tax, proper property taxes and, because the issue is global, a global wealth tax – are currently inconceivable.
I wonder if anyone at the Guardian has the wit to realise that mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The last time the Lib Dems registered a score lower than 7% was in March 1990.
They've polled 6% in this parliament.
With opinium at the end of May 2013
The LD share was below 16.6% in 191 constituencies in 2010.
Conservative sources privately concede that David Cameron has all but given up hope of beating the UK Independence Party when voters go to the polls next month to elect Members of the European Parliament."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10762889/Tories-face-coming-third-behind-Ukip-in-Euro-poll.html
Looks like it may be hotting up in the Ukraine:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27008026
Tory strategists can put forward whatever policies they like. With their record since 2010, I and many others won't be voting for them in 2015 whatever false promises they make. Sorry Dave, we don't believe anything your party says anymore.
" I'm sorry" he said, not as sorry as his former voters say they are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26990627
and more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/10/peter-lagoda-ukip-racist-remarks_n_5126595.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Rather ludicrously, he blames UKIP for not backing him up.
If Tories had won a small majority and the economy was the same as it is now, would the LDs, by retaining the Lab-Lib switchers, have given the Tories a lead in the polling, even with a Ukip surge?
I actually think this coalition has worked quite well, with few of the problems I and others forecast. But a pure Conservative government would have looked very different. For one thing, we would not have had the current legislative slowdown. As someone who quite likes governments passing fewer rather than more laws, this is a good thing.
With a weak Conservative majority government, a Labour party marginally nearer the centre (and with a much more capable leader), the Lib Dems would have been able to soak up many protest votes.
Then there are the things, such as boundary reforms, which probably would have been passed.
Lab: 230
Con: 190
UKIP: 125
LD: 45
NI & Others: 60
In reality, Others would probably do even better under PR as their vote became viable.
If the PR system used relatively small constituencies - e.g. STV - the likelihood is that the Lib Dems would suffer even further as they missed out on the threshold in the majority of constituencies, and failed to balance that with second MPs in areas of moderate strength.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridgeshire-county-councillor-Peter-Lagoda-quits-UKIP-after-benefit-fraud-conviction-20140411142310.htm Looks like it's the old 'changed circumstances' problem.
Blaming Cameron for going into coalition is folly though. In 2010 that was the only tenable government. The alternative would have been an unstable minority government and swift second election, against a Brown free Labour party, perhaps with different leader.
Cameron won 97 seats. Those who despise his failure to win a majority should remember how poorly the more right wing leaders in 2001 and 2005 fared. Without Cameron we would probably had a further term of Brown.
The FPTP process produced a Con-LD coalition that broadly represented what the country wanted: Some economic and fiscal sanity but combined with a socially liberal outlook.
Kippers are like the Tea Party in the states, pursuing an uncompromising agenda that puts their opponents in a much stronger position. There they kept Obama in power, here it will be to put the two Eds at the controls.
As a kipper I am happy to admit that Osborne has done a fantastic job with the economy, we now have growth but without the mass unemployment that was predicted, and Gove is also doing a good job breaking up the teachers unions and their disgusting stranglehold of our kids education.
However I want out of the EU and no amount of spinning will convince me that anything Dave says on the matter has any semblance of the truth attached to it.
ComRes/IoS S Mirror: My family is better off now than at the GE2010
Agree 20%
Disagree 59%
Can't remember back that far 21%
It's the government's fault that I am not better off than I am 100%
The Conservative's best chance of winning the next election is to help the Lib Dems take back their 2010 supporters who have switched to Labour.