Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest Slot: All publicity is good publicity? Maybe not when

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited June 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest Slot: All publicity is good publicity? Maybe not when Ed Miliband is on TV

UK General Elections, we are told have become increasingly presidential. And how each party leader comes across, particularly on Television, is important. Ed Miliband has faced criticism for his style and communication skills – It’s probably fair to comment that he’s not a natural TV performer. But what if it’s slightly worse than that?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited June 2014
    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Bring on the TV debates...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    RodCrosby said:

    Bring on the TV debates...

    It was reported some months ago that a reason why the Tories are less keen on TV debates is that their focus groups suggest that Ed would have an advantage.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    Bring on the TV debates...

    It was reported some months ago that a reason why the Tories are less keen on TV debates is that their focus groups suggest that Ed would have an advantage.

    I'd love to see that data.

    With/without Farage?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    I can't follow your numbers Steve, anyhow.

    Given that 40:40 would imply no effect, 46:34 may not be significant.

    Plus, are you making the same error as the people who launched the Challenger to disaster? What happens to the Labour vote when Ed doesn't appear on TV?

    How do you estimate the Labour daily share, btw? A potential can of worms in itself...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    @RodCrosby No data - just reports of focus groups.

    In any case all that matters is what 2010 LD>LAB switchers think of EdM and the evidence there is positive for LAB as I've written about before. They are more enthusiastic about him than other LAB voters.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    RodCrosby said:

    I can't follow your numbers Steve, anyhow.

    Given that 40:40 would imply no effect, 46:34 may not be significant.

    Plus, are you making the same error as the people who launched the Challenger to disaster? What happens to the Labour vote when Ed doesn't appear on TV?

    How do you estimate the Labour daily share, btw? A potential can of worms in itself...

    Good points. The YouGov daily poll is subject to huge sample variation.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    AndyJS said:
    It looks as though the journalist has used the words "his retired colonel’s moustache" merely to describe the style of moustache, but that those words have been misunderstood by the sub-editor who transplanted the words "Retired colonel, 70, says..." into the sub-heading at the top.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just over 12 hours to go to the Ashcroft Newark poll.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    The problem with this is that Ed Miliband isn't appearing on TV at random, so even if the numbers showed a correlation (which looks a bit sketchy for the reasons RodCrosby gives) it would plausibly show that something happening to get Sky talking about Ed Miliband is bad for Labour, rather than that Ed Miliband talking about something is bad for Labour.

    That said, you might be able to do something with the general approach if you threw a lot more data at it. First you obviously need some actual data about TV appearances rather than this rather weak proxy for it, then you want to compile the trends for a bunch of different leaders all over the world and see if they turn out to be predictive of anything.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    If Helmer does win the by-election, we will all be waiting in eager anticipation to see which one of Roger Helmer or George Galloway loses his seat by the larger margin at the general election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    FPT
    viewcode said:


    Yes, it's the European Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council. Lisbon says the European Council must note Juncker, but there's nothing making them select him if they don't want. Since the selection must be unanimous, Cameron can win this easily by simply refusing to say "yes" to Juncker indefinitely.

    But the door swings both ways: if Cameron can prevent Juncker indefinitely, Merkel can prevent somebody else indefinitely too. So the question becomes: if not Juncker, then who?

    If my maths is correct, there are thirteen heads of government in the European Council who represent national parties in the EPP, three more than are in PES. So whoever the winner is, it'd have to be a current/former head of government from an EPP national party (PES would get the second prize, which is the High Representative - aren't there rumors Catherine Ashton will keep this for another term?). If I was doing the appointing it'd be John Bruton (Ireland) or Donald Tusk (Poland), but since I am always wrong in these things it'd probably be someone else

    It's QMV not unanimity, so Cameron can't prevent Juncker unless he can get a bunch of other countries to join him.

    What is true is that the Council aren't obliged to pick Juncker and the parliament aren't obliged to accept anybody else, so if there's a really determined blocking minority of member states in the Council they could just ping the thing backwards and forwards for the next five years with the Council making various non-Juncker suggestions and Parliament rejecting them and telling them to try again. The way these things work they'd presumably eventually come up with some kind of face-saving compromise, like Juncker getting the job but only on condition that he wears a Helle Thorning-Schmidt Halloween mask at press conferences.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    JohnLoony said:

    If Helmer does win the by-election, we will all be waiting in eager anticipation to see which one of Roger Helmer or George Galloway loses his seat by the larger margin at the general election.

    I don't think it's obvious that UKIP would lose the seat - since they've never won one before there's no precedent, but they might turn out to have quite strong incumbency.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Some pro-Yes people have been talking of starting a campaign to have the Kensington Kipper, David Coburn included as a participant in the TV debates.

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    Some pro-Yes people have been talking of starting a campaign to have the Kensington Kipper, David Coburn included as a participant in the TV debates.

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
    Coburn is a walking, talking advert for voting YES. He is rapidly becoming one of my favourite politicians. Darling must hate him.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    I like this word, non-trepreneur
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    He is an argument against a closed list system where many voters do not bother looking at the candidates they might be electing.

    Some pro-Yes people have been talking of starting a campaign to have the Kensington Kipper, David Coburn included as a participant in the TV debates.

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
    Coburn is a walking, talking advert for voting YES. He is rapidly becoming one of my favourite politicians. Darling must hate him.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited June 2014
    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    He is an argument against a closed list system where many voters do not bother looking at the candidates they might be electing.

    Some pro-Yes people have been talking of starting a campaign to have the Kensington Kipper, David Coburn included as a participant in the TV debates.

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
    Coburn is a walking, talking advert for voting YES. He is rapidly becoming one of my favourite politicians. Darling must hate him.
    It wasn't just the 10% of Scots voters who put their cross in the UKIP box who did not bother looking at the candidate they might be electing. Not even UKIP took a good look at him. Coburn will cause them, and their Unionist pals, nothing but grief.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Good effort Fat_Steve. You may be onto something although I'm not too sure about the means by which you are getting there! Surely using focus groups is the easiest method of testing this particular water? Guido has been linking to some very amusing examples of this with EdM although admittedly these ones are more anecdotal. Still funny (warning bad language)

    http://order-order.com/2014/03/19/ed-miliband-prime-minister-in-waiting/

    http://order-order.com/2014/05/28/watch-ed-miliband-meets-the-public-round-2/

    I'm very surprised at the suggestion below that the Tories think EdM would do better in a TV debate. Is there actually any data to back that? I'd have thought the opposite was true. Ed< on TV seems to be a liability for EdM, which is a big problem for them. He won't win: Michael Howard, IDS, Kinnock all good examples of people the British wouldn't put in No.10 Downing Street.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    'U-turn as Tory leader unveils devo-max plan'

    The Tories' approach is a world away from 1997 when the party staunchly opposed devolution.

    It is also a significant departure for Ms Davidson, who campaigned to be the Scottish party leader on a platform of drawing a "line in the sand" on more powers.

    During a recent visit to Scotland, David Cameron made it clear that a No vote was not a vote for the status quo but one that would lead to enhanced devolution, echoing Labour and the LibDems.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/u-turn-as-tory-leader-unveils-devo-max-plan.24376773

    I'm sure that this U-turn is enthusiastically welcomed by all true Unionists. Tee hee.

    If YES is a vote for independence and NO is a vote for Devo-max, what do supporters of:

    a) the status quo

    ... and

    b) abolition of the Scottish Parliament

    do?

    Abstain? Spoil their ballot paper? March on Holyrood? March on Westminster? Send battleships up the Forth at dawn?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    He won't win: Michael Howard, IDS, Kinnock all good examples of people the British wouldn't put in No.10 Downing Street.

    Careful, the British don't decide who gets to No. 10 Downing Street. That's decided by the interaction of the British and their voting system, which is very whimsical and capricious.

    Kinnock got 34.4%. If Ed Miliband can get that, he will probably become Prime Minister. He may even be able to make it to No. 10 on Michael Howard's 32.4%.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited June 2014


    If YES is a vote for independence and NO is a vote for Devo-max, what do supporters of:

    a) the status quo
    ... and
    b) abolition of the Scottish Parliament
    do?

    Abstain? Spoil their ballot paper? March on Holyrood? March on Westminster? Send battleships up the Forth at dawn?

    This is also the problem with Cameron's proposed EU strategy. He does his "renegotiation" that probably consists mainly of a weakening of labour protections, since the other member states don't particularly care if the British want to stay at work all the time and fire each other more easily. That narks off the majority of the "in" supporters and drives down their turnout, without particularly impressing a lot of floating voters.

    That said, how big is the anti-devolution vote in Scotland? And won't they be motivated enough by the independence issue that they'll turn out regardless?
  • AxelCableAxelCable Posts: 16
    There just isn't enough data to make this analysis meaningful unfortunately.

    I tried myself. What I did first was to predict the next poll result from earlier data the best I could using a simple model. I attached 25% weight to previous poll result and 75% weight to the average of the previous 10 polls (this seems to fit data).

    Then I assumed the the actual result would vary around my predicted value according to small normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.5 (computed from the data).

    Therefore the sum of the 'deltas' for a randomly selected 80 observations should therefore have a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.5*80=120.

    The null hypothesis is that there is no immediate correlation between Ed's appearances and Labor vote share. In order to reject the null at the (admittedly arbitrary) 95% level it would need the 'deltas' to total +/- 21.

    I couldn't get near this number so I have to conclude nothing.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The bidding process for choosing the location of the World Cup in 2022 should be re-reun anyway, regardless of whether there was any corruption or bribery in the process which chose Qatar. Having a football competition in Qatar in summertime is even more ludicrous than choosing Ed Miliband as prime minister.

    Nevertheless, whether it is re-run or not, and whether it happens in Qatar or somewhere else, by the time we get to 2022 we will all be 8 years closer to the chasm of clams and our eventual fate at the behest of the orange sun which will one day engulf us all as we crawl on our knees towards our doom. Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! You're in my telescope...
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557


    If YES is a vote for independence and NO is a vote for Devo-max, what do supporters of:

    a) the status quo
    ... and
    b) abolition of the Scottish Parliament
    do?

    Abstain? Spoil their ballot paper? March on Holyrood? March on Westminster? Send battleships up the Forth at dawn?

    This is also the problem with Cameron's proposed EU strategy. He does his "renegotiation" that probably consists mainly of a weakening of labour protections, since the other member states don't particularly care if the British want to stay at work all the time and fire each other more easily. That narks off the majority of the "in" supporters and drives down their turnout, without particularly impressing a lot of floating voters.

    That said, how big is the anti-devolution vote in Scotland? And won't they be motivated enough by the independence issue that they'll turn out regardless?
    The "anti-devolution vote" (by which I think you mean the "abolition of the Scottish Parliament" vote) is small, but significant. Probably around 10%, which is the same level as the UKIP vote in Scotland.

    The "status quo" (No independence thank you and No devomax thank you; let's just keep things exactly as they are, Barnett and West Lothian warts and all) vote will be much larger. I would guess around 20%.

    Whenever pollsters have asked (and I don't think they have done so for a good while), respondents tend to plump for:

    1) Devomax
    2) Independence
    3) Status quo
    4) Abolition of the Scottish Parliament

    ... in that order.

    Of course, neither the Status Quo nor Abolition of Parliament are on the actual ballot paper in September. Thanks to Mr D Cameron.

    Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask.
  • Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! You're in my telescope...

    Scarey or what?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Fifa have overreached themselves with the Qatar fiasco. Best would be to re run the decision; but if they will not, the next best thing would be to have a breakaway tournament. We are not the only country that thinks it ludicrous to go to Qatar in the summer, and a winter tournament was not stated at the time of the bid.
    JohnLoony said:

    The bidding process for choosing the location of the World Cup in 2022 should be re-reun anyway, regardless of whether there was any corruption or bribery in the process which chose Qatar. Having a football competition in Qatar in summertime is even more ludicrous than choosing Ed Miliband as prime minister.

    Nevertheless, whether it is re-run or not, and whether it happens in Qatar or somewhere else, by the time we get to 2022 we will all be 8 years closer to the chasm of clams and our eventual fate at the behest of the orange sun which will one day engulf us all as we crawl on our knees towards our doom. Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! You're in my telescope...

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    I'm not convinced either way Steve.

    Agreed. This is one of the flimsiest articles I've ever seen on PB. Fat Steve himself admits that at several junctures.

    Now, if we looked at the effect on the YES vote every time Osborne intervened in the referendum campaign... ;)
    Trouble is, Milliband looks like a wonk, acts like a wonk and is, in the eyes of millions, a wonk.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Good effort by Fat Steve, All credit to those who write guests threads.
    If you need proof of Fat Steve's correlation, just ask your friends/colleagues.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @RodCrosby No data - just reports of focus groups.

    In any case all that matters is what 2010 LD>LAB switchers think of EdM and the evidence there is positive for LAB as I've written about before. They are more enthusiastic about him than other LAB voters.

    Mike, I'm sorry but the way you have written that makes me spit with rage.

    If you had written "in terms of winning the election, the 2010 LD>Lab switchers are the most important" that is disputable, but reasonable.

    For someone aspiring to lead our great nation, they need to look higher and farther than the grubby business of winning votes. They need a mandate to govern - and that means trying to develop a cohesive story for the whole nation.

    *All voters* matter, not just the group that you belong to.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.

    No, it's not.

    Cameron is elected by the whole of the UK, although some sub-regions have a great affinity for what he offers. Juncker is selected as a result of horse trading. If the voice of one of the major members of the club is completely ignored* there is a basis for saying that that member should consider taking their ball home.

    * And no, Scotland's voice is not completely ignored. I don't know precisely what the Coalition parties got in 2010, but it was around 35-40% I believe.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! You're in my telescope...

    Scarey or what?

    I suspect there are specialists in that sort of thing in certain parts of London...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Charles said:

    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.

    No, it's not.

    Cameron is elected by the whole of the UK, although some sub-regions have a great affinity for what he offers. Juncker is selected as a result of horse trading. If the voice of one of the major members of the club is completely ignored* there is a basis for saying that that member should consider taking their ball home.

    * And no, Scotland's voice is not completely ignored. I don't know precisely what the Coalition parties got in 2010, but it was around 35-40% I believe.

    Cameron was elected by the good people of Witney, no-one else.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    I agree that the correlation is tenuous, yes it feels as if there might be something in it but that's probably more because I want there to be. To be honest I don't think the public take that much overall notice of politics to really be able to correlate polling moves with media appearances to such a micro degree. The Queens speech on Wednesday might shift opinion for a bit if there are any eyecatchingly populist moves though, so weekend polling could be intriguing.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.

    No, it's not.

    Cameron is elected by the whole of the UK, although some sub-regions have a great affinity for what he offers. Juncker is selected as a result of horse trading. If the voice of one of the major members of the club is completely ignored* there is a basis for saying that that member should consider taking their ball home.

    * And no, Scotland's voice is not completely ignored. I don't know precisely what the Coalition parties got in 2010, but it was around 35-40% I believe.

    Cameron was elected by the good people of Witney, no-one else.
    Also by the members of the Tory Party, but I get your point. That said, it was clear that a vote for the Tories in 2010 was a vote for Cameron to become PM.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189

    Charles said:

    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.

    No, it's not.

    Cameron is elected by the whole of the UK, although some sub-regions have a great affinity for what he offers. Juncker is selected as a result of horse trading. If the voice of one of the major members of the club is completely ignored* there is a basis for saying that that member should consider taking their ball home.

    * And no, Scotland's voice is not completely ignored. I don't know precisely what the Coalition parties got in 2010, but it was around 35-40% I believe.

    Cameron was elected by the good people of Witney, no-one else.
    That is why I'm often tempted towards a system of direct election for PM
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,585
    The Labour Euro-election freepost leaflet up here in Scotland didn't mention Ed Miliband. The Lib Dems' one didn't mention Nick Clegg. The Tory one did feature David Cameron. UKIP's pictured all three! The SNP did not send out a freepost leaflet.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all and frankly does anyone pay attention when Ed Milibland is on the news? He is so strange and seems incapable of behaving "normally" in almost any aspect of everyday life.

    Meanwhile Labour has leaked an intention to raise the most business unfriendly, job impeding tax of all, National Insurance. It should be getting abolished not increased and we should have 1 income tax set over several bands not several taxes almost all of which no-one understands.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Mail headline: "David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top job"

    Hmmm...

    - Alex Salmond warns Scotland will dissolve Union if Tory Cameron looks set to retain top job

    The Mail headline meets with rounds of applause from PB Tories. But the entire concept of the fictional second headline would meet with howls of derision from the same people.

    They want their cake and eat it.

    No, it's not.

    Cameron is elected by the whole of the UK, although some sub-regions have a great affinity for what he offers. Juncker is selected as a result of horse trading. If the voice of one of the major members of the club is completely ignored* there is a basis for saying that that member should consider taking their ball home.

    * And no, Scotland's voice is not completely ignored. I don't know precisely what the Coalition parties got in 2010, but it was around 35-40% I believe.

    Cameron was elected by the good people of Witney, no-one else.
    Also by the members of the Tory Party, but I get your point. That said, it was clear that a vote for the Tories in 2010 was a vote for Cameron to become PM.

    Indeed. And around 36% of those who voted plumped for him on that basis.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Nice try Fat_Steve, but I suspect the polls move slowly, and most of the blips that excite the excitable are random variations generally within MOE. That said, I have little doubt that the Tories will be wise to go on about "Ed Miliband's Labour", while Labour will only talk about "the Conservatives".....
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Charles said:

    @RodCrosby No data - just reports of focus groups.

    In any case all that matters is what 2010 LD>LAB switchers think of EdM and the evidence there is positive for LAB as I've written about before. They are more enthusiastic about him than other LAB voters.

    Mike, I'm sorry but the way you have written that makes me spit with rage.

    If you had written "in terms of winning the election, the 2010 LD>Lab switchers are the most important" that is disputable, but reasonable.

    For someone aspiring to lead our great nation, they need to look higher and farther than the grubby business of winning votes. They need a mandate to govern - and that means trying to develop a cohesive story for the whole nation.

    *All voters* matter, not just the group that you belong to.
    Well said @Charles, most sensible argument. Trouble is that Mike is suffering from L/Dem meltdown fatigue.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    One thing we can be certain of, it would be most unlike what it's proponent in chief claims.....

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    Afraid this non peer reviewed political theory only proves one thing - you too much time on your hands Mr Fat_Steve.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Afraid this non peer reviewed political theory only proves one thing - you too much time on your hands Mr Fat_Steve.

    I wasn't wildly convinced by today's piece but the site often has really excellent non-peer-reviewed political theory, and it's great that people put the time in to do it. Even when it's wrong it's often helpful, because it spurs a discussion that may help somebody work out how to do it right.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    That depends what's in the manifesto, doesn't it? The SNP is proposing that Westminster controls an independent Scotland's fiscal and economic policy, for instance; so independence in the way that, say, the Norwegians would understand it, or the Canadians, is not on the table.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    @Easterross - "He is so strange and seems incapable of behaving "normally" in almost any aspect of everyday life."

    I would love to know what your definition of "normal" is!!!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    As a tory it is very easy for me to believe Steve's hypothesis because so often when on TV Ed is talking nonsense.

    But if I was a Labour supporter no doubt I would think otherwise. I think. Really?

    Polling is subject to margins of error and the differences talked about in this piece fall within them. I would really like to believe that the vacuous flat earth nonsense Ed puts forward would be seen through by the majority but I don't think this piece proves it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited June 2014
    Charles said:

    If you had written "in terms of winning the election, the 2010 LD>Lab switchers are the most important" that is disputable, but reasonable.

    He doesn't need to add riders like "in terms of winning the election" because it's clear for the context. The focus of the site is betting, so the primary meaning when you talk about what a politician "should" do is what they should do if they want to maximize their chances of winning the election.

    We also sometimes have some interesting off-topic tangents about what people should do because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether they want to win, but these are the ones that need the rider spelling that out if it's ambiguous.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Having had Political Betting at its best on Saturday, we seem to have it at its worst to-day.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Afraid this non peer reviewed political theory only proves one thing - you too much time on your hands Mr Fat_Steve.

    I wasn't wildly convinced by today's piece but the site often has really excellent non-peer-reviewed political theory, and it's great that people put the time in to do it. Even when it's wrong it's often helpful, because it spurs a discussion that may help somebody work out how to do it right.
    Quite agree EiT, and long may that continue. - twas a 'tongue in cheek' comment, nothing more.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Having had Political Betting at its best on Saturday, we seem to have it at its worst to-day.


    Yup, you've turned up to carp.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,879
    Blessed Assumptions:

    1 - A correlation between Stories on Sky TV and stories on the Sky website. Is there one?
    2 - That Sky TV News has a significant and the major impact on public opinion. Does it?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    "A government official has denied that David Cameron threatened to bring forward a vote on EU membership if Jean-Claude Juncker becomes European Commission president."
    (PoliticaHome)

    That man, Cammo, couldn't threaten a sparrow with a blunderbus. Funny, as soon as he is called out, he waves the white flag. And this is the man that wants to conduct negotiations for reforming the EU.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting article, Mr. Steve. I think it can cut both ways. Miliband's seen as a weirdo in many quarters, so the Conservatives are quite content with that. If he appears in debates and doesn't fall flat on his face it'll be seen as a good result.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    For @Tapestry

    "Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon."

    Other things largely made up of long chain molecules of hydrogen and carbon atoms are:

    Potatos
    Rice
    Bread

    and most importantly...

    Beer

    To be fair, there have been many observed cases of blindness resulting from excessive consumption of the latter. It has also been linked to unplanned DNA replication.
  • MikeK said:

    "A government official has denied that David Cameron threatened to bring forward a vote on EU membership if Jean-Claude Juncker becomes European Commission president."
    (PoliticaHome)

    That man, Cammo, couldn't threaten a sparrow with a blunderbus. Funny, as soon as he is called out, he waves the white flag. And this is the man that wants to conduct negotiations for reforming the EU.

    I have no faith whatsoever in being able to negotiate anything back from the EU

    Hacker: Don't we ever get our own way with the French?
    Sir Humphrey: Well, sometimes.
    Hacker: When was the last time?
    Sir Humphrey: Battle of Waterloo, 1815.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    MikeK said:

    "A government official has denied that David Cameron threatened to bring forward a vote on EU membership if Jean-Claude Juncker becomes European Commission president."
    (PoliticaHome)

    That man, Cammo, couldn't threaten a sparrow with a blunderbus. Funny, as soon as he is called out, he waves the white flag. And this is the man that wants to conduct negotiations for reforming the EU.

    You have to feel sorry for him on this one. The member states had a plot to pick a different right-wing leader to the official candidate to avoid setting a precedent that gave away too much power to the voters, so Cameron must have thought he could take a bold stand opposing the election winner then when the plot unfolded it would look like he'd won a victory. But the plot got more resistance than expected and some of the other leaders backed off, so he had to pretend he'd never taken the stand for fear that they'd pick Juncker anyhow and he'd end up looking like a tit.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    rcs1000 said:

    For @Tapestry

    "Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon."

    Other things largely made up of long chain molecules of hydrogen and carbon atoms are:

    Potatos
    Rice
    Bread

    and most importantly...

    Beer

    To be fair, there have been many observed cases of blindness resulting from excessive consumption of the latter. It has also been linked to unplanned DNA replication.

    (And yes, I know that CH4 is as short a chain hydrocarbon as you can get. I also know that if you leave a loaf of bread in the ground for enough time, and subject to heat in the absence of oxygen, then its long-chain hydrocarbons will break down into successively smaller ones. Ultimately that loaf of bread, entirely through natural processes, will become natural gas. It may take some time.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. 1000, replication?

    Humans are incapable of cloning naturally.

    Mr. Pubgoer, I quite agree. The EU is set up on the basis of ever-closer union and packed with federalists.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    MikeK said:

    "A government official has denied that David Cameron threatened to bring forward a vote on EU membership if Jean-Claude Juncker becomes European Commission president."
    (PoliticaHome)

    That man, Cammo, couldn't threaten a sparrow with a blunderbus. Funny, as soon as he is called out, he waves the white flag. And this is the man that wants to conduct negotiations for reforming the EU.

    This was a story based in a foreign newspaper initially. Now we know that domestic press often twist or misrepresent things, is it not likely that foreign press do the same? I very much doubt the threat was as naked as suggested.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Fat Steve,

    Well done for putting your head above the a parapet, but you've taken on something with confounding factors that you can't control. A little like AGW research.

    It's analagous to checking if a penny is crooked by tossing it many times (assuming a binomial). Unfortunately,, you can't really tell whether it's landing on its head or its tail.

    Still, you have laid out your methodology well.

    Subjectively, I suspect you're right, and I have the impression that many Labour supporters do too.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Mr. 1000, replication?

    Humans are incapable of cloning naturally.

    Mr. Pubgoer, I quite agree. The EU is set up on the basis of ever-closer union and packed with federalists.

    I was thinking about the (allegedly) common occurrence of beer being followed by sex.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2014
    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Ed has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    And another thing ... you haven't added an extra comma or misspelt 'analogous'.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited June 2014

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    The 75% laws made in Brussels figure is simply spin from the party that told us that 29m Romanians & Bulgarians were about to arrive.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For @Tapestry

    "Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon."

    Other things largely made up of long chain molecules of hydrogen and carbon atoms are:

    Potatos
    Rice
    Bread

    and most importantly...

    Beer

    To be fair, there have been many observed cases of blindness resulting from excessive consumption of the latter. It has also been linked to unplanned DNA replication.

    (And yes, I know that CH4 is as short a chain hydrocarbon as you can get. I also know that if you leave a loaf of bread in the ground for enough time, and subject to heat in the absence of oxygen, then its long-chain hydrocarbons will break down into successively smaller ones. Ultimately that loaf of bread, entirely through natural processes, will become natural gas. It may take some time.)
    You have just described a domestic compost heap of which the Green are very much in favour.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    ToryJim said:

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
    It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly clever policy. I wonder how aware people are of the cost of NI, though? I'd imagine the reason they keep using it to raise revenue despite all the negative effects of doing that is because they've polled it and found that it's quite an effective way to get money out of the voters without upsetting them too much.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Financier said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For @Tapestry

    "Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon."

    Other things largely made up of long chain molecules of hydrogen and carbon atoms are:

    Potatos
    Rice
    Bread

    and most importantly...

    Beer

    To be fair, there have been many observed cases of blindness resulting from excessive consumption of the latter. It has also been linked to unplanned DNA replication.

    (And yes, I know that CH4 is as short a chain hydrocarbon as you can get. I also know that if you leave a loaf of bread in the ground for enough time, and subject to heat in the absence of oxygen, then its long-chain hydrocarbons will break down into successively smaller ones. Ultimately that loaf of bread, entirely through natural processes, will become natural gas. It may take some time.)
    You have just described a domestic compost heap of which the Green are very much in favour.
    That, presumably, is "good" methane. And the stuff we get out the ground is "bad" methane.

    Thank you very much :-)

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. 1000, I know. But that's not replication. It's integration of two haploid cells leading to a new DNA code, not a replication of the two older ones.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    ToryJim said:

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
    Yes, it gets more like 91-92 every day. labours tax bombshell

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    The 75% laws made in Brussels figure is simply spin from the party that told us that 29m Romanians & Bulgarians were about to arrive.

    According to Viviane Reding it's 80%;

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    MikeK said:
    He's after an extra 3-4% from the UKIP column. It's not remotely perilous. The result is irrelevant, it's the voting effect that matters to him. UKIPs support is, by definition, as soft as butter at the top end.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    The 75% laws made in Brussels figure is simply spin from the party that told us that 29m Romanians & Bulgarians were about to arrive.

    The only ones spinning are those that misrepresent what ukip said re the 29m
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited June 2014

    Charles said:

    If you had written "in terms of winning the election, the 2010 LD>Lab switchers are the most important" that is disputable, but reasonable.

    He doesn't need to add riders like "in terms of winning the election" because it's clear for the context. The focus of the site is betting, so the primary meaning when you talk about what a politician "should" do is what they should do if they want to maximize their chances of winning the election.

    We also sometimes have some interesting off-topic tangents about what people should do because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether they want to win, but these are the ones that need the rider spelling that out if it's ambiguous.
    The site has morphed beyond just betting.

    But it's more the attitude of mind. The LD10 are important, but they are not the only people in the country.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Wouldn't the most likely source for the rumour about David Cameron's threat on an EU referendum if Jean-Claude Juncker is appointed be the German government? After all, they are under domestic pressure on the subject and they need to show that there are other countervailing pressures in the EU as well. It was reported in Der Spiegel first.

    If so, that suggests that the German government is probably prepared to drop him as a candidate.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    isam said:

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    The 75% laws made in Brussels figure is simply spin from the party that told us that 29m Romanians & Bulgarians were about to arrive.

    The only ones spinning are those that misrepresent what ukip said re the 29m
    Morning Isam, IIRC, Farage claimed 75% of UK laws come from the EU, while Clegg claimed it was only 7%. - Do you recall what the 'generally accepted' figure is - and who was closest?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,561
    Good effort, but colour me mathematically sceptical. It's intuitively clear that actually none of the main party leaders set the prairies alight when they appear on TV - I don't think I'd go further than that. Apart from the points that others have made, you're looking at a period when Labour lost several points in voting share to UKIP, so you'd expect an average day to be marginally down, which looks about right for 46-34. Of course, you can argue that we lost points to UKIP because Ed wasn't persuading potential UKIP voters of his zeal to reform the E, but I think that stretches oit to breaking point - there are more significant reasons for the rise of UKIP.

    What are we expecting from today's Ashcroft poll in Newark? Although Labour is trying a bit harder, it's clear that the high-profile action is with the armies of Tory and UKIP canvassers. My guess is that the Tories will still be ahead, by a modest margin - something like 36-33-22. But i've no special insight - mainly going by what I read here.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,495
    edited June 2014

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    Yes and going to EU via London is doing us a world of good, we get crapped on every time , if anything decent it is stolen by London , any crap is passed straight through. The UK is a few mere regions in the UK at present despite your imagination that it is "something special". Your pathetic dribbling is reprehensible.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    ToryJim said:

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
    It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly clever policy. I wonder how aware people are of the cost of NI, though? I'd imagine the reason they keep using it to raise revenue despite all the negative effects of doing that is because they've polled it and found that it's quite an effective way to get money out of the voters without upsetting them too much.
    Wasn't the "jobs tax" line quite effective last time round?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Countdown To The Announcement Of The 2015 General Election "JackW Dozen"

    1 day.

    .............................................................

    The "JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will determine the course of the general election will be published exclusively on PB at 9:00am on Tuesday 3rd June.

    There will be one seat from each of Wales and Scotland, and one English Ukip target. the remaining ten will be marginals from English regions thus :

    Two each from the North, Midlands and East, three from London and the South and one from the West.

    Thanks to PBers who made suggestions - Plenty were viable but in the end didn't make the cut.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Meanwhile political idiots in Scotland propose yet more devolution:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27656628

    Without measures to correct the democratic deficit in England this will just increase tensions and help those who want independence.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT

    Re: World Cup - Qatar, Tower Hamlets, Postal Voting, etc etc.

    I am really astounded that people are so surprised (or are expressing surprise) at the reported fraud/corruption.

    They should know that in many African, Asian and other countries, political and financial corruption is the way of life and people in power in those countries will often exploit it for personal gain.

    So it is no surprise when some immigrants from those countries bring that culture with them - it is just that some of our politicians keep a blind eye - either for the votes it brings or that there are just very naive.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Financier said:

    OT

    Re: World Cup - Qatar, Tower Hamlets, Postal Voting, etc etc.

    I am really astounded that people are so surprised (or are expressing surprise) at the reported fraud/corruption.

    They should know that in many African, Asian and other countries, political and financial corruption is the way of life and people in power in those countries will often exploit it for personal gain.

    So it is no surprise when some immigrants from those countries bring that culture with them - it is just that some of our politicians keep a blind eye - either for the votes it brings or that there are just very naive.

    The electorate are on the pitch, they think it's not British. It is now!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. Financier, sound post, but you missed off rampant cowardice from the reasons why politicians prefer not to raise tremendously serious issues.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521

    ToryJim said:

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
    It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly clever policy. I wonder how aware people are of the cost of NI, though? I'd imagine the reason they keep using it to raise revenue despite all the negative effects of doing that is because they've polled it and found that it's quite an effective way to get money out of the voters without upsetting them too much.
    Even if a poll were to show a majority in favour, it would reinforce the message that Labour favour higher taxation.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779

    ToryJim said:

    Nice article, however for me the question is not what happens to Labour VI when Eddie has exposure, but what happens to Tory VI. In other words, does he actively make people want to stop him becoming PM? That may hold the key to who gets to number 10.

    That sounds plausible. The difficulty is that they generally think he's crap, but they don't think he's terrifyingly threatening. If you want to light a fire under people who couldn't normally be arsed to vote to turn out, or persuade people who would rather support UKIP to suck it up and vote Con, you want something a bit more alarming than, "If Labour wins they'll be a bit meh, make dull speeches, tinker with a few minor things in unhelpful ways and not get much done of any importance".
    I think Labour are going to provide assistance on this, as it seems they are considering jacking up NI to increase spending on the NHS. Major tax hikes don't seem even remotely compatible with a cost of living crisis meme.
    It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly clever policy. I wonder how aware people are of the cost of NI, though? I'd imagine the reason they keep using it to raise revenue despite all the negative effects of doing that is because they've polled it and found that it's quite an effective way to get money out of the voters without upsetting them too much.
    You could make the same argument about any tax rise though. How many people really noticed the rise in VAT for example.

    I personally would think people notice it. All you need to do is look at a payslip and see how much gets deducted each month, I do, and it's rather scary how much goes...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited June 2014

    isam said:

    @Stuart_Dickson - "Allegedly devomax IS on the ballot paper (where it is called 'NO'), but what exactly devomax actually means is profoundly unclear. It depends who you ask."

    And couldn't you say exactly the same thing about independence?

    No. Independence is very clear. If we choose independence then it is Scottish voters who decide which government and which manifesto the country will have. Every time. If we choose to continue to be subject to Westminster governments then only sometimes (probably only very occasionally) will we have a government and a manifesto decided by us.

    A totally worthless manifesto, because Scotland will be a mere region within an EU state that already decides 75 percent of UK law, let alone what they extract from Salmond when he's banging on the door to get let back in. The way that 'independence' is being sold to the Scottish publuc is deeply morally reprehensible.
    The 75% laws made in Brussels figure is simply spin from the party that told us that 29m Romanians & Bulgarians were about to arrive.

    The only ones spinning are those that misrepresent what ukip said re the 29m
    Morning Isam, IIRC, Farage claimed 75% of UK laws come from the EU, while Clegg claimed it was only 7%. - Do you recall what the 'generally accepted' figure is - and who was closest?
    I think the bbc or guardian did research that showed it was closer to 50% and reported that as meaning Farage had wildly exaggerated!


    15-50% is the vague figure that fact check give... The 75% was from EU commissioner but she was talking about EU law
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    It's intuitively clear that actually none of the main party leaders set the prairies alight

    Clegg did burn some cacti though...

    ;-)
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189

    Meanwhile political idiots in Scotland propose yet more devolution:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27656628

    Without measures to correct the democratic deficit in England this will just increase tensions and help those who want independence.

    I think the democratic deficit stuff is overblown. For sure there are anomalies that need ironing out but fundamentally the system is a reasonably sound one.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Financier said:

    OT

    Re: World Cup - Qatar, Tower Hamlets, Postal Voting, etc etc.

    I am really astounded that people are so surprised (or are expressing surprise) at the reported fraud/corruption.

    They should know that in many African, Asian and other countries, political and financial corruption is the way of life and people in power in those countries will often exploit it for personal gain.

    So it is no surprise when some immigrants from those countries bring that culture with them - it is just that some of our politicians keep a blind eye - either for the votes it brings or that there are just very naive.

    The electorate are on the pitch, they think it's not British. It is now!
    Almost correct :

    Ukip is on the pitch, they think it's all over. It is now - it's 29 millions Bulgarians.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. Jim, Scotland's going to get its own income taxes. If they undercut England and we have Scottish MPs voting on English Budgets, how is that anything but indefensible?

    We need an English Parliament. Failing that, English votes for English laws.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521
    Charles said:

    It's intuitively clear that actually none of the main party leaders set the prairies alight

    Clegg did burn some cacti though...

    ;-)
    "Hath not a cactus eyes? Hath not a cactus hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections...... If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

This discussion has been closed.