Government approval have dropped sharply the last two weeks with Yougov:
They've been around -20 for a while, now dropping to around -26. What's happened? The effect of the Euros and minds concentrated on the continent? I've thought that Labour shouldn't panic over the polls and wait till the Euros were over. Yesterday's Yougov was certainly very encouraging, we'll see if the other polls switch much.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
Constitutionally you question makes no sense. It is the monarch that makes the laws.
It's a little bit dodgy to quote anything biblical as the word of god or law. Like the Koran, it was written after the deaths of those whose words they are both supposed to portray, and "might" possibly have been modified to suit the later proponents. (If there is a God, he was clever enough to put the real meaning elsewhere.) Edit: or she/it/etc,
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
Rookie error, there, JohnO. Everyone knows the parties are open to the great unwashed. You should have just said "will I see you at Buck House next week?"
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
Okay - proven atheistic pedants. Only those disputing whether the franchise is logically determinable will be allowed to vote.
The intention behind wearing the burqa in Egypt was to make a political statement: rejection of the British way of life. People should be absolutely free to do that if they want, but it takes some moxy to do that while living in the UK and participating in the benefits of the UK state.
It's worth saying that the thing these people rejecting at the time was an often-brutal colonial power taking their country by force. Obviously it's hard to disentangle from the culture the occupying power brought with it at the time, but I'm not sure you should equate this with the British way of life (whatever that means). I think most people reject some things that have been done in the country they live in in history, and dislike some parts of the societies they live in.
Now I'm not a fan of banning things, so I wouldn't. But if individuals want to benefit from the state they need to engage on our terms: state funded education should promote our values (in a simple way - like non segregation of sexes in a co-ed school), there are questions of identification, etc.
I don't disagree on state-funded education - I don't think there should be any religion in taxpayer-funded schools - but what you seemed to be advocating earlier was: 1) Denying access to government services, while presumably still requiring payment of taxes, unless people adhered to what you think is an appropriate British-culture-compliant dress code. 2) Suspending normal discrimination law to give people the ability to discriminate on grounds of dress where they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against - say - someone dressed as a Nun. (*)
(*) I'm not actually convinced that these laws should be there in the first place, but if they are then I think they should be applied evenly.
These are both measures aimed at discriminating against particular cultural forms of dress in the hope of eliminating them. The history in your original post is a great example of how this will tend to be counter-productive.
Just face covering, not dress. Don't think it is unreasonable - in a court or a benefit office or a passport queue or school to require faces to be uncovered.
Similarly, banks are at liberty to deny entry at the moment to people wearing motorcycle helments. Why not make clear they can do the same - if they want - to people with covered faces.
I must say of the last few former PMs Sir John Major comports himself the best. I have to say his advice regarding Chilcott is sage and it will be instructive to see if it is heeded.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
Okay - proven atheistic pedants. Only those disputing whether the franchise is logically determinable will be allowed to vote.
"British persons of faith tend to be faintly embarrassed by it all and it's not something that tends to detract from more serious pursuits. I think it's why organisations that try to ape American fundamentalism tend to be treated with ice cold disdain by most people of faith."
That was certainly true, but it is shifting now. What we might call fundamentalist or evangelical churches are packing them in. There is for example a church in Brighton that is regularly getting 450-500, mostly young or youngish, people for evensong (or what passes for it their eyes). The same I am informed is happening up and down the country and in some RC churches too.
How far this movement will grow I have no idea, but perhaps it does suggest that a growing number of people are looking for something than materialism
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
Okay - proven atheistic pedants. Only those disputing whether the franchise is logically determinable will be allowed to vote.
It will be a small franchise.
How about One Man, One Vote?
I'm that man, and I have the vote.
Or, for TSE's election, "One Man, One Vote, Once".
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
Okay - proven atheistic pedants. Only those disputing whether the franchise is logically determinable will be allowed to vote.
It will be a small franchise.
How about One Man, One Vote?
I'm that man, and I have the vote.
Or, for TSE's election, "One Man, One Vote, Once".
The most remarkable election slogan was that of Charles Taylor, when he ran for President of Liberia.
"He killed my ma. He killed my pa. I'll vote for him!"
"British persons of faith tend to be faintly embarrassed by it all and it's not something that tends to detract from more serious pursuits. I think it's why organisations that try to ape American fundamentalism tend to be treated with ice cold disdain by most people of faith."
That was certainly true, but it is shifting now. What we might call fundamentalist or evangelical churches are packing them in. There is for example a church in Brighton that is regularly getting 450-500, mostly young or youngish, people for evensong (or what passes for it their eyes). The same I am informed is happening up and down the country and in some RC churches too.
How far this movement will grow I have no idea, but perhaps it does suggest that a growing number of people are looking for something than materialism
Pentecostalism is a very rapidly-growing denomination, too.
However, in general, British evangelicals don't tend to identify with one political party, in the way that their US counterparts tend to.
"British persons of faith tend to be faintly embarrassed by it all and it's not something that tends to detract from more serious pursuits. I think it's why organisations that try to ape American fundamentalism tend to be treated with ice cold disdain by most people of faith."
That was certainly true, but it is shifting now. What we might call fundamentalist or evangelical churches are packing them in. There is for example a church in Brighton that is regularly getting 450-500, mostly young or youngish, people for evensong (or what passes for it their eyes). The same I am informed is happening up and down the country and in some RC churches too.
How far this movement will grow I have no idea, but perhaps it does suggest that a growing number of people are looking for something than materialism
I know that there is a growing preponderance of more radical evangelical outfits but it looks more like a growing proportion of a declining whole and so against the national backdrop it's probably of little significance. I just don't see Britain ever getting to the situation in the States we just don't do zeal
"Police were today investigating a sign telling pet owners to stay out of an east London park because "Muslims do not like dogs".
The warning, in Bartlett Park, Poplar, said: "Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs. This is an Islamic area now.""
It's just a bit of paper. Why not just remove it? It's clearly an unofficial sign – a piece of graffiti – put there by idiots.
It's the sense of entitlement that they can tell others what they can and can't do that people don't like. The gay-free zone stickers and Muslim patrols telling women to dress "modestly" are part of the same stuff that people don't get along with. Do Indians in Wembley say that shops and restaurants can't sell beef products? No. We all live by the law of the land. If Indians want to live in a place where the consumption of beef is limited let them go to India. The law of this land is more important than any imported cutsoms from abroad.
I have taken a lot of crap for this view from other non-whites, but respect for the law of the land trumps any attachment to religion or overseas culture.
Based on UKPR's current averaging of the polls, Stephen Fisher's latest projection of next May's GE result (showing minimal changes compared with the previous week) is as follows:
Con ....... 307 seats (no change) Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1) LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1) Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
How do you prove it? You'll burn any book not written by Richard Dawkins?
Okay - proven atheistic pedants. Only those disputing whether the franchise is logically determinable will be allowed to vote.
It will be a small franchise.
How about One Man, One Vote?
I'm that man, and I have the vote.
In all seriousness I think there is a lot of scope to be more inventive about our democratic systems.
For example, what about restricting the franchise to 1% of the population, determined entirely by random for each election?
It would reduce the size of the electorate in each Parliamentary constituency to about seven hundred, a number of people that you might hope to gather all together in one place for informed debate, and also making it easier for the electors to discuss issues directly with the candidates.
It might also hope to increase turnout (as a percentage of those eligible), because the right to vote in a particular election would be a special and rare privilege, rather than an ever-present right.
The Athenians seemed to use a wide variety of different methods for their democracy, whereas we've become stuck on one very specific form - representative democracy with a universal franchise.
It's a little bit dodgy to quote anything biblical as the word of god or law. Like the Koran, it was written after the deaths of those whose words they are both supposed to portray, and "might" possibly have been modified to suit the later proponents. (If there is a God, he was clever enough to put the real meaning elsewhere.) Edit: or she/it/etc,
That's not really important, If people think they have a right to do something or think something based purely on words in a book written maybe 2000 years ago or so, then that's a problem.
"Ironically, there's almost universal approval about the polish builders and plumbers, who are both cheaper and better than the home-grown tradesmen!"
The "better" bit is surely crucial here.
And it's not universal. I recently had some very shoddy decorating work done by a company I hired that used Polish workers. I think they are just as mixed in performance as their British counterparts.
Government approval have dropped sharply the last two weeks with Yougov:
They've been around -20 for a while, now dropping to around -26. What's happened? The effect of the Euros and minds concentrated on the continent? I've thought that Labour shouldn't panic over the polls and wait till the Euros were over. Yesterday's Yougov was certainly very encouraging, we'll see if the other polls switch much.
It's a little bit dodgy to quote anything biblical as the word of god or law. Like the Koran, it was written after the deaths of those whose words they are both supposed to portray, and "might" possibly have been modified to suit the later proponents. (If there is a God, he was clever enough to put the real meaning elsewhere.) Edit: or she/it/etc,
The standard Protestant position is that those who wrote the New Testament were guided by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Most Protestants also reject some of the more dodgy biblical texts, such as the so-called First and Second Books of the Maccabees, which the papists hold to be canonical. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church also claims that no scripture is binding in matters of faith, only the interpretation of the pope, who they hold can grant an indulgence pardoning a sin against divine law, even one that is yet to be committed...
"Ironically, there's almost universal approval about the polish builders and plumbers, who are both cheaper and better than the home-grown tradesmen!"
The "better" bit is surely crucial here.
And it's not universal. I recently had some very shoddy decorating work done by a company I hired that used Polish workers. I think they are just as mixed in performance as their British counterparts.
In my experience, Polish builders and decorators are fine; but one should run a mile from Polish electricians and plumbers.
It's the point of that post. Anyone depending on a literal version the New Testament runs into one major problem. Why did an omnipotent and all seeing God forget to supply his only son with a scribe to take down his teachings at the time? (Same for the Koran, and several other books)
Based on UKPR's current averaging of the polls, Stephen Fisher's latest projection of next May's GE result (showing minimal changes compared with the previous week) is as follows:
Con ....... 307 seats (no change) Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1) LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1) Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
I'd be amazed if the current averaging of the polls suggests that. Is he factoring in swingback?
"Police were today investigating a sign telling pet owners to stay out of an east London park because "Muslims do not like dogs".
The warning, in Bartlett Park, Poplar, said: "Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs. This is an Islamic area now.""
It's just a bit of paper. Why not just remove it? It's clearly an unofficial sign – a piece of graffiti – put there by idiots.
It's the sense of entitlement that they can tell others what they can and can't do that people don't like. The gay-free zone stickers and Muslim patrols telling women to dress "modestly" are part of the same stuff that people don't get along with. Do Indians in Wembley say that shops and restaurants can't sell beef products? No. We all live by the law of the land. If Indians want to live in a place where the consumption of beef is limited let them go to India. The law of this land is more important than any imported cutsoms from abroad.
I have taken a lot of crap for this view from other non-whites, but respect for the law of the land trumps any attachment to religion or overseas culture.
We don't even know it was Muslims that did this, rather than the far right stirring up trouble. Let's wait and see.
Based on UKPR's current averaging of the polls, Stephen Fisher's latest projection of next May's GE result (showing minimal changes compared with the previous week) is as follows:
Con ....... 307 seats (no change) Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1) LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1) Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
I'd be amazed if the current averaging of the polls suggests that. Is he factoring in swingback?
Yes, the Fisher model uses the current average of polls and then applies a swingback.
Based on UKPR's current averaging of the polls, Stephen Fisher's latest projection of next May's GE result (showing minimal changes compared with the previous week) is as follows:
Con ....... 307 seats (no change) Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1) LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1) Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
I'd be amazed if the current averaging of the polls suggests that. Is he factoring in swingback?
It's the point of that post. Anyone depending on a literal version the New Testament runs into one major problem. Why did an omnipotent and all seeing God forget to supply his only son with a scribe to take down his teachings at the time? (Same for the Koran, and several other books)
Fair enough, we were agreeing then
If God really wanted to do something good, he really should send down some messages on what he thinks of modern society, like the internet, or gay rights, or the role of women. Relying on some words from his son 2000 years when they didn't even have working toilets isn't really great.
He really has been slacking. He needs to be on twitter or something.
I actually think he might have a tiny tiny point but the aggressive and snobbish way he puts it just turns me off. I'd actually quite like Coe appointed now just to spite Oborne. He really is an odious individual.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
"Ironically, there's almost universal approval about the polish builders and plumbers, who are both cheaper and better than the home-grown tradesmen!"
The "better" bit is surely crucial here.
And it's not universal. I recently had some very shoddy decorating work done by a company I hired that used Polish workers. I think they are just as mixed in performance as their British counterparts.
I'm sure it's not universal. But clearly in the Cumbrian town referred to they are. I guess a closed shop in which there was no competition made the local builders and plumbers a bit lazy. Now, perhaps, they won't be.
Up here almost all the tradesmen are British. When I was down in London it was much more mixed. The British tradesmen typically seemed to juggle a lot of jobs, did not do the work to schedule, were sloppy and wanted to be paid cash in hand. That was just my experience though and I would not base any wider conclusions from it.
However, what I would say is that the much maligned wealthy metropolitan elite would tend to get work done by the people they considered best placed and most skilled to do it, rather than those charging the least amount of money. Sometimes blaming others for your own failures is the easiest thing to do.
@Slackbladder You may have a a good point. Another possibility is "God" put the real meaning somewhere else, that later generations could find, but couldn't alter. Who knows?
I've just seen the clip of Joey Barton comparing the political parties to four ugly girls, and Ukip was the least ugly.
Quite a good simile and the Ukip woman should have taken it better. If Joey had been female and had likened the parties to four ugly blokes, I suspect that would have been OK.
Where are all these fundamentalist atheists flocking from? Dave Allen's sign off was best ... "May your God go with you."
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Based on UKPR's current averaging of the polls, Stephen Fisher's latest projection of next May's GE result (showing minimal changes compared with the previous week) is as follows:
Con ....... 307 seats (no change) Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1) LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1) Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
I'd be amazed if the current averaging of the polls suggests that. Is he factoring in swingback?
I have to say this every week, and no doubt will continue to have to do so, but the number to look at is not the central forecast, but the error bars: currently plus or minus 8 points on Con vote share.
In plain English, what his analysis shows is that the polls this far out aren't a very reliable indicator of the final result, but, inasmuch as they are, they indicate the following probabilities (based on polling only):
Probabilities of:
Con Maj: 34% Hung, Con most seats: 26% Hung, Lab most seats: 22% Lab Maj: 18%
It is when those error bars start to get smaller that you need to look more closely at the central forecast.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
According to the People's Front of PB Tory (Hairshirt Wing), I am part of the "Metropolitan Elite"*
We are currently renovating a house.
I concur that we talk at length with the blokes and look at their past projects and references before hiring them for a job. Costs usually vary between suppliers by ~5-10%, but this is not the key criteria.
Very rarely do we end up going with the cheapest – in fact, I don't think we ever have. They are usually cheap for a reason – they have neither the skills nor the experience.
FWIW, the gang who have just completed a great job were all Englishmen.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
I think it's probably some combination of all, plus add in the fact that the polling was done in March IIRC and it may not therefore be informative other than as a general guide.
If I'm off-base with my East Anglian comment, then I apologise. I do see it in my Parent's town in Cumbria, though. Tiny, tiny immigrant community, but going from zero to 100 over 5 years has spooked a lot of people, especially after a lifetime of ethnic homogeneity. The Cons are still going to walk the election, but the Kippers are pretty popular, especially amongst the over-50's.
It's not so much a "tiny tiny" immigrant community in East Anglia; well over one in ten inhabitants of Boston is now East European and that is a transformation that has taken place in just a decade. I've seen estimates as high as 1 in 4 and will take that with a pinch of salt, but in certain estates that sounds quite credible, since certainly several of the schools are now overwhelmingly Polish majority. Pretty much any high street you visit in the Fens will have skleps and magazins - the changes are very visible. And audible. I think it's hard for some people, particularly those who are accustomed to a more diverse metropolis, to grasp how big a change this feels in such "sleepy" corners of England. EU migration has impacted in places that Windrush or the Ugandan Asians barely touched, and which have largely been passed by by the more recent increases in South Asian and West African migration.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
Lord Ashcroft picked the worst time to release his poll.
He's massively respected for his polls, you would not believe how much planning I went to make sure I'd be able to write a prompt thread on Saturday.
The polls were conducted in March, the polls have moved on since, and the most interesting thing, that Anthony Wells picked up, Labour are doing on par in the marginals as they were in the national polls at the same time.
Which means Labour are no longer doing better in the marginals, which is what they were doing before.
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
Nevermind, Mr. Eagles, you'll just have to grin and bear it. I don't suppose there will be any lasting ill-effects.
Mind you, I have to ask. Why? Are you taking some relative's/neighbour's/friend's young daughters? You are going to end up on a register if you are not careful.
"The polls were conducted in March, the polls have moved on since, and the most interesting thing, that Anthony Wells picked up, Labour are doing on par in the marginals as they were in the national polls at the same time."
The only poll that's shown that has been the small sample ComRes marginals poll that did use the two stage question.
Whilst noting a few comments on absolute primogeniture it worthy of consideration that had such a system operated from Queen Victoria's reign then she would have been succeeded by .... drum roll :
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
I've just seen the clip of Joey Barton comparing the political parties to four ugly girls, and Ukip was the least ugly.
Quite a good simile and the Ukip woman should have taken it better. If Joey had been female and had likened the parties to four ugly blokes, I suspect that would have been OK.
Where are all these fundamentalist atheists flocking from? Dave Allen's sign off was best ... "May your God go with you."
He did indeed and he also used to take the mickey out of religion mercilessly. As a result the BBC used to get large numbers of letters complaining and he was banned by the Irish state broadcaster.
He was deeply critical of religion in all its forms and was, in his own words 'a practicing atheist'.
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
Nevermind, Mr. Eagles, you'll just have to grin and bear it. I don't suppose there will be any lasting ill-effects.
Mind you, I have to ask. Why? Are you taking some relative's/neighbour's/friend's young daughters? You are going to end up on a register if you are not careful.
They are an awesome band, they are a joy to listen to.
Currently sitting on one of those newfangled 787s about to jet off to pastures warm. Last time I went we had two crossovers in ten hours. Let's try not to repeat that!
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
TSE is right about the timing. This 26,000 phone sample poll was always going to get overshadowed by UKIP's stunning performance in the locals - the "earthquake" that saw them win 3.8% of seats that were up and drop 6% in national vote share.
"The polls were conducted in March, the polls have moved on since, and the most interesting thing, that Anthony Wells picked up, Labour are doing on par in the marginals as they were in the national polls at the same time."
The only poll that's shown that has been the small sample ComRes marginals poll that did use the two stage question.
I meant the nationwide polls.
Here's what Anthony Wells wrote
UPDATE: Actually I’ve just spotted that the fieldwork in the Tory held seats was done earlier than the fieldwork in the Labour held seats. So comparing the swing in Con-Lab seats to the swing in national polls at the time the polls were done shows no difference at all (both show swing of 5.5%). Comparing the swing in Lab-Con seats to the swing in national polls at the time those polls were done shows Lab doing about 1.5 points better in seats they already hold.
Currently sitting on one of those newfangled 787s about to jet off to pastures warm. Last time I went we had two crossovers in ten hours. Let's try not to repeat that!
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
Pah! I went to Der Rosenkavalier at Glyndebourne last night, and there was a cabinet minister in the row behind us. At least, there was for the first two acts... I did wonder if some big story had broken in the interval before the third act.
Currently sitting on one of those newfangled 787s about to jet off to pastures warm. Last time I went we had two crossovers in ten hours. Let's try not to repeat that!
Whilst noting a few comments on absolute primogeniture it worthy of consideration that had such a system operated from Queen Victoria's reign then she would have been succeeded by .... drum roll :
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
Funny old world ....
Certainly would have been intriguing. Also one wonders how WWI would have played out because whilst the crowns would have been unified the politics wouldn't have been. One suspects August 1914 would have been even more bizarre. I just don't see that in 13 years the entire British Imperial state would have been forced to march in lockstep to Prussian Militarism. Either the Kaiser would have been dispossessed of his British crown and it given to his cousin George V as a reversion to the present situation or Britain would have become a republic.
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
Pah! I went to Der Rosenkavalier at Glyndebourne last night, and there was a cabinet minister in the row behind us. At least, there was for the first two acts... I did wonder if some big story had broken in the interval before the third act.
Was it a Lib Dem cabinet minister?
Probably found out Lord Oakeshott had commissioned a poll in his constituency and it wasn't good news.
Agreed, as Lord Ashcroft himself noted, his polling is a snapshot rather than a prediction. It would be fascinating to see what such a large marginals poll would reveal if one is undertaken in the Autumn after the Indy Referendum result is declared.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
TSE is right about the timing. This 26,000 phone sample poll was always going to get overshadowed by UKIP's stunning performance in the locals - the "earthquake" that saw them win 3.8% of seats that were up and drop 6% in national vote share.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
TSE is right about the timing. This 26,000 phone sample poll was always going to get overshadowed by UKIP's stunning performance in the locals - the "earthquake" that saw them win 3.8% of seats that were up and drop 6% in national vote share.
It was a crazy time time to publish.
Not really, Ed Miliband can't really gain as much traction from those as he otherwise might have been able to - I think polls like this are only really noted by pundits and punters tbh, probably 99.9% have no idea who Ashcroft even is.
He was an atheist before it became fashionable. Although he was an basically an iconoclast.
I used to enjoy his shows.
I drink with atheists, agnostics and very religious people and we accept everyone's idiosyncrasies.
I have an arrangement with a Muslim. Should he be proved right, he'll put in a good word for me with Alllah. Should I be right, there's a reciprocal arrangement in place.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
TSE is right about the timing. This 26,000 phone sample poll was always going to get overshadowed by UKIP's stunning performance in the locals - the "earthquake" that saw them win 3.8% of seats that were up and drop 6% in national vote share.
It was a crazy time time to publish.
The "earthquake" that Farage predicted, and got, was winning the Euros.
If we're discussing cultural activities, I shall be going to the ABBA Museum in an hour's time.
Hmm... my T20 match at the Oval this evening (Surrey v the Muddle) seems pale by comparison. Still at least I get to see the wonderous Jade Dernbach bowl.
Whilst noting a few comments on absolute primogeniture it worthy of consideration that had such a system operated from Queen Victoria's reign then she would have been succeeded by .... drum roll :
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
Funny old world ....
Certainly would have been intriguing. Also one wonders how WWI would have played out because whilst the crowns would have been unified the politics wouldn't have been. One suspects August 1914 would have been even more bizarre. I just don't see that in 13 years the entire British Imperial state would have been forced to march in lockstep to Prussian Militarism. Either the Kaiser would have been dispossessed of his British crown and it given to his cousin George V as a reversion to the present situation or Britain would have become a republic.
If Queen Victoria's eldest daughter was in line to inherit the throne of Britain she would never have been married off to the heir to the Prussian throne, and so the counter-factual falls.
He was an atheist before it became fashionable. Although he was an basically an iconoclast.
I used to enjoy his shows.
I drink with atheists, agnostics and very religious people and we accept everyone's idiosyncrasies.
I have an arrangement with a Muslim. Should he be proved right, he'll put in a good word for me with Alllah. Should I be right, there's a reciprocal arrangement in place.
And if the Aetheists are proved right you'll never know. Mind you, they will feel are right bunch of berks if it turns out they were wrong.
It's surprising how little Ashcroft's marginals poll from last weekend has been discussed. Just googling it there is nothing really other than the immediate reaction last weekend. I wonder why? It could be that other events like the Euro results/Lord Oakeshott have taken over. Might there not be other explanations?
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does. 2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
TSE is right about the timing. This 26,000 phone sample poll was always going to get overshadowed by UKIP's stunning performance in the locals - the "earthquake" that saw them win 3.8% of seats that were up and drop 6% in national vote share.
It was a crazy time time to publish.
The "earthquake" that Farage predicted, and got, was winning the Euros.
If we're discussing cultural activities, I shall be going to the ABBA Museum in an hour's time.
Hmm... my T20 match at the Oval this evening (Surrey v the Muddle) seems pale by comparison. Still at least I get to see the wonderous Jade Dernbach bowl.
Take a crash helmet, I can see sixes raining into the crowd.
One PBer suggested to me that Andrew Flintoff's comeback, was because Freddie's watched Jade Dernbach and probably thinks England recall must be round the corner!
He was an atheist before it became fashionable. Although he was an basically an iconoclast.
I used to enjoy his shows.
I drink with atheists, agnostics and very religious people and we accept everyone's idiosyncrasies.
I have an arrangement with a Muslim. Should he be proved right, he'll put in a good word for me with Alllah. Should I be right, there's a reciprocal arrangement in place.
And if the Aetheists are proved right you'll never know. Mind you, they will feel are right bunch of berks if it turns out they were wrong.
Not at all. If we turn out to be wrong we will be coming armed for bear and see if we can't get a new boss installed.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Hurst, having it in the boozer sounds better to me
Whilst noting a few comments on absolute primogeniture it worthy of consideration that had such a system operated from Queen Victoria's reign then she would have been succeeded by .... drum roll :
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
Funny old world ....
Certainly would have been intriguing. Also one wonders how WWI would have played out because whilst the crowns would have been unified the politics wouldn't have been. One suspects August 1914 would have been even more bizarre. I just don't see that in 13 years the entire British Imperial state would have been forced to march in lockstep to Prussian Militarism. Either the Kaiser would have been dispossessed of his British crown and it given to his cousin George V as a reversion to the present situation or Britain would have become a republic.
Even more intriguing would have been if "Queen Victoria II" had enjoyed the longevity of her mother and had still be reigning at the start of WWI - Mother against son and heir .... and then perhaps she died during the war ?!?!?
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Hurst, having it in the boozer sounds better to me
The joy of modern phones is you can have this convo on pb whilst in a pub.
Whilst noting a few comments on absolute primogeniture it worthy of consideration that had such a system operated from Queen Victoria's reign then she would have been succeeded by .... drum roll :
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
Funny old world ....
Certainly would have been intriguing. Also one wonders how WWI would have played out because whilst the crowns would have been unified the politics wouldn't have been. One suspects August 1914 would have been even more bizarre. I just don't see that in 13 years the entire British Imperial state would have been forced to march in lockstep to Prussian Militarism. Either the Kaiser would have been dispossessed of his British crown and it given to his cousin George V as a reversion to the present situation or Britain would have become a republic.
If Queen Victoria's eldest daughter was in line to inherit the throne of Britain she would never have been married off to the heir to the Prussian throne, and so the counter-factual falls.
Why so?
Dynastic matches occurred frequently in the period and Victoria and Frederick married in 1858 well before Germany was united and indeed Victoria was from the House of Hanover of which her uncle was king and before Queen Victoria produced a child was heir to the UK throne.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Hurst, having it in the boozer sounds better to me
The joy of modern phones is you can have this convo on pb whilst in a pub.
But why the -ing hell would you want to? Last time I was in Town I went into one of my old haunts got a beer and sat gazing around whilst waiting for the person I was due to meet. I saw at another table four chaps, obviously together, all each engrossed in their own smartphone. The only time they acknowledged each others existence was when one got up to get a round in. Total madness.
Last time I was in Town I went into one of my old haunts got a beer and sat gazing around whilst waiting for the person I was due to meet. I saw at another table four chaps, obviously together, all each engrossed in their own smartphone. The only time they acknowledged each others existence was when one got up to get a round in. Total madness.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Hurst, having it in the boozer sounds better to me
The joy of modern phones is you can have this convo on pb whilst in a pub.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope.
Would you require the same from a Catholic who was elected to be President of the United States of America?
I'd expect them to make it clear in the election campaign that they believe that the separation of church and state is absolute.
Which is surely something you'd expect of a Protestant candidate too?
To an extent, but I think there is more importance of it with Catholics that believe there's a specific person who has divine authority over them. The same applies to other groups with the same situation, like Mormons, in my opinion. A Protestant might base his views on the Bible, but the whole public can see that text, rather than secret divine instruction going on behind the scenes.
It is remarkable really. Here we are in the 21st century, using the internet (surely one of mankind's greatest inventions) to have the same discussion that would not have been out of place (though possibly illegal) in a London boozer in the early 17th century.
Hurst, having it in the boozer sounds better to me
The joy of modern phones is you can have this convo on pb whilst in a pub.
But why the -ing hell would you want to? Last time I was in Town I went into one of my old haunts got a beer and sat gazing around whilst waiting for the person I was due to meet. I saw at another table four chaps, obviously together, all each engrossed in their own smartphone. The only time they acknowledged each others existence was when one got up to get a round in. Total madness.
I can multi-task, I can ignore chat to my friends and read and post on PB at the same time.
Hell I once even wrote and published a PB thread whilst in a night club whilst dancing to Barbie Girl.
''Even more intriguing would have been if "Queen Victoria II" had enjoyed the longevity of her mother and had still be reigning at the start of WWI - Mother against son and heir .... and then perhaps she died during the war ?!?!?''
I doubt whether any combination of royals could have shaken Grey out of the torpor that saw us slide into war.
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
Pah! I went to Der Rosenkavalier at Glyndebourne last night, and there was a cabinet minister in the row behind us. At least, there was for the first two acts... I did wonder if some big story had broken in the interval before the third act.
Was it a Marschallin type 'Etonian' cabinet minister or a Baron Ochs Lib Dem type?
Isn't there a fundamental problem for UKIP around winning Westminster seats, due to the nature of its support?
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Conversely, though, in a seat that hasn't seen much immigration, they'll also have trouble winning. If there hasn't been enough immigration, nothing is generating a critical mass of anti-immigrant voters. rant areas It seems to follow that in a seat where there's been a lot of immigration they can't win, and in a seat where there hasn't been a lot of immigration they can't win.
This model predicts that UKIP would only ever be able to win on protest votes and in silly elections that don't matter. Protest voters don't care what they stand for. In trivial elections such as the euros their natural opposition can't be bothered to mobilise because the outcome doesn't actually matter.
But on this analysis, the natural limit on UKIP representation at Westminster would appear to be about 0 to 2 seats, or thereabouts; i.e. whatever marginal-ish seats become available in by-elections between GEs.
First of all, UKIP are neither anti immigrant, or anti foreigner.
Secondly you are right that where there are a majority of 1st 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, UKIP find it hard to make progress. Inner London being the prime example. If very few people have family history in an area, they dont care as much if the place is changing rapidly, because they are part of the change.
The areas where UKIP do well is where people have moved out of areas affected by mass immigraton, maybe only a couple of stops on the train away, and want to keep that area as it is. Hornchurch and Upminster where I live is a prime example, Thurrock, Basildon, basically most of West Essex, where a lot of people are from the East End, have seen what has become of it, and vote for our part of the world to stay as it is, rather than become a minority
So areas that border those affected by mass immigration are where UKIP will do best, and there are a lot more than 0-2 of them
But then when you look at the 2010 results UKIP's best result anywhere was third, in 3 constituencies.
Isn't there a fundamental problem for UKIP around winning Westminster seats, due to the nature of its support?
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Conversely, though, in a seat that hasn't seen much immigration, they'll also have trouble winning. If there hasn't been enough immigration, nothing is generating a critical mass of anti-immigrant voters. rant areas It seems to follow that in a seat where there's been a lot of immigration they can't win, and in a seat where there hasn't been a lot of immigration they can't win.
This model predicts that UKIP would only ever be able to win on protest votes and in silly elections that don't matter. Protest voters don't care what they stand for. In trivial elections such as the euros their natural opposition can't be bothered to mobilise because the outcome doesn't actually matter.
But on this analysis, the natural limit on UKIP representation at Westminster would appear to be about 0 to 2 seats, or thereabouts; i.e. whatever marginal-ish seats become available in by-elections between GEs.
First of all, UKIP are neither anti immigrant, or anti foreigner.
Secondly you are right that where there are a majority of 1st 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, UKIP find it hard to make progress. Inner London being the prime example. If very few people have family history in an area, they dont care as much if the place is changing rapidly, because they are part of the change.
The areas where UKIP do well is where people have moved out of areas affected by mass immigraton, maybe only a couple of stops on the train away, and want to keep that area as it is. Hornchurch and Upminster where I live is a prime example, Thurrock, Basildon, basically most of West Essex, where a lot of people are from the East End, have seen what has become of it, and vote for our part of the world to stay as it is, rather than become a minority
So areas that border those affected by mass immigration are where UKIP will do best, and there are a lot more than 0-2 of them
But then when you look at the 2010 results UKIP's best result anywhere was third, in 3 constituencies.
Comments
They've been around -20 for a while, now dropping to around -26. What's happened? The effect of the Euros and minds concentrated on the continent? I've thought that Labour shouldn't panic over the polls and wait till the Euros were over. Yesterday's Yougov was certainly very encouraging, we'll see if the other polls switch much.
It's a little bit dodgy to quote anything biblical as the word of god or law. Like the Koran, it was written after the deaths of those whose words they are both supposed to portray, and "might" possibly have been modified to suit the later proponents.
(If there is a God, he was clever enough to put the real meaning elsewhere.)
Edit: or she/it/etc,
It will be a small franchise.
Similarly, banks are at liberty to deny entry at the moment to people wearing motorcycle helments. Why not make clear they can do the same - if they want - to people with covered faces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27633349
I'm that man, and I have the vote.
That was certainly true, but it is shifting now. What we might call fundamentalist or evangelical churches are packing them in. There is for example a church in Brighton that is regularly getting 450-500, mostly young or youngish, people for evensong (or what passes for it their eyes). The same I am informed is happening up and down the country and in some RC churches too.
How far this movement will grow I have no idea, but perhaps it does suggest that a growing number of people are looking for something than materialism
"He killed my ma. He killed my pa. I'll vote for him!"
However, in general, British evangelicals don't tend to identify with one political party, in the way that their US counterparts tend to.
I have taken a lot of crap for this view from other non-whites, but respect for the law of the land trumps any attachment to religion or overseas culture.
Con ....... 307 seats (no change)
Lab ........ 285 seats ( +1)
LibDem .... 30 seats ( -1)
Others ..... 28 seats (no change)
For example, what about restricting the franchise to 1% of the population, determined entirely by random for each election?
It would reduce the size of the electorate in each Parliamentary constituency to about seven hundred, a number of people that you might hope to gather all together in one place for informed debate, and also making it easier for the electors to discuss issues directly with the candidates.
It might also hope to increase turnout (as a percentage of those eligible), because the right to vote in a particular election would be a special and rare privilege, rather than an ever-present right.
The Athenians seemed to use a wide variety of different methods for their democracy, whereas we've become stuck on one very specific form - representative democracy with a universal franchise.
The "better" bit is surely crucial here.
It's the point of that post.
Anyone depending on a literal version the New Testament runs into one major problem.
Why did an omnipotent and all seeing God forget to supply his only son with a scribe to take down his teachings at the time?
(Same for the Koran, and several other books)
Are you sure you mean that?
If God really wanted to do something good, he really should send down some messages on what he thinks of modern society, like the internet, or gay rights, or the role of women. Relying on some words from his son 2000 years when they didn't even have working toilets isn't really great.
He really has been slacking. He needs to be on twitter or something.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100274007/seb-coe-is-a-very-nice-man-but-he-would-be-a-disastrous-chairman-of-the-bbc-trust/
I actually think he might have a tiny tiny point but the aggressive and snobbish way he puts it just turns me off. I'd actually quite like Coe appointed now just to spite Oborne. He really is an odious individual.
God @TheTweetOfGod · 7h
I love My followers in India because to make things easier they outsource My job to hundreds of other gods.
Up here almost all the tradesmen are British. When I was down in London it was much more mixed. The British tradesmen typically seemed to juggle a lot of jobs, did not do the work to schedule, were sloppy and wanted to be paid cash in hand. That was just my experience though and I would not base any wider conclusions from it.
However, what I would say is that the much maligned wealthy metropolitan elite would tend to get work done by the people they considered best placed and most skilled to do it, rather than those charging the least amount of money. Sometimes blaming others for your own failures is the easiest thing to do.
You may have a a good point.
Another possibility is "God" put the real meaning somewhere else, that later generations could find, but couldn't alter.
Who knows?
Quite a good simile and the Ukip woman should have taken it better. If Joey had been female and had likened the parties to four ugly blokes, I suspect that would have been OK.
Where are all these fundamentalist atheists flocking from? Dave Allen's sign off was best ... "May your God go with you."
In plain English, what his analysis shows is that the polls this far out aren't a very reliable indicator of the final result, but, inasmuch as they are, they indicate the following probabilities (based on polling only):
Probabilities of:
Con Maj: 34%
Hung, Con most seats: 26%
Hung, Lab most seats: 22%
Lab Maj: 18%
It is when those error bars start to get smaller that you need to look more closely at the central forecast.
1) That Lord Ashcroft is still not respected for the polling that he does.
2) The polls were good for Ed Miliband and that doesn't fit with the narrative people want.
@Socca
According to the People's Front of PB Tory (Hairshirt Wing), I am part of the "Metropolitan Elite"*
We are currently renovating a house.
I concur that we talk at length with the blokes and look at their past projects and references before hiring them for a job. Costs usually vary between suppliers by ~5-10%, but this is not the key criteria.
Very rarely do we end up going with the cheapest – in fact, I don't think we ever have. They are usually cheap for a reason – they have neither the skills nor the experience.
FWIW, the gang who have just completed a great job were all Englishmen.
*Whatever that may be.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/racist-nans-now-in-charge-2014052987012
I'm seeing New Kids on The Block this evening in Manchester.
He's massively respected for his polls, you would not believe how much planning I went to make sure I'd be able to write a prompt thread on Saturday.
The polls were conducted in March, the polls have moved on since, and the most interesting thing, that Anthony Wells picked up, Labour are doing on par in the marginals as they were in the national polls at the same time.
Which means Labour are no longer doing better in the marginals, which is what they were doing before.
Mind you, I have to ask. Why? Are you taking some relative's/neighbour's/friend's young daughters? You are going to end up on a register if you are not careful.
"The polls were conducted in March, the polls have moved on since, and the most interesting thing, that Anthony Wells picked up, Labour are doing on par in the marginals as they were in the national polls at the same time."
The only poll that's shown that has been the small sample ComRes marginals poll that did use the two stage question.
Kaiser Bill's mother - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - he being the eldest child of Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (later Kaiser Frederick III) in 1858.
She would have succeeded presumably as Queen Victoria II but only reigned for little under seven months as she died on 5th August 1901. For a short period she would have been both Dowager Empress of Germany and Empress of India. Her son Kaiser Bill would have succeeded.
Our present monarch would be their direct descendant :
Princess Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten.
Funny old world ....
He was deeply critical of religion in all its forms and was, in his own words 'a practicing atheist'.
It was a crazy time time to publish.
Here's what Anthony Wells wrote
UPDATE: Actually I’ve just spotted that the fieldwork in the Tory held seats was done earlier than the fieldwork in the Labour held seats. So comparing the swing in Con-Lab seats to the swing in national polls at the time the polls were done shows no difference at all (both show swing of 5.5%). Comparing the swing in Lab-Con seats to the swing in national polls at the time those polls were done shows Lab doing about 1.5 points better in seats they already hold.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8842
Probably found out Lord Oakeshott had commissioned a poll in his constituency and it wasn't good news.
He was an atheist before it became fashionable. Although he was an basically an iconoclast.
I used to enjoy his shows.
I drink with atheists, agnostics and very religious people and we accept everyone's idiosyncrasies.
I have an arrangement with a Muslim. Should he be proved right, he'll put in a good word for me with Alllah. Should I be right, there's a reciprocal arrangement in place.
The "earthquake" that Farage predicted, and got, was winning the Euros.
Which one of the seven stages of grief is denial?
Enjoy
One PBer suggested to me that Andrew Flintoff's comeback, was because Freddie's watched Jade Dernbach and probably thinks England recall must be round the corner!
twitter.com/MessageSpace/status/472354917718704128
Dynastic matches occurred frequently in the period and Victoria and Frederick married in 1858 well before Germany was united and indeed Victoria was from the House of Hanover of which her uncle was king and before Queen Victoria produced a child was heir to the UK throne.
Hell I once even wrote and published a PB thread whilst in a night club whilst dancing to Barbie Girl.
I doubt whether any combination of royals could have shaken Grey out of the torpor that saw us slide into war.
2010???
Tings ave changed