If Labour came third in the Euro elections, how tenable would Ed Miliband's position be? Because I think that at the moment UKIP is taking more votes from Labour than the Tories.
Gordon Brown survived the experience last time. Labour don't have a reputation for killing off leaders.
That's because they were in govt and expected to struggle for support. If they cannot raise their game now then it would be a huge problem, he wouldn't be ousted largely because it's too late but he'd have big big problems. I don't expect they'll come third though so it's academic.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
If Labour came third in the Euro elections, how tenable would Ed Miliband's position be? Because I think that at the moment UKIP is taking more votes from Labour than the Tories.
Gordon Brown survived the experience last time. Labour don't have a reputation for killing off leaders.
Labour were in government last time. He also only survived because David Miliband let him. That Miliband was right to let him continue, IMO, is beside the point (had Miliband resigned, Brown wouldn't have gone quietly and his lieutenants would have done everything possible to secure Brown's legacy and their positions - it would have been bloody and Miliband wouldn't have had the chance to make a fresh start).
That said, yes, Ed Miliband would survive even if he finished third because there's no obviously better alternative leader available (indeed, who is an alternative Labour leader?), as well as because Labour doesn't tend to do leadership coups.
Even so, if Labour did finish behind both UKIP and the Tories, that would frankly be an utterly disastrous result and auger extremely badly for 2015. I don't expect it to happen.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
When I was a kid just starting out playing football the only system around was 2-3-5.
Just had a look on Guido, seems not a great day for Labour. Shame.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
No: Clegg only needs the support of an additional 275 MPs.
Farage needs the support of an additional 326.
(roughly speaking - haven't checked the precise numbers)
The LDs have 57 MPs, UKIP have none. Even a much reduced LD presence is likely to give them the balance of power. Indeed a LD supported coalition or minority government may be even more likely if the kippers gain 10% or so of the popular vote.
As a potential major influence on the next government they should feature in the debates. 2/3/5 seems a good format.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
Rubbish, you obviously have a shaky grasp of swing if you think that.
Farage, Caroline Lucas, Chuku Umunna, Shirley Williams, and Grant Schapps.
Obviously I am biased but it seemed as though Farage came off best. They tried every trick in the book to get at him, it was 4 vs 1 for a while and he batted them all away well.
Umunna was very, very poor
EDIT: Blimey I hadn't seen this! Farage nicking my material!
"I'm a 'Fallout' widower - Mrs J can regularly spend five hours solid playing it. Aside from running, it's the best way for her to unwind."
Only five hours? Luxury. With Fallout 3 I regularly pulled all nighters and when Fallout New Vegas hit my hard drive Herself was away for the weekend, if The Brute was less insistent he would have starved as indeed would I. When Skyrim came out I had it planned. I sent herself off on a holiday with her friend, cancelled all my appointments and told everyone I knew I was on leave in a place where the mobile didn't work and came to a deal with The Brute - he would be fed at 0700 and 1700 each day with snacks left at 1200 and 2100 other than that we wouldn't bother each other - a terrific week's worth of concentrated gaming. Happy days, don't suppose I'll ever get away with that again.
So if your Missus spends a few hours gaming think yourself lucky. It could be much worse.
and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett
Not that it's hugely important but Natalie Bennett's term as leader ends this summer. She may well be re-elected (opposed or unopposed) but she wont automatically be leader during the GE campaign (I suppose none of them will be but she has a definite hurdle to overcome).
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
I detect more than a hint of obfuscation from Downing Street on this. I strongly suspect that having seen what happened to Nick Clegg, the last thing David Cameron wants is to go anywhere near a 1-to-1 or even 2-to-1 debate with Nigel Farage.
What we are seeing from Downing Street is ever more intricate formulae designed to be unacceptable to someone or everyone without anyone being able to accuse the Prime Minister of being "frit".
I wonder if we will have any debates at all on the pattern of 2010 - I suspect not. What we will have is or are set piece interviews and perhaps debates between the various Treasury people (who speaks for UKIP on the economy ?)
No debates will disappoint those who enjoy micro-analysing every response and being their own version of "the worm. Whether most of the electorate (among whom there seems to be less volatility) will notice is, so to speak, debatable.
Logically, a 5+2 format would make most sense: one debate for the leaders of the five parties which are putting up candidates nationwide and which command non-negligible support, and one for the two potential PMs.
However, our LibDem friends are not going to agree to that, so it won't happen. 5+3+2 looks the next best option; but will the LibDems agree to it?
and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett
Not that it's hugely important but Natalie Bennett's term as leader ends this summer. She may well be re-elected (opposed or unopposed) but she wont automatically be leader during the GE campaign (I suppose none of them will be but she has a definite hurdle to overcome).
Interestingly - assuming that she was re-elected as leader, would it still be her in any Debates, or would Lucas do it as the only MP?
Parsons hasn't voted for 15 years. "I haven't voted for so long because I feel there's a disconnect between the political elite and the people. And I've felt that politicians are just completely removed from any kind of life experiences in a way they weren't when I was growing up." But he will be voting later this month? There can't be many other Hampstead writers with mixed-race families who are fans of Nigel Farage, but Parsons will be voting for Ukip.
and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett
Not that it's hugely important but Natalie Bennett's term as leader ends this summer. She may well be re-elected (opposed or unopposed) but she wont automatically be leader during the GE campaign (I suppose none of them will be but she has a definite hurdle to overcome).
Interestingly - assuming that she was re-elected as leader, would it still be her in any Debates, or would Lucas do it as the only MP?
If it's a party leader debate then presumably it would have to be Bennett. And while I dont see a format that involves the Green party actually participating in televised debates in the next GE I would hope that fact is concentrating minds somewhere!
If Labour came third in the Euro elections, how tenable would Ed Miliband's position be? Because I think that at the moment UKIP is taking more votes from Labour than the Tories.
Gordon Brown survived the experience last time. Labour don't have a reputation for killing off leaders.
Labour were in government last time. He also only survived because David Miliband let him. That Miliband was right to let him continue, IMO, is beside the point (had Miliband resigned, Brown wouldn't have gone quietly and his lieutenants would have done everything possible to secure Brown's legacy and their positions - it would have been bloody and Miliband wouldn't have had the chance to make a fresh start).
That said, yes, Ed Miliband would survive even if he finished third because there's no obviously better alternative leader available (indeed, who is an alternative Labour leader?), as well as because Labour doesn't tend to do leadership coups.
Even so, if Labour did finish behind both UKIP and the Tories, that would frankly be an utterly disastrous result and auger extremely badly for 2015. I don't expect it to happen.
I agree, but 3-4% is cutting it a bit fine.
3 out of the last 2 opinion polls put Labour either 3 or 4% ahead of the Tories in third place.
Hmmm - I'd have thought that was a near-somnolent dog that would best be left quietly in its basket.
Changes are definitely needed after how much the RMT are costing London's economy. But I feel like this 50% of all members issue is the wrong solution. Particularly as MPs don't need half of all voters to get in power.
I think it would be much more reasonable to limit strikes to cases of poor working conditions, unfair treatment of members, or compulsory redundancies. The problem isn't that it's easy for unions to strike, it's that they're striking over frivolous things. Blackmailing a city over the future of the public service, when that strategy has been decided by the democratically-elected city government is clearly undue influence.
Under section 18 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a trade union must show that the proposed industrial action concerns a valid trade dispute being:
terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;
engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers;
allocation of work or the duties of employment as between workers or groups of workers;
matters of discipline;
the membership or non-membership of a trade union on the part of a worker;
facilities for officials of trade unions;
machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures...
The RMT is striking over ticket office closures, i.e. job cuts. Difficult to see how this alone is not the proper prerogative of the union.
As I wrote below somewhere there is currently no part to consider the wider impact on third parties.
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
I detect more than a hint of obfuscation from Downing Street on this. I strongly suspect that having seen what happened to Nick Clegg, the last thing David Cameron wants is to go anywhere near a 1-to-1 or even 2-to-1 debate with Nigel Farage.
What we are seeing from Downing Street is ever more intricate formulae designed to be unacceptable to someone or everyone without anyone being able to accuse the Prime Minister of being "frit".
I wonder if we will have any debates at all on the pattern of 2010 - I suspect not. What we will have is or are set piece interviews and perhaps debates between the various Treasury people (who speaks for UKIP on the economy ?)
No debates will disappoint those who enjoy micro-analysing every response and being their own version of "the worm. Whether most of the electorate (among whom there seems to be less volatility) will notice is, so to speak, debatable.
Scotland's export success! Selling White & MacKay to a Philippine Brandy maker.....I wonder if that's better or worse than being owned, currently, by an Indian firm?
IMO Cameron is afraid that if the panel consists of himself, Miliband, Clegg and Farage, all of them will look out of touch in comparison to Farage. But by having Natalie Bennett there as well, it would muddy the waters so-to-speak.
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
No. though a small quarter cask Laphroaig might be on the cards later. Anyone denying that more and more power is being held by fewer and fewer people is either an imbecile, or a Tory. (the two are not mutually exclusive)
Scotland's export success! Selling White & MacKay to a Philippine Brandy maker.....I wonder if that's better or worse than being owned, currently, by an Indian firm?
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
Speaking of games, have you definitely decided not to join the Diplomacy game?
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
IMO Cameron is afraid that if the panel consists of himself, Miliband, Clegg and Farage, all of them will look out of touch in comparison to Farage. But by having Natalie Bennett there as well, it would muddy the waters so-to-speak.
I doubt it. The key for Cameron (and indeed for the others) is to get the debate off UKIP's home turf (Europe, politics in general) and onto policy where the UKIP position is less clearly on the side of public opinion.
A general leader's debate on the broad brush gives Farage a chance to be "the populist outsider" but a specific discussion on social policy (welfare reform for example) may not be as easy for UKIP to dominate. Indeed, as the LDs found out in 2010, having popular opinions on general issues is fine but as it's impossible for a party to be popular about everything, eventually the less popular policy areas will come to the fore.
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
Looking at all conceivable scenarios between now and 2015,there remains the possibility that one of the party leaders may die,they all could.The sad death of John Smith led to Tony Blair so these things do happen and are significant.Those leaders who smoke tobacco are at greatest risk.Farage strikes me as one of those living each day as a lion rather than a sheep sort of person and they don't necessarily last out very long. I can imagine Lib/Lab/Con dealing with this but could Ukip?
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
Crumbs, Mr. J, I hope there is a short cut to avoid all that sh*t every time one goes to dock in the new game. That voice reminds me of the alternate back-up personality of the ship's computer in Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy crossed with one of Labour's new wimmin. At least in the original one got nice music whilst one splatted against the station for the umpteenth time in a row.
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
Crumbs, Mr. J, I hope there is a short cut to avoid all that sh*t every time one goes to dock in the new game. That voice reminds me of the alternate back-up personality of the ship's computer in Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy crossed with one of Labour's new wimmin. At least in the original one got nice music whilst one splatted against the station for the umpteenth time in a row.
I think the voice is just the demo/tutorial, and yes, I hope there's an automated computer available - they're certainly talking about one. But it shouldn't be available for a while: the complexity of docking was one of the things that made the original game. Every time you did not smash yourself into the station felt like a victory...
I also want to get the unbridled joy you got from being able to afford a docking computer for the first time!
As for the Blue Danube: if they don't play it, just play it on the computer alongside. ;-)
People discussing videogames and politics? Now that's my kind of comment section.
The original Elite was a bit before my time, though a good space sim sounds fun, and Eve online looks too dull/exhausting to get into (though fun to read about sometimes), so I may have to give this new one a try. Similar to how I feel about Wasteland 2, although with that I know the new Fallouts are awesome, if different to the originals.
I'm surprised Red Liberal has not caught on before. I've just always said labour-lite, which some did not like for obvious reasons.
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
The number of times I died docking whilst carrying a naughty stash ..... Elite and GB Ltd, would be my 2 best games of the 80s!! Football Manager on the Spectrum with a ball the size of the goal to watch the outcome was my Uni time - I spent 28 hours+ non-stop playing that with a mate one time...Spurs did rather better in that world...
I suppose that might be why I'm here and do what I do... apart from the naughty trading stuff....
Many Leftwing 2010 LDs will have switched to Labour for the FPTP general election outside of Brighton, but will vote Green at the Euro elections under PR where a left of Labour party has more chance of winning seats
'Ed Miliband promises Scotland more powers after No vote' - The Labour leader attempts to persuade his party's traditional voters to reject independence in September's referendum.
... They were headed by the promise of a new Scotland Act that would give MSPs tax-raising powers to raise about 40 per cent of their £30 billion annual budget.
... Both sides of the referendum debate agree that traditional Labour voters will decide the result of September’s referendum, with the SNP arguing that a Yes vote would allow them to “reclaim” their party’s socialist roots.
... The Labour leader repeated his argument that such improvements can only be made if Scotland remains part of the UK because separation would see them compete against each other on policies such as corporation tax “in a race to the bottom”.
I remember Elite. Superb game. Who can remember trying to dock without the proper device, having to wiggle the keys to keep the entry point in line? Great times!
That docking business drove me up the fecking wall. Once I had acquired the gizmo that made docking automatic the game was a lot more fun and allowed its real challenges to emerge. Sad to say game designers are still including silly challenges that take away from rather than enhance the game play - witness the latest incarnation of Thief.
The number of times I died docking whilst carrying a naughty stash ..... Elite and GB Ltd, would be my 2 best games of the 80s!! Football Manager on the Spectrum with a ball the size of the goal to watch the outcome was my Uni time - I spent 28 hours+ non-stop playing that with a mate one time...Spurs did rather better in that world...
I suppose that might be why I'm here and do what I do... apart from the naughty trading stuff....
Long before I'd heard of politicalbetting.com, Nick Palmer was one of my favourite MPs - partly by dint of having done a proper maths degree, one of those subjects which always respect, but mostly because he'd got a commercial release of a Speccy game. I wasted many hours of my life coding on that thing - can still remember a lot of the weird symbol-shifted keyboard shortcuts you had to put up with prior to the +2 allowing you to actually type commands in letter by letter - but none of my sim games got anything near professional quality.
The "Red Liberal" tag is rather simplistic as is the analysis. The first thing David Cameron did after becoming Conservative leader in 2005 was to "love bomb" the Liberal Democrats. He (or his pollsters) recognised the 2005 LD vote contained a strong element of potential Conservative voters who had departed the party.
In 2010, the Conservatives only did about as well as in February 1974 and well below the shares achieved in the Thatcher/Major years so some of the 80s and early 90s Tories have never returned (gone to UKIP ?).
So we have an LD vote that had three elements - the "core" LD vote (perhaps 35), the ex-Conservative vote (maybe 25%) and the ex-Labour vote (35-40%) - I'm ignoring UKIP as they weren't a factor in 2010.
The key to Cameron winning a majority next year is twofold - one, regaining the lost UKIP vote and two regaining the lost LD vote.
Perhaps OGH and others should also be looking at the "Blue Liberals" (or even the "Purple Liberals") as much as those who have gone to Labour.
The first costs judgment of Sweeney J in R v Huhne & Pryce is available to read on the Judicial Office website. The court rejected the Crown's contention that Huhne should pay the costs of Operation Solar (the investigation into Ms Briscoe). It did, however, reject the quantum suggested by Huhne, favouring a figure of £76,000 instead of £25,000. The judge's irritation with Huhne is plain from para 21:
I have presided over this case throughout almost all the proceedings. Whilst Mr Huhne falsely pretended over a long period, until his eventual plea of guilty, that he was innocent (including the assertion in his Defence Case Statement that he could state unequivocally that he had never asked anyone to accept responsibility for a speeding offence)[My emphasis]
What is interesting is that the orders made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in relation to the trial have all now lapsed, and that a second costs judgment will be handed down in relation to Associated Newspapers Ltd next week. The press' behaviour has been questionable to say the least in this case, although whether anyone will report that remains to be soon.
Stodge It seems Cameron has actually won back most of the 'Blue Liberals', according to today's yougov 16% of 2010 LDs are now going to vote Tory. If Dave then wins back the 17% of 2010 Tories now voting UKIP the Tories will almost certainly increase their voteshare from the 36% they won in 2010 to at least 38-40%, be the largest party and close to an overall majority http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/nby1b5w1je/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-080514.pdf
Yup, and, especially with the power of the internet, you would have thought that someone might had done it. The haven't though. I thought Eve on Line was going to get close but it didn't have the spark and was actually dreadfully dull. Maybe what we are looking for is impossible.
Maybe Elite is remembered so fondly because it was so ground-breakingly new, nothing had been seen like it before. The same with the original Civilisation and divers others I could name. Nowadays games are so often retreads of past ventures, just like the cinema and probably for the same reason. Production costs are now so huge very few people are prepared to risk money on a new thought or a new story.
Do Red Liberals (this means you @BobaFett) really think Lab has done enough to deserve them back? What did you expect from the LDs in a coalition? Has the recovery really been so asymmetric? I can't see what's changed since 2010.
Katie Hopkins - who also writes for the Sun - has been making cooing noises about Farage too. I wonder to what extent a big May 22 UKIP vote will affect newspaper editorial. A bit I should think if they want to hang on to their readers (old people buy hard copy). It could start a virtuous spiral of positive coverage for the kippers.
I'm a bit obsessive about BBC bias - I have a paranoid radar for it - and my sense is that Tony Hall has had a word with his staff about the last 15 years of Leftimania. I think it's toned down and point of neutrality has consequently notched a bit to the right. An example might be the harsh but truthful tenor of the questions asked during Clegg-Farage II.
This isn't really surprising Mike. Lib Dems have done comparatively badly in the Euros in the past and many of the LD converts will have gone elsewhere in the same way core Labour voters do in Euro elections - to the Greens or UKIP, depending on their politics. Doesn't really affect the GE strategy. Its hard to tell from the raw data as to where the slight drop in LD-Lab switchers in Westminster VI have gone but again it appears minor parties are the obvious explanations - the LDs don't appear to have won any back.
I got my first leaflet from the Tories today. They're making the claim "we've taken the UK out of the Eurozone bailouts". This is utterly, utterly untrue:
Britain has already forked out around £12billion to bail out Ireland, Greece and Portugal
However, what's really fascinating are the things they are planning to repatriate under "We stand for a new relationship with the EU, bringing power back to Britain and away from Brussels".
One is "getting a better deal for British taxpayers", which is presumably something you can say you've done fairly easily. Another is "taking back control of justice and home affairs", which seems like a real push: I would think opting out of the European Court of Justice would be very difficult. Another is "securing more trade but not an ever closer union". They can do the first half of that I woudl think, but the second half seems like a challenge. However, the real heavy hitter is the final one: "keeping our boder controls". This is a very bold one to claim: either they've got some assurance from Merkel they can opt out of the single market for labour, or else they're making a claim that's really going to come back to haunt them.
TOPPING Red Liberals are ideological, they will vote for the party which is likely to put up taxes on the rich, increase spending and is socially liberal and anti war, that now means Labour at Westminster and the Greens for the Euros (and in Brighton for council elections and general elections too)
TOPPING Red Liberals are ideological, they will vote for the party which is likely to put up taxes on the rich, increase spending and is socially liberal and anti war, that now means Labour at Westminster and the Greens for the Euros (and in Brighton for council elections and general elections too)
Yes I suppose you're right. How utterly depressing.
Blueberry Murdoch has had Farage to dinner, and is sympathetic. Yet, while the Murdoch owned Sun is positive, the Murdoch owned Times is strongly anti UKIP and remains the establishment paper, as strongly Cameroon as it was New Labour
OH Dear , just heard about Ed turning down a meeting with Pfizer. I thought they gave his party money?????.
Anyone who didn't think Ed was a dork needs to reappraise as I have. He is even worse than I thought.. The excuse about being busy because of the Euro elections is risible.
Stodge It seems Cameron has actually won back most of the 'Blue Liberals', according to today's yougov 16% of 2010 LDs are now going to vote Tory. If Dave then wins back the 17% of 2010 Tories now voting UKIP the Tories will almost certainly increase their voteshare from the 36% they won in 2010 to at least 38-40%, be the largest party and close to an overall majority
By my calculations, IF they can get back all the vote share lost to UKIP, they would be in the low to mid 40s and would win an overall majority.
That looks the only route to a Conservative majority - if they only got half the vote back, the maximum vote share looks to be 37-38%.
The Conservatives therefore need to a) retain the Blue Liberal voters and b) get back as many as possible of the Purple Tories.
None of that may matter as it seems the Conservatives are piling up votes where they don't need them (the south outside London). We may see more evidence of that in the Ashcroft marginal poll study - I suspect it will confirm that Labour are getting the votes where they need them such as the Midlands marginals while the Tories are sweeping the south as strongly as in the 1980s.
Rod Indeed, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Brazil, Russia and Japan all have PR along with South Africa, Australia has AV, France second ballot. Only India, Canada the US and we in the UK still have FPTP (although as we have the LDs, and a smattering of Greens, Respect, and nationalists and unionists at Westminster we still do better than the US and its Democrat-GOP duopoly)
Another is "taking back control of justice and home affairs", which seems like a real push
What is absolutely outrageous is that the Conservatives are intending to confer on the Court of Justice in Luxembourg criminal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is a massive transfer of power to Europe. Despite the promise that there would be a referendum on any future transfers of power to the EU (and the farcical claim that they had legislated to the same effect), they intend to do so without even passing an Act of Parliament. Never trust Cameron on Europe. He is busily ceding more powers over justice and home affairs to the EU as we speak.
TOPPING Red Liberals are ideological, they will vote for the party which is likely to put up taxes on the rich, increase spending and is socially liberal and anti war, that now means Labour at Westminster and the Greens for the Euros (and in Brighton for council elections and general elections too)
My take on the components of the LD vote is/was - Core Lib (sandals) - Red Lib (very ideological, more so than Lab) - Iraq Vote (mixture of Red Libs and Muslim voters) - Timid Tory (couldn't handle nasty party tag) - Gay Tory (orange book) - Economic Centrist / (ex) Culturally Neutral (floating voters)
Red Lib and Iraq vote -> Lab Shy Tory and Gay Tory ->Con EC/eCN ->Ukip
According to reports in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron is open to the idea of a "2-3-5" format drawn up by his aides.
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
No: Clegg only needs the support of an additional 275 MPs.
Farage needs the support of an additional 326.
(roughly speaking - haven't checked the precise numbers)
Seats come as a result of rising poll support. If either party got to about 35% of the vote, they would win most seats. Farage can get there with just a twenty point increase, while Clegg would need a twenty six point increase.
It's amusing just how many excuses Tories need to come up with to avoid their leader having to spend a lot of time faced with Farage's arguments. If they were being truthful in their claims that UKIP's arguments can easily be torn apart, they would jump at the chance of Cameron debating them. But instead they're running scared.
Another is "taking back control of justice and home affairs", which seems like a real push
What is absolutely outrageous is that the Conservatives are intending to confer on the Court of Justice in Luxembourg criminal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is a massive transfer of power to Europe. Despite the promise that there would be a referendum on any future transfers of power to the EU (and the farcical claim that they had legislated to the same effect), they intend to do so without even passing an Act of Parliament. Never trust Cameron on Europe. He is busily ceding more powers over justice and home affairs to the EU as we speak.
how about some evidence .. its all very well stating it but lets see the evidence
Another is "taking back control of justice and home affairs", which seems like a real push
What is absolutely outrageous is that the Conservatives are intending to confer on the Court of Justice in Luxembourg criminal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is a massive transfer of power to Europe. Despite the promise that there would be a referendum on any future transfers of power to the EU (and the farcical claim that they had legislated to the same effect), they intend to do so without even passing an Act of Parliament. Never trust Cameron on Europe. He is busily ceding more powers over justice and home affairs to the EU as we speak.
Hmmm - I'd have thought that was a near-somnolent dog that would best be left quietly in its basket.
Changes are definitely needed after how much the RMT are costing London's economy. But I feel like this 50% of all members issue is the wrong solution. Particularly as MPs don't need half of all voters to get in power.
I think it would be much more reasonable to limit strikes to cases of poor working conditions, unfair treatment of members, or compulsory redundancies. The problem isn't that it's easy for unions to strike, it's that they're striking over frivolous things. Blackmailing a city over the future of the public service, when that strategy has been decided by the democratically-elected city government is clearly undue influence.
Under section 18 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a trade union must show that the proposed industrial action concerns a valid trade dispute being:
terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;
engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers;
allocation of work or the duties of employment as between workers or groups of workers;
matters of discipline;
the membership or non-membership of a trade union on the part of a worker;
facilities for officials of trade unions;
machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures...
The RMT is striking over ticket office closures, i.e. job cuts. Difficult to see how this alone is not the proper prerogative of the union.
As I wrote below somewhere there is currently no part to consider the wider impact on third parties.
Do you live in London?
There were no compulsory redundancies as a results of the office closures. 600 or so took voluntary redundancy. The remainder were redeployed out into the ticket halls where they were more accessible to customers.
The union was striking because they claimed that requiring staff to stand in halls vs sit in offices was a material change in the physical conditions in which workers are required to work.
The reality is that is was an excuse to pick a fight.
Stodge I think some 2010 Tories are probably lost, but if the Tories can keep UKIP down to around 6% then they should be largest party. The marginals follow the polls, Labour even now still has a 1% lead nationally, and with the boundary changes having failed of course they will be ahead in the Midlands marginals, if the Tories take the lead nationally, the marginals will follow and of course the blues should pick up many LD marginals even if they lose a few to Labour. The North, Scotland and Wales is just as red as the south is blue, UK elections are won in the Midlands and the London suburbs
Losing America is popularly considered to have been one of the things that cost King George III his sanity. David Cameron, by contrast, appears to think that losing Scotland would not even cost him his job.
Asked on BBC radio whether a vote for Scottish independence at the referendum due in September—in which he was instrumental—would be a resignation matter, the Conservative prime minister blustered: “My name is not appearing on the ballot paper, I don’t even have a vote in this Scottish referendum.
... In other words, Mr Cameron thinks if Scotland goes, he’ll stay put. This invites two thoughts.
First, the decision might not be Mr Cameron’s.
... If Scotland does go, it will be a tragedy for all Britons. And just this sort of small-mindedness—on both sides of the newly-meaningful border—will have been partly to blame.
Comments
http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2014/05/08/da-votes-found-dumped-in-pretoria-report
twitter.com/ewnupdates/status/464437080601661440/photo/1
Under the plan, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second, which would also include Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green party leader Natalie Bennett.
If we have a 2-3-5 system, then the "three" should be Cameron, Miliband, Farage. Clegg would need a much bigger swing to the Lib Dems to become PM than Farage would.
That said, yes, Ed Miliband would survive even if he finished third because there's no obviously better alternative leader available (indeed, who is an alternative Labour leader?), as well as because Labour doesn't tend to do leadership coups.
Even so, if Labour did finish behind both UKIP and the Tories, that would frankly be an utterly disastrous result and auger extremely badly for 2015. I don't expect it to happen.
Just had a look on Guido, seems not a great day for Labour. Shame.
Farage needs the support of an additional 326.
(roughly speaking - haven't checked the precise numbers)
As a potential major influence on the next government they should feature in the debates. 2/3/5 seems a good format.
"I'm a 'Fallout' widower - Mrs J can regularly spend five hours solid playing it. Aside from running, it's the best way for her to unwind."
Only five hours? Luxury. With Fallout 3 I regularly pulled all nighters and when Fallout New Vegas hit my hard drive Herself was away for the weekend, if The Brute was less insistent he would have starved as indeed would I. When Skyrim came out I had it planned. I sent herself off on a holiday with her friend, cancelled all my appointments and told everyone I knew I was on leave in a place where the mobile didn't work and came to a deal with The Brute - he would be fed at 0700 and 1700 each day with snacks left at 1200 and 2100 other than that we wouldn't bother each other - a terrific week's worth of concentrated gaming. Happy days, don't suppose I'll ever get away with that again.
So if your Missus spends a few hours gaming think yourself lucky. It could be much worse.
What we are seeing from Downing Street is ever more intricate formulae designed to be unacceptable to someone or everyone without anyone being able to accuse the Prime Minister of being "frit".
I wonder if we will have any debates at all on the pattern of 2010 - I suspect not. What we will have is or are set piece interviews and perhaps debates between the various Treasury people (who speaks for UKIP on the economy ?)
No debates will disappoint those who enjoy micro-analysing every response and being their own version of "the worm. Whether most of the electorate (among whom there seems to be less volatility) will notice is, so to speak, debatable.
OGH sticking it to George Eaton of the New Statesman:
@georgeeaton: Labour source tells me party will go "positive" next week. But confident negative campaigning will help.
OGH: So LAB's giving up dumb campaign that assumes voters are dumb.
61% of LD>LAB switchers are graduates - highest of any segment.
However, our LibDem friends are not going to agree to that, so it won't happen. 5+3+2 looks the next best option; but will the LibDems agree to it?
97.3% book (disregarding the LD's)
£61.9@8/13 Con
£20@4 Lab
£15.38@11/2 UKIP
£2.70 PROFIT!
FREE MONEY!!!
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/09/tony-parsons-interview
Close!
3 out of the last 2 opinion polls put Labour either 3 or 4% ahead of the Tories in third place.
- terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;
- engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers;
- allocation of work or the duties of employment as between workers or groups of workers;
- matters of discipline;
- the membership or non-membership of a trade union on the part of a worker;
- facilities for officials of trade unions;
- machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures...
The RMT is striking over ticket office closures, i.e. job cuts. Difficult to see how this alone is not the proper prerogative of the union.As I wrote below somewhere there is currently no part to consider the wider impact on third parties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10695004/Ukip-to-fight-2015-election-on-pledge-to-raise-40p-tax-threshold-to-45000.html
(ducks).
The council area has a population of 220,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27340535
No. though a small quarter cask Laphroaig might be on the cards later.
Anyone denying that more and more power is being held by fewer and fewer people is either an imbecile, or a Tory.
(the two are not mutually exclusive)
USL chairman Vijay Mallya said: "I am very proud of what Whyte and Mackay had achieved under USL ownership.'
Mr Mallya should be very proud indeed.
Sorry to keep bringing this up everyone!
A general leader's debate on the broad brush gives Farage a chance to be "the populist outsider" but a specific discussion on social policy (welfare reform for example) may not be as easy for UKIP to dominate. Indeed, as the LDs found out in 2010, having popular opinions on general issues is fine but as it's impossible for a party to be popular about everything, eventually the less popular policy areas will come to the fore.
FYI, docking on the new Elite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey22m463104
I can imagine Lib/Lab/Con dealing with this but could Ukip?
I also want to get the unbridled joy you got from being able to afford a docking computer for the first time!
As for the Blue Danube: if they don't play it, just play it on the computer alongside. ;-)
The original Elite was a bit before my time, though a good space sim sounds fun, and Eve online looks too dull/exhausting to get into (though fun to read about sometimes), so I may have to give this new one a try. Similar to how I feel about Wasteland 2, although with that I know the new Fallouts are awesome, if different to the originals.
I'm surprised Red Liberal has not caught on before. I've just always said labour-lite, which some did not like for obvious reasons.
I suppose that might be why I'm here and do what I do... apart from the naughty trading stuff....
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/may/new-poll-finds-scots-continuing-reject-ukip
http://order-order.com/2014/05/09/celebrity-endorsement-for-ukip/
The Scottish sub-sample size is 1,589. The findings look pretty stable. All MoE stuff.
(+/- change on last month's Populus aggregate)
SNP 34% (n/c)
Lab 32% (-2)
Con 19% (+1)
LD 7% (n/c)
UKIP 4% (+1)
Grn 3% (+1)
http://www.populuslimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OmOnline_Vote_April_2014.pdf
(The headline, published VI figures are at Table 4, Page 36)
- The Labour leader attempts to persuade his party's traditional voters to reject independence in September's referendum.
... They were headed by the promise of a new Scotland Act that would give MSPs tax-raising powers to raise about 40 per cent of their £30 billion annual budget.
... Both sides of the referendum debate agree that traditional Labour voters will decide the result of September’s referendum, with the SNP arguing that a Yes vote would allow them to “reclaim” their party’s socialist roots.
... The Labour leader repeated his argument that such improvements can only be made if Scotland remains part of the UK because separation would see them compete against each other on policies such as corporation tax “in a race to the bottom”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10820729/Ed-Miliband-promises-Scotland-more-powers-after-No-vote.html
We live in interesting times, assuredly.
twitter.com/johnprescott/status/464784007499362304/photo/1
The "Red Liberal" tag is rather simplistic as is the analysis. The first thing David Cameron did after becoming Conservative leader in 2005 was to "love bomb" the Liberal Democrats. He (or his pollsters) recognised the 2005 LD vote contained a strong element of potential Conservative voters who had departed the party.
In 2010, the Conservatives only did about as well as in February 1974 and well below the shares achieved in the Thatcher/Major years so some of the 80s and early 90s Tories have never returned (gone to UKIP ?).
So we have an LD vote that had three elements - the "core" LD vote (perhaps 35), the ex-Conservative vote (maybe 25%) and the ex-Labour vote (35-40%) - I'm ignoring UKIP as they weren't a factor in 2010.
The key to Cameron winning a majority next year is twofold - one, regaining the lost UKIP vote and two regaining the lost LD vote.
Perhaps OGH and others should also be looking at the "Blue Liberals" (or even the "Purple Liberals") as much as those who have gone to Labour.
"... though a good space sim sounds fun..."
Yup, and, especially with the power of the internet, you would have thought that someone might had done it. The haven't though. I thought Eve on Line was going to get close but it didn't have the spark and was actually dreadfully dull. Maybe what we are looking for is impossible.
Maybe Elite is remembered so fondly because it was so ground-breakingly new, nothing had been seen like it before. The same with the original Civilisation and divers others I could name. Nowadays games are so often retreads of past ventures, just like the cinema and probably for the same reason. Production costs are now so huge very few people are prepared to risk money on a new thought or a new story.
I'm a bit obsessive about BBC bias - I have a paranoid radar for it - and my sense is that Tony Hall has had a word with his staff about the last 15 years of Leftimania. I think it's toned down and point of neutrality has consequently notched a bit to the right. An example might be the harsh but truthful tenor of the questions asked during Clegg-Farage II.
Britain has already forked out around £12billion to bail out Ireland, Greece and Portugal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053456/Eurozone-debt-crisis-UKs-huge-euro-bailout-rescue-talks-collapse-chaos.html
How are they allowed to print such outright lies?
However, what's really fascinating are the things they are planning to repatriate under "We stand for a new relationship with the EU, bringing power back to Britain and away from Brussels".
One is "getting a better deal for British taxpayers", which is presumably something you can say you've done fairly easily. Another is "taking back control of justice and home affairs", which seems like a real push: I would think opting out of the European Court of Justice would be very difficult. Another is "securing more trade but not an ever closer union". They can do the first half of that I woudl think, but the second half seems like a challenge. However, the real heavy hitter is the final one: "keeping our boder controls". This is a very bold one to claim: either they've got some assurance from Merkel they can opt out of the single market for labour, or else they're making a claim that's really going to come back to haunt them.
http://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/24128d03-a91f-43fb-9b74-65dd8addea9d/
A good UKIP result, delivering no seats, should give FPTP the coup de grace in 2015...
Anyone who didn't think Ed was a dork needs to reappraise as I have. He is even worse than I thought.. The excuse about being busy because of the Euro elections is risible.
That looks the only route to a Conservative majority - if they only got half the vote back, the maximum vote share looks to be 37-38%.
The Conservatives therefore need to a) retain the Blue Liberal voters and b) get back as many as possible of the Purple Tories.
None of that may matter as it seems the Conservatives are piling up votes where they don't need them (the south outside London). We may see more evidence of that in the Ashcroft marginal poll study - I suspect it will confirm that Labour are getting the votes where they need them such as the Midlands marginals while the Tories are sweeping the south as strongly as in the 1980s.
On the other hand, the winners set the rules and the winners are usually loathe to change the system that has made them winners.
- Core Lib (sandals)
- Red Lib (very ideological, more so than Lab)
- Iraq Vote (mixture of Red Libs and Muslim voters)
- Timid Tory (couldn't handle nasty party tag)
- Gay Tory (orange book)
- Economic Centrist / (ex) Culturally Neutral (floating voters)
Red Lib and Iraq vote -> Lab
Shy Tory and Gay Tory ->Con
EC/eCN ->Ukip
It's amusing just how many excuses Tories need to come up with to avoid their leader having to spend a lot of time faced with Farage's arguments. If they were being truthful in their claims that UKIP's arguments can easily be torn apart, they would jump at the chance of Cameron debating them. But instead they're running scared.
i) more likely to deliver an absurd result.
ii) two 'major' parties on opposing sides of the spectrum united in calling for FPTP to be scrapped.
There were no compulsory redundancies as a results of the office closures. 600 or so took voluntary redundancy. The remainder were redeployed out into the ticket halls where they were more accessible to customers.
The union was striking because they claimed that requiring staff to stand in halls vs sit in offices was a material change in the physical conditions in which workers are required to work.
The reality is that is was an excuse to pick a fight.
Losing America is popularly considered to have been one of the things that cost King George III his sanity. David Cameron, by contrast, appears to think that losing Scotland would not even cost him his job.
Asked on BBC radio whether a vote for Scottish independence at the referendum due in September—in which he was instrumental—would be a resignation matter, the Conservative prime minister blustered: “My name is not appearing on the ballot paper, I don’t even have a vote in this Scottish referendum.
... In other words, Mr Cameron thinks if Scotland goes, he’ll stay put. This invites two thoughts.
First, the decision might not be Mr Cameron’s.
... If Scotland does go, it will be a tragedy for all Britons. And just this sort of small-mindedness—on both sides of the newly-meaningful border—will have been partly to blame.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/05/shape-britain