A reminder of the local election result in Ed's constituency:
Doncaster North:
Lab 9,201 (40.22%) UKIP 7,547 (32.99%) Con 1,759 (7.69%) Working for Mexborough 1,193 (5.22%) Green 792 (3.46%) LD 773 (3.38%) Community Group 673 (2.94%) Eng Dem 479 (2.09%) TUSC 458 (2.00%)
The UK is becoming increasingly a multi-party state and we will continue to see the fragmentation of the old 2 party system.There are 5 parties now.I guess we will end up with about 8.The electoral reform needed to come alongside can be made to work in local government first.I trust local government to make it work.Then maybe there will be the necessary change to the electoral system for parliament.Consensus politics is back in the game and it is coalition building where the future lies with the exception of Clegg who is simply not to be trusted. That's what I think after talking to the birds with a quick rub of the crystal balls. Interesting article from Tony Travers indicating the extent of the trend. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/41621?utm_content=bufferac9ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
A reminder of the local election result in Ed's constituency:
Doncaster North:
Lab 9,201 (40.22%) UKIP 7,547 (32.99%) Con 1,759 (7.69%) Working for Mexborough 1,193 (5.22%) Green 792 (3.46%) LD 773 (3.38%) Community Group 673 (2.94%) Eng Dem 479 (2.09%) TUSC 458 (2.00%)
Labour lead: 1,654 (7.23%)
If Labour won the election, but Mr Miliband lost his seat, could he still be PM? Does he have to be an MP?
A reminder of the local election result in Ed's constituency:
Doncaster North:
Lab 9,201 (40.22%) UKIP 7,547 (32.99%) Con 1,759 (7.69%) Working for Mexborough 1,193 (5.22%) Green 792 (3.46%) LD 773 (3.38%) Community Group 673 (2.94%) Eng Dem 479 (2.09%) TUSC 458 (2.00%)
Labour lead: 1,654 (7.23%)
If Labour won the election, but Mr Miliband lost his seat, could he still be PM? Does he have to be an MP?
How often does this old chestnut come up? Seems like only last week!
Mr. Dawning, some BBC bigwig or other reckoned Mandela was the most significant leader of the 20th century.
As was suggested here, Hitler wins by a bloody mile. Even if you only count 'good' leaders, Churchill matters more.
I went for FDR.
He was a lying duplicitous bastard when it came to neutrality in WW2, but he helped us win the war.
FDR has an extremely strong claim to be the greatest leader of the 20th century. He has an arguable one as the most significant too, though unlike Hitler or Lenin, his claim has to be based on both what he did, domestically and internationally, and also on what he prevented. Had FDR's leadership and New Deal failed, it's not at all inconceivable that capitalism and democracy could have broken down in the States, the consequences of which would have been almost incalculable.
Mr. Dawning, some BBC bigwig or other reckoned Mandela was the most significant leader of the 20th century.
As was suggested here, Hitler wins by a bloody mile. Even if you only count 'good' leaders, Churchill matters more.
I went for FDR.
He was a lying duplicitous bastard when it came to neutrality in WW2, but he helped us win the war.
FDR has an extremely strong claim to be the greatest leader of the 20th century. He has an arguable one as the most significant too, though unlike Hitler or Lenin, his claim has to be based on both what he did, domestically and internationally, and also on what he prevented. Had FDR's leadership and New Deal failed, it's not at all inconceivable that capitalism and democracy could have broken down in the States, the consequences of which would have been almost incalculable.
Not exactly the most surprising finding ever published.
Peter Kellner has pointed out that over 50 years of polling, younger people have been more liberal over immigration and diversity than older people - but, they become far less liberal as they get older.
The British Social Attitudes Survey indicates that over the past 10 years, the biggest rise in hostility to immigration (and willingness to describe themselves as racially prejudiced) is among voters born between 1960 and 1979, that is, the young people of 10 years ago.
They young people of 10 years ago? 25-44 is young people?
A reminder of the local election result in Ed's constituency:
Doncaster North:
Lab 9,201 (40.22%) UKIP 7,547 (32.99%) Con 1,759 (7.69%) Working for Mexborough 1,193 (5.22%) Green 792 (3.46%) LD 773 (3.38%) Community Group 673 (2.94%) Eng Dem 479 (2.09%) TUSC 458 (2.00%)
Labour lead: 1,654 (7.23%)
If Labour won the election, but Mr Miliband lost his seat, could he still be PM? Does he have to be an MP?
Technically, I don't think so, although given it is now pretty accepted convention that someone should be an PM, not merely a parliamentarian to be MP, I imagine he would stand down as Labour Leader in that event, although I believe another MP could immediately resign, to provide a seat for him to stand in a quick by-election.
Comments
Doncaster North:
Lab 9,201 (40.22%)
UKIP 7,547 (32.99%)
Con 1,759 (7.69%)
Working for Mexborough 1,193 (5.22%)
Green 792 (3.46%)
LD 773 (3.38%)
Community Group 673 (2.94%)
Eng Dem 479 (2.09%)
TUSC 458 (2.00%)
Labour lead: 1,654 (7.23%)
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 2m
Newark by-election poll by Survation for Sun due out at 10pm. This is the first of the campaign.
;-)
@kle4 .. Tell my wife "hello"
Con: 53.9
Labour 22.3
LD: 20.0
UKIP: 3.8
May as well make a prediction for this poll. Totally without basis, I will guess:
Con:40
Labour; 25
UKIP:25
LD: 10
That's what I think after talking to the birds with a quick rub of the crystal balls.
Interesting article from Tony Travers indicating the extent of the trend.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/41621?utm_content=bufferac9ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The answer's NO, he does not have to be an MP.
My prediction
Con:39
UKIP 26
Labour:20
Green:6
LD: 5
Others: 4
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps to seven points: CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 7%, UKIP 16%
The goat entrails need another stirring.